# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 23260 times)

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3905
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« on: 21/05/2016 16:29:37 »
Starting from the relationship   and the eaquation we can remove Planck's constant as a component of these equations. Since then the energy equation can be expressed as

Since the speed of a wave can be expressed as then it can also be expressed as

The interesting thing about the relationship is that the frequency/energy relationship and momentum are on the same side of the equation which can then be used to investigate the possible mechanisms of time dilation. Since the components can vary non uniformly.
« Last Edit: 21/05/2016 16:44:05 by jeffreyH »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3905
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #1 on: 21/05/2016 19:23:06 »
When considering how massless particle like the photon relate can be shown by the following relationships.

Where setting mass equal to zero gives the desired result as expected. This indicates a very different relationship between the photon and time dilation.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4698
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #2 on: 21/05/2016 19:48:07 »
Your equation implies that the energy of a photon is always zero, which is obviously not the case.

Your confusion arises from assuming that momentum is uniquely asssociated with mass. Einstein's analysis of radiation pressure shows that it isn't. The fundamental relationship is p = E/v by definition for all particles at all speeds. Now a photon clearly has energy and speed, so can exert a force since F = dp/dt by definition, so an absorbed or reflected photon can transfer momentum to the absorber or reflector.
« Last Edit: 21/05/2016 19:59:06 by alancalverd »

#### chiralSPO

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1867
• Thanked: 143 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #3 on: 21/05/2016 19:53:13 »
for photons p = E/c = h/λ

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3905
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #4 on: 21/05/2016 23:59:02 »
Your equation implies that the energy of a photon is always zero, which is obviously not the case.

Your confusion arises from assuming that momentum is uniquely asssociated with mass. Einstein's analysis of radiation pressure shows that it isn't. The fundamental relationship is p = E/v by definition for all particles at all speeds. Now a photon clearly has energy and speed, so can exert a force since F = dp/dt by definition, so an absorbed or reflected photon can transfer momentum to the absorber or reflector.

There is no confusion since I already know about the above. That was not the point of this thread. I haven't finished yet.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3905
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #5 on: 22/05/2016 10:59:36 »
OK so as was pointed out . Therefore in the case of the photon the energy equation becomes .

If we take our wavelength as L (1 light second) then we can show that . This 1 hertz wave then shows the direct relationship to the Planck constant.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3905
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #6 on: 22/05/2016 11:21:00 »
What this is meant to demonstrate is that for massless particles the Planck constant has to be included in equations. There is no way round it. For massive particles this is not the case.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3905
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #7 on: 22/05/2016 11:27:28 »
Starting from the relationship   and the eaquation we can remove Planck's constant as a component of these equations. Since then the energy equation can be expressed as

Since the speed of a wave can be expressed as then it can also be expressed as

The interesting thing about the relationship is that the frequency/energy relationship and momentum are on the same side of the equation which can then be used to investigate the possible mechanisms of time dilation. Since the components can vary non uniformly.

I wish you would write an index to your maths so people understand your representation,  what is h etc?

Anyway I have some clue of what you are trying to express, I express

E=c delta F?

C = speed of light, rho (p) = momentum, lambda = wavelength, nu (v) = frequency of wave in hertz and h = Planck's constant.

The following users thanked this post: Thebox

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3905
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #8 on: 22/05/2016 11:37:56 »
OK so as was pointed out . Therefore in the case of the photon the energy equation becomes .

If we take our wavelength as L (1 light second) then we can show that . This 1 hertz wave then shows the direct relationship to the Planck constant.

Energy = momentum c = planck constant c divided by length = planck constant divided by ?

What is the last symbol and is that what you said?

Yes that is what I wrote. The last symbol is t for time. The Planck constant is in units of joule second so to get energy in joules you have to divide by a time factor. You should read up on dimensional analysis. It is very interesting and can clear up a lot of confusion.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3905
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #9 on: 22/05/2016 11:43:54 »
Ok Thebox think about this. There has to be a link between the acquisition of mass and time dilation. Question, does interaction with the Higgs field have a direct relationship to relativistic time dilation? Answer that one and stay fashionable.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #10 on: 22/05/2016 11:59:34 »
acquisition
Sorry Jeff I am reading  your post ambiguously, can you please rephrase and  also use a better word than acquisition?

''There has to be a link between the acquisition of mass and time dilation. ''

What is acquiring  mass?  I don't understand your sentence sorry it seems incomplete.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3905
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #11 on: 22/05/2016 12:45:46 »
Quarks are the components of protons and neutrons. Do they have mass? Yes but a very tiny amount. Where does it come from. Quarks are fermions and so should have left handed and right handed components. The left handed has charge and the right handed doesn't. They switch between both states via interaction with the Higgs field becoming one particle out of two components during this process they gain mass.
« Last Edit: 22/05/2016 12:48:01 by jeffreyH »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #12 on: 24/05/2016 18:27:16 »
Quarks are the components of protons and neutrons. Do they have mass? Yes but a very tiny amount. Where does it come from. Quarks are fermions and so should have left handed and right handed components. The left handed has charge and the right handed doesn't. They switch between both states via interaction with the Higgs field becoming one particle out of two components during this process they gain mass.

what you think ''mass' is Jeffrey? Mass=kg=G=N, mass and Newton's ''are'' the same thing....

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3905
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #13 on: 24/05/2016 18:44:50 »
Quarks are the components of protons and neutrons. Do they have mass? Yes but a very tiny amount. Where does it come from. Quarks are fermions and so should have left handed and right handed components. The left handed has charge and the right handed doesn't. They switch between both states via interaction with the Higgs field becoming one particle out of two components during this process they gain mass.

what you think ''mass' is Jeffrey? Mass=kg=G=N, mass and Newton's ''are'' the same thing....

http://www.mathsisfun.com/measure/weight-mass.html

The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #14 on: 24/05/2016 18:50:05 »

The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.

The link you provided is incorrect, a 100kg mass in space is not 100kg, the object has no mass.

Mass is relative to the object at relative rest in an inertial reference frame, the inertia frame being the provider of how much mass the object has.  If the Earth had half the gravity strength, the object would only ''weight' 50kg.  Mass is a product of gravity and not in itself a ''thing''?

added- Mass is relative to the inertia reference frame.

« Last Edit: 24/05/2016 18:54:19 by Thebox »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3905
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #15 on: 24/05/2016 18:59:34 »

The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.

The link you provided is incorrect, a 100kg mass in space is not 100kg, the object has no mass.

Mass is relative to the object at relative rest in an inertial reference frame, the inertia frame being the provider of how much mass the object has.  If the Earth had half the gravity strength, the object would only ''weight' 50kg.  Mass is a product of gravity and not in itself a ''thing''?

You have missed the point completely. What we call mass never changes. The number of protons, neutrons and electrons in an object will not change with a change in gravity. Hence inertial mass remains constant. The force (weight) they exert due to gravity will change with a change in the strength of a gravitational field. The link I posted was not wrong.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #16 on: 24/05/2016 19:12:08 »

The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.

The link you provided is incorrect, a 100kg mass in space is not 100kg, the object has no mass.

Mass is relative to the object at relative rest in an inertial reference frame, the inertia frame being the provider of how much mass the object has.  If the Earth had half the gravity strength, the object would only ''weight' 50kg.  Mass is a product of gravity and not in itself a ''thing''?

You have missed the point completely. What we call mass never changes. The number of protons, neutrons and electrons in an object will not change with a change in gravity. Hence inertial mass remains constant. The force (weight) they exert due to gravity will change with a change in the strength of a gravitational field. The link I posted was not wrong.

No Jeff. the strong nuclear force remains constant and the sum of all ''charges'', a single particle has no mass,

mass=snf+q =g

You may think I am deluded Jeff, but I am certain that ''you'' have it so wrong.

Let me try to explain, please try to have an open mind and hear me out.  Imagine a single particle ''floating'' around in a vast space where there was no other gravitational influence on the particle, the particle on a set of scales would ''weight'' relatively 0.  There is no force being applied on the particle and the particle is not attracting anything.   Ok let us say I live on a planet that had twice the gravity of the Earth, let us say this single particle on your scales ''weighs'' 1oz.
What would it ''weigh'' on my scales?

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3905
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #17 on: 24/05/2016 20:41:30 »
Up

The difference between weight and mass is not trivial.

The link you provided is incorrect, a 100kg mass in space is not 100kg, the object has no mass.

Mass is relative to the object at relative rest in an inertial reference frame, the inertia frame being the provider of how much mass the object has.  If the Earth had half the gravity strength, the object would only ''weight' 50kg.  Mass is a product of gravity and not in itself a ''thing''?

You have missed the point completely. What we call mass never changes. The number of protons, neutrons and electrons in an object will not change with a change in gravity. Hence inertial mass remains constant. The force (weight) they exert due to gravity will change with a change in the strength of a gravitational field. The link I posted was not wrong.

No Jeff. the strong nuclear force remains constant and the sum of all ''charges'', a single particle has no mass,

mass=snf+q =g

You may think I am deluded Jeff, but I am certain that ''you'' have it so wrong.

Let me try to explain, please try to have an open mind and hear me out.  Imagine a single particle ''floating'' around in a vast space where there was no other gravitational influence on the particle, the particle on a set of scales would ''weight'' relatively 0.  There is no force being applied on the particle and the particle is not attracting anything.   Ok let us say I live on a planet that had twice the gravity of the Earth, let us say this single particle on your scales ''weighs'' 1oz.
What would it ''weigh'' on my scales?

Firstly I would not pass any judgement on your state of mind because that wouldn't be a nice thing to do. You have never been insulting or abusive which is a nice change.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1291
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #18 on: 25/05/2016 04:52:29 »
Jeff, I've been interested to see where you are going with this...

OK so as was pointed out . Therefore in the case of the photon the energy equation becomes .

If we take our wavelength as L (1 light second) then we can show that . This 1 hertz wave then shows the direct relationship to the Planck constant.

A particle with mass's energy and frequency increases in a decreasing gravitational field.

A massless photon's energy and frequency decreases in a decreasing gravitational field.

Wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency.

When considering how massless particle like the photon relate can be shown by the following relationships.

Where setting mass equal to zero gives the desired result as expected. This indicates a very different relationship between the photon and time dilation.

Apart from the fact that the direction of change in frequency and energy for a photon within a gravitational gradient is contrary the direction of change in frequency and energy within a gravitational gradient for a particle with mass:

Changes in the gravitational field have a far 'lesser' effect of change upon a particle with mass's energy and frequency, than they do upon a photons energy and frequency.

This presents a further illogicality.  Surely a particle with mass would be more greatly affected by changes in the gravitational field, not less?

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #19 on: 25/05/2016 06:49:25 »

Yes indeed, relative to you on Earth the ''mass'' of your measured particle is 1oz relative to the gravitational influence of the Earth, relative to me on my planet, the particle has 2oz of ''mass''.

The problem is Jeff science should not be measuring ''mass'' in kg which is equal to Newton's, ''mass'' should be a measurement of ''charge'' and ''likes''.

In comparison to what science does, I could say the volume and density of an object is equal to it's ''mass'', this also would be explaining a different thing than protons, neutrons, etc, and the internal ''force'' .

I have noticed this in science Jeff, several things mean the same thing but are explained differently when they mean the same thing.

Another example is force normal, inertia, kE and so on, science does this a lot. The inertia of an object is it's ''mass'' and so on, science has made ''mountains'' out of ''mole hills'' and continues to do it, although the ''box'' contains lots of different words that science say means different things, the words in the box are mostly the same ''colour''.

I understand the same as you that ''mass'' is Protons etc, But I will never understand in a million years why science persists in measuring ''mass'' in Kg which is a metric ''weight'' equal to Newton's rather than mass= the summation of all energies within.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3905
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #20 on: 25/05/2016 11:02:11 »
Technically relativistic mass is akin to the sum of all the energies. As we apply forces to speed things up it becomes harder as relativistic mass increases. For gravity this seems not to be an issue. Density as well as mass MUST have an effect on gravity's ability to accelerate objects otherwise there can be no boson for the gravitational field. You need to think about that one very carefully to understand.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1291
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #21 on: 25/05/2016 13:03:01 »
Technically relativistic mass is akin to the sum of all the energies.

So - presumably if we take our caesium atomic clock and accelerate it up to relativistic speeds in a uniform gravitational field, the additional kinetic energy will increase the frequency of cycles?

...this cannot be correct because an increase in the frequency of cycles of a caesium atomic clock would of course register an 'increase' in the rate of the clocks time, and not the decrease in rate of time that is observed of an accelerated clock...

I found this and thought it might interest you Jeff:

http://web.mit.edu/lululiu/Public/pixx/not-pixx/photoelectric.pdf

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3905
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #22 on: 25/05/2016 19:54:17 »
Technically relativistic mass is akin to the sum of all the energies.

So - presumably if we take our caesium atomic clock and accelerate it up to relativistic speeds in a uniform gravitational field, the additional kinetic energy will increase the frequency of cycles?

...this cannot be correct because an increase in the frequency of cycles of a caesium atomic clock would of course register an 'increase' in the rate of the clocks time, and not the decrease in rate of time that is observed of an accelerated clock...

I found this and thought it might interest you Jeff:

http://web.mit.edu/lululiu/Public/pixx/not-pixx/photoelectric.pdf

Thanks for the pdf. I skimmed through it but didn't take much in. I can't answer your questions above as I do not have the knowledge to do so. I was reading up on particle physics a while back but stopped just before being admitted to hospital. I haven't done much reading since. I have variable days at the moment.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3905
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #23 on: 25/05/2016 23:41:47 »
I have read the pdf. It reiterates what was originally done to find Planck's constant I believe. The linear plot is the most fascinating element. Once you can determine that direct a relationship you know you are on to something.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1291
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #24 on: 26/05/2016 12:24:51 »
Jeff - I remember you saying that you'd been in hospital last year.  A problem with breathing if I recall correctly.  Sorry to hear that you are not fully recovered.

Your welcome for the PDF.  Planck derived his constant via the black body experiment which used thermal equilibrium and the resulting light emissions.  These MIT undergraduates are testing the constant via the photoelectric effect.

Although the error bar was not within acceptable scientific range, I thought you might find the potential linearity aspect interesting.  What I found interesting was the fact that they showed that the cut off point was correlating with the energy associated with frequency, and not kinetic energy.

The question I asked concerning accelerating a caesium atomic clock to relativistic speeds in a uniform gravitational field, and if the resulting rise in kinetic energy would increase the frequency of cycles of the caesium atom, which of course would be incorrect, because this would register an increase in the rate of time and not the decrease in rate of time observed of an accelerated clock:
I'm almost 100% certain (subject to being wrong ;) ) that there isn't 'anyone' who can answer this question Jeff, but I hereby challenge 'all' the experts and moderators on this forum to try!

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #24 on: 26/05/2016 12:24:51 »