# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 22048 times)

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4512
• Thanked: 139 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #125 on: 03/06/2016 20:24:57 »
I can't even remember why I started the thread.
But it's certainly been an interesting one!

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #126 on: 03/06/2016 20:27:37 »
I can't even remember why I started the thread.

You were calculating a potential relationship between 1 hertz wave and Planck's h constant.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #127 on: 03/06/2016 20:45:13 »
rate of time
this is an awkward phrase, since "rate" means "number of occurences per unit time" so the rate of time, if it has any meaning,  is always 1, by definition.

What we know is that a stationary clock at a higher gravitational potential runs faster than one at a lower potential, so potential energy distorts time, and increasing the kinetic energy of a photon, since it can't travel any faster, increases its frequency. Same phenomenon, same effect. Nothing funky or illogical.

Rate:  frequency is the amount of waves per standard second.  A standard second is 1.  Any increase in a 'rate' of a standard second would have to be say 1.1 standard seconds, or more realistically, 1. whole bunch zero's 1
A decrease would be 0.9999999999 so on of a standard second.

You said:
"" so potential energy distorts time, and increasing the kinetic energy of a photon, since it can't travel any faster, increases its frequency""

The light can't travel any faster, so it's KE remains constant... Gravity potential is higher at elevation.  By this logic the lights energy and frequency should be reducing as it moves closer to earth, which would indeed be in keeping with what happens for an atomic clock and the atomic structures of the observer in the reference frame if that clock...  BUT this is NOT what light does!  It's energy is observed to increase in the lower gravity potential!

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3773
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #128 on: 03/06/2016 22:12:25 »
With spacetime length contracts and time dilates. For the photon this makes no sense. Unless we consider contraction of the wavelength and hence an increase in frequency to be the equivalent effects for the photon.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4512
• Thanked: 139 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #129 on: 03/06/2016 22:53:45 »
he light can't travel any faster, so it's KE remains constant.
wrong.

Quote
It's energy is observed to increase in the lower gravity potential!
because as it moves toweards the lower gravity potential, its kinetic energy is increased. When massive objects fall, they get faster. They lose potential energy and gain kinetic eneergy. A photon loses potential energy falling through a gravitational potential gradient so it must gain kinetic energy (energy is conserved - remember?) but as it can't go any faster, its frequency increases. E = hf, as you keep telling me.  How many times do you have to state the obvious before it becomes obvious to you?

The stationary clock doesn't have any kinetic energy. So we see its frequency shift compared with a local clock, according to the potential energy difference between source and observer.

Quote
A standard second is 1.
No, a second is the elapsed time of 9 billion and a few cycles of a cesium clock. It is the same everywhere, but appears to take longer if the clock is in a gravitational potential well compared with the observer.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2016 23:15:55 by alancalverd »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #130 on: 03/06/2016 23:28:12 »
I'm sorry... perhaps this is where I am indeed going wrong... but... relativistic mass surely is decreasing in the lower gravity potential?  And isn't KE calculated 0.5mv2=KE...?

If we take the stationary clock and add motion in a uniform gravity field, KE must then be added and the frequency will increase... Yet a clock in motion is observed to experience a decrease in frequency relative to the stationary clock...

Edit: You have quoted me on a standard second being equal to 1, but that exert of my post was stated in context to a longer second being measured as 1.0000000000etc1 of a standard second for a longer second, or 0.99999999etc. of a standard second for a shorter second.  I understand what defines a standard second.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2016 23:33:12 by timey »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4512
• Thanked: 139 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #131 on: 04/06/2016 09:19:52 »
I'm sorry... perhaps this is where I am indeed going wrong... but... relativistic mass surely is decreasing in the lower gravity potential?  And isn't KE calculated 0.5mv2=KE...?
not if m0 = 0, obviously: E = hf, and it's all kinetic.

Quote
If we take the stationary clock and add motion in a uniform gravity field, KE must then be added and the frequency will increase... Yet a clock in motion is observed to experience a decrease in frequency relative to the stationary clock...
KE of what? theclock. Ok, so the notional deBroglie frequency of the clock's mass increases, but that isn't what we observe. And no, it isn't observed to experience anything - there is no difference between uniform motion and rest (Newton!) but an observer with a relative speed to the clock will observe its SR time dilation. Nothing to do with kinetic energy.

Quote
Edit: You have quoted me on a standard second being equal to 1, but that exert of my post was stated in context to a longer second being measured as 1.0000000000etc1 of a standard second for a longer second, or 0.99999999etc. of a standard second for a shorter second.  I understand what defines a standard second.
There is no other second. It is defined universally. It just happens that the second on a high or moving clock looks shorter or longer to an observer on the ground. There is nothing special about the surface of the earth: it just happens to be where most of the observers are, for the time being. The orbiting astronaut sees the terrestrial clock as running slow (SR is reciprocal) and the GPS satellite also sees the terrestrial clock as running slow (the gravitational field is not symmetrical).

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3773
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #132 on: 04/06/2016 13:32:54 »
OK so what about a theoretical wave? If we specify a range where zero energy is simply a flat line and infinite energy is a vertical line. Since the wave would have to oscillate infinitely fast. We then have two absolute values, one at either end of the scale. Remember that this is all hypothetical and is not meant to represent real phenomena.

Now we could introduce other variables into this model that can in some way modify the way the wave behaves.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2016 13:57:25 by jeffreyH »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3773
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #133 on: 04/06/2016 13:35:23 »
Before I forget. The area under the curve at the extremes is either zero or infinity. While we can move a known distance away from zero this is not the case with infinity.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #134 on: 04/06/2016 13:39:31 »
I'm sorry... perhaps this is where I am indeed going wrong... but... relativistic mass surely is decreasing in the lower gravity potential?  And isn't KE calculated 0.5mv2=KE...?
not if m0 = 0, obviously: E = hf, and it's all kinetic.

Quote
If we take the stationary clock and add motion in a uniform gravity field, KE must then be added and the frequency will increase... Yet a clock in motion is observed to experience a decrease in frequency relative to the stationary clock...
KE of what? theclock. Ok, so the notional deBroglie frequency of the clock's mass increases, but that isn't what we observe. And no, it isn't observed to experience anything - there is no difference between uniform motion and rest (Newton!) but an observer with a relative speed to the clock will observe its SR time dilation. Nothing to do with kinetic energy.

Quote
Edit: You have quoted me on a standard second being equal to 1, but that exert of my post was stated in context to a longer second being measured as 1.0000000000etc1 of a standard second for a longer second, or 0.99999999etc. of a standard second for a shorter second.  I understand what defines a standard second.
There is no other second. It is defined universally. It just happens that the second on a high or moving clock looks shorter or longer to an observer on the ground. There is nothing special about the surface of the earth: it just happens to be where most of the observers are, for the time being. The orbiting astronaut sees the terrestrial clock as running slow (SR is reciprocal) and the GPS satellite also sees the terrestrial clock as running slow (the gravitational field is not symmetrical).

Well - If the clock only 'looks' as if it is running slower or faster, and it only 'looks' like it is getting slower or faster to an observer of the clock who is in a different reference frame, then do the astronauts that are reputed to have aged slower when they come back from a reference frame where us observers observe the clock to run slower, only seem to us to have aged slower?  And the astronauts who observed us with our clock running faster than theirs, it only appears to them that us observers have aged faster?

When the astronauts comes back to earth, has anybody 'actually' aged any faster or slower?

It is reported that this is a 'real' effect!  If it is a 'real' effect, then a second as defined by caesium standard does 'really' get longer or shorter via time dilation/contraction and it is not just an 'appearance'...

Ok - if gravity potential does not affect the relativistic mass of the photon then the only means that kinetic energy can be calculated to increase for an 'incoming' photon, is if KE is calculated accumulatively.  We are saying that light has no mass but because it is moving at c we can attribute it KE, which we can then state as relativistic mass, and then because we have added mass, this then accumulates more KE?  I don't get it!

And if KE is calculated as 0.5mv2=KE, I don't get why a clock that is in motion relative to the stationary clock does not have an increase KE relative to the stationary clock and I don't get this notion why the clock does not experience its own time dilation when astronauts who are with the clock in motion are reputed to 'actually' experience time dilation effects...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #135 on: 04/06/2016 13:43:20 »
Now we could introduce other variables into this model that can in some way modify the way the wave behaves.

You have my attention...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3773
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #136 on: 04/06/2016 13:48:03 »
Timey. Once you understand the simpler aspects of relativity mathematically all the confusion disappears.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4512
• Thanked: 139 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #137 on: 04/06/2016 13:59:27 »

Ok - if gravity potential does not affect the relativistic mass of the photon then the only means that kinetic energy can be calculated to increase for an 'incoming' photon, is if KE is calculated accumulatively.  We are saying that light has no mass but because it is moving at c we can attribute it KE, which we can then state as relativistic mass, and then because we have added mass, this then accumulates more KE?  I don't get it!
Why make it complicated? A photon can transfer momentum to another body, so it has momentum and energy, but no rest (or "proper") mass. What's the problem?

Quote
And if KE is calculated as 0.5mv2=KE, I don't get why a clock that is in motion relative to the stationary clock does not have an increase KE relative to the stationary clock and I don't get this notion why the clock does not experience its own time dilation when astronauts who are with the clock in motion are reputed to 'actually' experience time dilation effects...
Nobody and nothing "experiences" time dilatation, because all steady motion is relative. The frequency of a standard clock has nothing to do with its kinetic energy relative to another body, because it has no way of knowing it is in motion. But the frequency as seen from another body depends on their relative speed.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2016 14:02:00 by alancalverd »

The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3773
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #138 on: 04/06/2016 14:04:42 »
We could put in place a rule that states that the wave can never be at either absolute value. We then have to define two limits. A lower and an upper limit.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #139 on: 04/06/2016 14:18:21 »
Timey. Once you understand the simpler aspects of relativity mathematically all the confusion disappears.

Wonderful news Jeff...

I and a whole world full of physicists stand with bated breath to await your mathematical rendition of a relativity that does not conclude in any confusing infinities.  Because I've yet to hear that such a rendition of relativity exists, and in any case, relativity does not give a full explanation of our universe, both of which constitute the very reasons why it's premiss is being called to question by qualified and respected physicists. (You make it sound as though I am suffering 'confusion' because I question relativity's premiss, and it's not just me you know...)

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #140 on: 04/06/2016 14:25:06 »
What's the problem?

The problem being Alan, and this is straight from 'the physicist's' mouth:

Relativity does not give a full description of the universe, therefore it is likely that Relativity is not quite the correct description...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3773
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #141 on: 04/06/2016 14:41:40 »
Your favourite Leonard Susskind made the remark that light with a wavelength longer than the diameter of a black hole would bounce off and not be trapped. Now I have no idea of the validity of this statement but it did get me thinking.

Going back to the 1 hertz wave. 1 second is to 1 Planck time as 1 light second is to 1 Planck length. However if we reduce our wave to match we have an insanely high frequency. Since the Planck mass has a Scharzschild radius of two Planck lengths then the wavelength has to be 4 Planck lengths or less to be consumed. So that whatever our lower limit for wavelength turns out to be will set a lower limit on stable black holes. For if a black hole cannot trap light then is it really a black hole?
« Last Edit: 04/06/2016 16:11:20 by jeffreyH »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4512
• Thanked: 139 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #142 on: 04/06/2016 15:52:42 »
Relativity does not give a full description of the universe, therefore it is likely that Relativity is not quite the correct description...
You are very attractive. That is not a full description. Therefore it is probably incorrect! There's a flaw in the logic, I feel.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #143 on: 04/06/2016 17:56:25 »
Your favourite Leonard Susskind made the remark that light with a wavelength longer than the diameter of a black hole would bounce off and not be trapped. Now I have no idea of the validity of this statement but it did get me thinking.

Going back to the 1 hertz wave. 1 second is to 1 Planck time as 1 light second is to 1 Planck length. However if we reduce our wave to match we have an insanely high frequency. Since the Planck mass has a Scharzschild radius of two Planck lengths then the wavelength has to be 4 Planck lengths or less to be consumed. So that whatever our lower limit for wavelength turns out to be will set a lower limit on stable black holes. For if a black hole cannot trap light then is it really a black hole?

Well Jeff - my notion would say that the light having been emitted at a particular energy and wavelength, that any gravitational change in that lights wave'length' is not distance related, but 'time' related.

But - I am not incapable of engaging in other people's alternatives...  What would a black hole then be?  And... When you run the implications of your notion into the future, or back to the past.  What kind of universe does this describe?

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #144 on: 04/06/2016 18:05:30 »
Relativity does not give a full description of the universe, therefore it is likely that Relativity is not quite the correct description...
You are very attractive. That is not a full description. Therefore it is probably incorrect! There's a flaw in the logic, I feel.

Thank you Alan.  In return I can tell you that you that you are also attractive...although I don't see the merit of the analogy...

A theory of the workings of the universe that does not fully describe the universe is incomplete, and possibly faulty...

So...  Many physicists are considering that relativity might be wrong.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3773
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #145 on: 04/06/2016 19:10:09 »
Except that experimental and observational verifications of the postulates of relativity just keep on accumulating. That must be so annoying to its detractors.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #146 on: 04/06/2016 19:21:46 »
I wouldn't care to comment on how anybody else feels, but it's not annoying to me as I can see how to fix it...  My notion incorporates everything that works in GR and simply gives alternate mechanics for observation.

You didn't uptake my offer to engage in your notion I see...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3773
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #147 on: 04/06/2016 19:37:02 »
It is a speculation and doesn't go anywhere. I simply took what Susskind said to its logical conclusion. The only thing I have introduced is the idea of limits on the range of an electromagnetic wave's length. The idea of a lower limit for the mass of a black hole greater than the Planck mass is all my own idea. As for implications, I have not thought about it.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #148 on: 04/06/2016 19:58:23 »
This is the thing with speculations, they must conclude themselves meaningfully in implications that relate back to the observed mechanics of the universe relevantly.

I feel that I manage to adhere to this structure of logical progression within the premiss of my theory, and to say so it really is a bit saddening to me that no-one seems to recognise the fact.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3773
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #149 on: 04/06/2016 20:32:08 »
This web page just about sums up my viewpoint. Read in particular the part about primordial black holes. Note that this refers to observational data, the analysis of which produced the indicated conclusions.This is where folks like us are at a disadvantage. Not enough funds to develop or deploy measuring devices of the type required.

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-smallest-black-hole-in-the-universe-e75c4b56e538

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #149 on: 04/06/2016 20:32:08 »