# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 23368 times)

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4704
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #175 on: 08/06/2016 23:21:56 »
If there is more energy then time will run faster.
I have no idea what this means, but perhaps you can explain with a thought experiment and its predicted result?

Quote
The energy gap E is fixed by the spin-spin interaction and is the same everywhere in the universe.

How do you know this?  And what if it were not?

because the atom is too stupid to know where it is in relation to an observer. And all the experiments we do, seem to confirm the relativistic model whenever we do know the relative positions of the atom and the observer in a gravitational field. If it were not so, we'd get a different answer.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #176 on: 08/06/2016 23:43:55 »
Well since 2GM/c2 equals the radius of an event horizon Alan's equation can be reformulated as,

fr= fe√{(1-rs/(R+h))/(1 - rs/R)}

Note to be valid R > rs.
« Last Edit: 08/06/2016 23:51:13 by jeffreyH »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #177 on: 09/06/2016 00:32:03 »
If there is more energy then time will run faster.
I have no idea what this means, but perhaps you can explain with a thought experiment and its predicted result?

Quote
The energy gap E is fixed by the spin-spin interaction and is the same everywhere in the universe.

How do you know this?  And what if it were not?

because the atom is too stupid to know where it is in relation to an observer. And all the experiments we do, seem to confirm the relativistic model whenever we do know the relative positions of the atom and the observer in a gravitational field. If it were not so, we'd get a different answer.

(Given that you can accept that the atomic clock has an increased frequency at an elevated position, relative to a clock below it, and that this frequency had a related energy and wavelength)...
An atom, and all its constituent particles, when observed in a higher gravity potential have a higher frequency, and energy is proportional to frequency.  Wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency.  Simply take the 'frequency' of the wave as being indicative of the rate of time, the wavelength remains constant, and when the energy and therefore frequency change, via gravitational shift or thermal energy, it is the duration of time it takes to complete a wave that is taking a longer or shorter time...  which, if you didn't know that it was taking a longer or shorter amount of time to complete a wave, you would then believe, in the face of a velocity being constant, (as is the case with light) that a wavelength is longer or shorter in distance.  Relate this to Hubble's law, and we can look at a non expanding universe.

I think it is the observer who is too stupid to realise that it matters not whether he observes the phenomenon.  The gravity field will shift energy if he is watching or not, and the observer is just a tad confused because he does not realise that the equivalence principle means that if he is with the clock, he will experience what the clock experiences, and if he is not with the clock, but in a lower or higher gravity potential relative to the clock, that it is only then, when he is being affected by a reference frame of differing gravity potential to the other clock, that he will observe the other clock to be different to the clock in his reference frame.

The NIST ground level relativity tests place 2 clocks in 2 separate reference frames, both of which were in the 1 reference frame of the observer.  A singular observer observed 2 clocks simultaneously operating at differing frequencies in reference frames of differing gravity potentials, constituting 1 meter difference in height.

So... now the observer knows for a 'fact' that this difference in frequency, and therefore energy experienced by the elevated clock, relative to the clock below it, is a 'real' occurrence, and not observer dependent...

Ok - well, if you are calculating a phenomenon positively, (and inappropriately) when it should be calculated negatively, (KE)... and then calculating a phenomenon negatively (and inappropriately) when it should be calculated positively (time dilation)... The maths 'will' work up to a point, but you won't have a clue about how it all fits together as a whole, or how the maths relate to the unanswered questions about our universe.  Which just about sums relativity and quantum up, far as I can see...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #178 on: 09/06/2016 00:38:12 »
Well since 2GM/c2 equals the radius of an event horizon Alan's equation can be reformulated as,

fr= fe√{(1-rs/(R+h))/(1 - rs/R)}

Note to be valid R > rs.

Could you please give a run through in word format what you are doing here with these maths, and the relevance of it Jeff, I hate to be excluded.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4704
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #179 on: 09/06/2016 07:29:38 »
Relate this to Hubble's law, and we can look at a non expanding universe.
But the primary evidence for an expanding universe is the Doppler shift of light from distant galaxies, not a gravitational shift. A significant grav red shift would imply that there is more stuff outside the universe than inside it, which contradicts the definition of "universe"!

Quote
So... now the observer knows for a 'fact' that this difference in frequency, and therefore energy experienced by the elevated clock, relative to the clock below it, is a 'real' occurrence, and not observer dependent...
Yes, it is a real effect. A clock in a higher gravitational potential will run faster. It isn't "observer dependent" (all observers at the same gravitational potential will see the same thing)  but you have to ask "faster than what?" and at that point you have introduced a hypothetical observer - i.e. the other clock. Not "experienced by" but "emitted by". And the observer knows nothing about the energy of the primary transition, only the frequency he sees.

« Last Edit: 09/06/2016 07:42:38 by alancalverd »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4704
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #180 on: 09/06/2016 07:40:41 »
Well since 2GM/c2 equals the radius of an event horizon Alan's equation can be reformulated as,

fr= fe√{(1-rs/(R+h))/(1 - rs/R)}

Note to be valid R > rs.

Since R is the radius of a large solid body (e.g. the earth), you have calculated the frequency shift of a photon approaching a body whose event horizon is inside it. Not sure what this represents, experimentally. In the case of a classic black hole, obviously the EH is outside the core, but if we put rs = R we have a critical black hole where the received frequency = 0 for all incoming photons.

I'll leave you to ponder on the implications!

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #181 on: 09/06/2016 13:49:32 »
Relate this to Hubble's law, and we can look at a non expanding universe.
But the primary evidence for an expanding universe is the Doppler shift of light from distant galaxies, not a gravitational shift. A significant grav red shift would imply that there is more stuff outside the universe than inside it, which contradicts the definition of "universe"!

Quote
So... now the observer knows for a 'fact' that this difference in frequency, and therefore energy experienced by the elevated clock, relative to the clock below it, is a 'real' occurrence, and not observer dependent...
Yes, it is a real effect. A clock in a higher gravitational potential will run faster. It isn't "observer dependent" (all observers at the same gravitational potential will see the same thing)  but you have to ask "faster than what?" and at that point you have introduced a hypothetical observer - i.e. the other clock. Not "experienced by" but "emitted by". And the observer knows nothing about the energy of the primary transition, only the frequency he sees.

As far as I am aware, the universe is evenly distributed with mass...

The implications of relativity state that 'all' that is evenly distributed was once in a tightly compacted point and exploded outwards.  Then there was this period, whereby all the exploded matter was inflated, (there are big question marks here), and the outward trend of the mass continues as matter flies further and further apart, at an accelerated rate.

My inverted time theory tells a completely different story of a cyclic universe.  Yes, all the matter of the universe is compacted (end of last cycle) to a point, but the point is a black hole.  This singular black hole, having no equivalent gravitational force acting upon it, ejects 'all' the matter of the universe via its accretion disks in particle form until it is empty and extinct.

All that is left is a uniform sea of particles, that is uniform in gravity and time.  Everywhere within this sea of particles that is swirling from the force of the ejection, particles pull together into atoms, atoms clump into molecules, etc.  This is happening simultaneously everywhere, and the uniformity of the sea of particles starts to break down as distances of empty space are formed by particles vacating their former position.  Everything is forming into little points of greater gravity and faster rate of time, and the distances of open space are forming into lengths of lesser gravity and slower rates of time.

There has been no outward expansion since the initial point of the black hole ejecting the sea of particles via its accretion disks.  Clearly all gravitational strength and acceleration is forming via the clumping together of the particles, and the resulting opening up of space, and we can see that ***despite the fact that gravity only tails off via the inverse square law, and this tends towards infinity*** the trend will be that the 'open space' contours of the outer dimensions of the universe will be very slowly contracting.  Where the gravity field becomes weaker and weaker, the rate of time becomes slower and slower.  This is like the badlands of the universe.  You could just keep going into slower and even slower time.  This denotes the 'edge' of the universe.  Somewhere, at some infinite point time will stop altogether and if there is no time for anything to happen in, then existence 'isn't'...

As matter clumps to the degree that all there is is black holes that eventually merge together until there is only 1, clearly the contours of the 'edge' of the universe will have become further contracted.

So...Alan, there is no need in my model for anything outside of the universe to create a Doppler shift in light.  The lights wave'length simply remains constant in measure of distance, but takes a longer or shorter amount of 'time' to complete a wave.
If you were unaware that the time aspect was variable, you would come to the conclusion that the wavelength itself was longer or shorter.

Relativity is working on the basis of the universe expanding outwards.
Inverted time theory is working on the basis that the universe has been very slowly contracting from initial inflation period.

It's a very 'simple' concept!  All one needs to do to measure it, is to state the caesium second as a standard and the speed of light, and the measure of a meter, as constants.  Then measure the observed differences in relation to the standard second.  This should provide an absolute reference frame, and if one can 'know' the gravitational field, all co-ordinate considerations of time and velocity should follow, from black holes right down the scale to quantum.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4704
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #182 on: 09/06/2016 15:48:03 »
Relativity is working on the basis of the universe expanding outwards.
Not true.

Quote
[All one needs to do to measure it, is to state the caesium second as a standard and the speed of light, and the measure of a meter, as constants.  .
If you accept that the speed of light is constant, Doppler redshift is an entirely classical and nonrelativistic phenomenon.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #183 on: 09/06/2016 16:03:17 »
Let me rephrase: physicists work with the theory of relativity on the basis that the universe is expanding...

If you accept that the changes in rate of time for the gravity field are linear to the changes in the gravity field and that these changes in the rate of time for the gravity field are highly variable.  By keeping distance and length as constant's in relation to the speed of light, the rate of time 'is' the acceleration of gravity.  (g)

Then you must quite simply accept that any structure of mass elevated from another body of mass experiences an increase ***in their "own" rate of time*** due to experiencing the additional energy of gravity potential at that location.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4704
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #184 on: 09/06/2016 23:27:14 »
Let me rephrase: physicists work with the theory of relativity on the basis that the universe is expanding...
No. E = mc^2 every day in my work, whether the universe is expanding, contracting, or going down the celestial toilet. When I use a linear accelerator, the relativistic corrections for electron mass are very helpful, and I'd be completely lost if the gravitational potential correction wasn't applied to my GPS system. None of this has anything to do with the approach or retreat of distant galaxies.

Quote
If you accept that the changes in rate of time for the gravity field are linear to the changes in the gravity field and that these changes in the rate of time for the gravity field are highly variable.  By keeping distance and length as constant's in relation to the speed of light, the rate of time 'is' the acceleration of gravity.  (g)
Still not sure what "the rate of time" means, but it is certainly true that red shift is linear with g.

Quote
Then you must quite simply accept that any structure of mass elevated from another body of mass experiences an increase ***in their "own" rate of time*** due to experiencing the additional energy of gravity potential at that location.
No. There is no such experience. All you can say is that the other guy's clock is running faster or slower. Since there are obvious potential wells all over the place - i.e. wherever there is an object with nonzero mass - we define a hypothetical zero in "deep space", infinitely far from any object, where the frequency of a clock, as observed from anywhere else, would be maximal.

The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #185 on: 09/06/2016 23:51:26 »
Before developing new theories it is best to have an understanding of the established ones.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #186 on: 10/06/2016 02:21:32 »
Let me rephrase: physicists work with the theory of relativity on the basis that the universe is expanding...
No. E = mc^2 every day in my work, whether the universe is expanding, contracting, or going down the celestial toilet. When I use a linear accelerator, the relativistic corrections for electron mass are very helpful, and I'd be completely lost if the gravitational potential correction wasn't applied to my GPS system. None of this has anything to do with the approach or retreat of distant galaxies.

Quote
If you accept that the changes in rate of time for the gravity field are linear to the changes in the gravity field and that these changes in the rate of time for the gravity field are highly variable.  By keeping distance and length as constant's in relation to the speed of light, the rate of time 'is' the acceleration of gravity.  (g)
Still not sure what "the rate of time" means, but it is certainly true that red shift is linear with g.

Quote
Then you must quite simply accept that any structure of mass elevated from another body of mass experiences an increase ***in their "own" rate of time*** due to experiencing the additional energy of gravity potential at that location.
No. There is no such experience. All you can say is that the other guy's clock is running faster or slower. Since there are obvious potential wells all over the place - i.e. wherever there is an object with nonzero mass - we define a hypothetical zero in "deep space", infinitely far from any object, where the frequency of a clock, as observed from anywhere else, would be maximal.

As all your work doesn't involve calculating time for open space, and all I am adding is calculation for open space, whereby all relativistic calculations for mass and time dilation ***still apply*** (albeit some of the calculations may be approached alternatively for the same results, but furthered understanding)

Alan - I thought we covered that 'the rate of time' is the duration of a second.  If the rate of time is faster then the length of a second is shorter.  If the rate of time is slower, the length of a second is longer. (much like if the frequency of a light wave is higher, the wave'length' is shorter, and if the frequency of a light wave is lower, the wave'length' is longer)

If there is no such experience, then again, I put it to you:  How come astronauts are supposed to age differently in space?

If you create a hypothetical 0 in deep space, you cannot have an absolute reference frame.

What is the problem in stating these gravitational effects as verbatim and occurring as a phenomenon of mapped out co-ordinate locations?

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #187 on: 10/06/2016 02:25:29 »
Before developing new theories it is best to have an understanding of the established ones.

Yes Jeff - I am aware of the implications of the Shwartzchild radius and have read extensively on the subject...

As I said before, my model states the observations of differing rates of time from differing rates of time as time frame dependent and proportional to the difference in rate.
As I said before, this concept explained why bigger black holes appear cooler than smaller black holes.
As I said before, this means that black holes are hot, plasma hot and it's not that light cannot 'escape', it's that plasma is opaque and light cannot shine.

Simply transpose the acceleration of g, (acceleration, per meter, per second (standard) into a time aspect, instead of a distance.  The geometry of space remains flat and it is the linear changes in the rate of time (inverted time dilation) that are the cause of curvature.

I have given this a lot of thought Jeff, about 8 years worth now...  It's a very logical proposition and the benefits in the interests of fully describing the mechanics of a cyclic universe, and a theory of everything, and this more importantly without relying on any unobserved phenomenon, which I do believe, renders my theory as entirely unique!  if you lot don't find that compelling, even just as an exercise in alternate thought process, I don't know what's the matter with you... (chuckle) ...we could always hash over the same old what?  Twin paradox perhaps?  I'm sure that we'll all be intellectually stimulated by that one - again!

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #188 on: 14/06/2016 12:34:11 »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #189 on: 16/06/2016 13:37:23 »
Alan, you are MIA I notice...  I hope all is well and it's nothing more serious than the European Cup!

I am prepared for your retort to include the phrase "I've been washing my hair"... (chuckle)

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #190 on: 17/06/2016 15:21:16 »
Firstly let's look at v and c that form the fraction v/c that is used in gamma. The value of v can never equal c but must be less than c at all times. We can look at this as v being a percentage of c. In this way we can multiply v by a fraction to represent this. When v = 1/2*c it is half  the speed of light and when v = 99/100*c it is 99% the speed of light etc. So that if v = 1/2*c this is like saying v/c = 1/2.
T≡
Since the fraction used in gamma is v^2/c^2 then for the value of 1/2 this becomes 1^2/2^2 which gives 1/4. This is not the end of it though because gamma has the square root of 1 - v^2/c^2 as the denominator. In this case we need to find the square root of 1-1/4. So then we are looking at the square root of 3/4 which approximates to 0.866. The final step is 1/0.866 which translates to a value of 1.1547 approx. So our mass is increased in this case by 115.5% approx at half light speed. If anybody sees an error in my working please point it out.

This is the mathematical description. The physical causes are an entirely different matter. Find that and you will be famous.

Ok - bloody brilliant Jeff, thanks...

I've moved your comment to this New Theories thread in order that I may comment more freely...

A few observations, please correct me if I'm wrong:

On the basis that gamma has no given physical causality in relativity, but that the mathematical process of gamma is a proportionally correct and working hypothesis, there is the opportunity to 'change' the given explanation of the physicality of relativistic mass as long as the mathematical proportionality of the given alternate physical process remains consistent.

I can see that a calculation that divides will have some proportionality to an identical calculation that multiplies.

I can see that v^2/c^2 will have some proportionality to v/c

In the Doppler shift/redshift equation we can see that v=gh/c , where h is height.  And that 1 and square root of 1 are applied in relation to v/c.

Am I correct in saying that vc=f?  f being frequency.

Now I am going to suggest an alternative: that relativistic mass is redundant and that energy is time related.  The more energy a system, or field has, the faster its rate of time.
(Note: we are going to be ignoring KE for the moment.)

Looking at gh/c=v:

If we take g, which is an 'acceleration', per meter, per second (standard), and we subject the value of g to the speed, distance, time formula to transpose the 'acceleration' per standard second into a time aspect, ie: 9.807 meters per second squared.

I'm not sure 'how' to do this... The per second 'squared' is throwing me...but if g (as per earth's g) is accelerating by 9.807 meters every second, (or indeed decelerating by 9.807 meters per second in the opposing direction) and a second is defined by the distance of 299 792 458 meters as per speed of light... then it should be possible to simply subtract (or add) the gh/c=v velocity to the speed of light and then divide by the speed of light to define a longer or shorter second relative to a standard second.

This would negate the necessity for relativistic mass, as the speed of light may remain constant, whereby it is the rate of time (inverted time dilation) that is the variable, and 'I think' this notion remains within the proportionality of the original mathematical process, but gives us a physical causality for observation.
(Note: light being massless is not gravitationally affected by potential energy, or KE, only the 'time' acceleration/deceleration of g.  KE for mass would be subtracted for a slowing of time)

The benefits of this notion lead to the mechanics of a fully described cyclic universe.
« Last Edit: 18/06/2016 12:33:46 by timey »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #191 on: 17/06/2016 16:24:36 »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #192 on: 18/06/2016 05:16:28 »
Firstly let's look at v and c that form the fraction v/c that is used in gamma. The value of v can never equal c but must be less than c at all times. We can look at this as v being a percentage of c. In this way we can multiply v by a fraction to represent this. When v = 1/2*c it is half  the speed of light and when v = 99/100*c it is 99% the speed of light etc. So that if v = 1/2*c this is like saying v/c = 1/2.
T≡
Since the fraction used in gamma is v^2/c^2 then for the value of 1/2 this becomes 1^2/2^2 which gives 1/4. This is not the end of it though because gamma has the square root of 1 - v^2/c^2 as the denominator. In this case we need to find the square root of 1-1/4. So then we are looking at the square root of 3/4 which approximates to 0.866. The final step is 1/0.866 which translates to a value of 1.1547 approx. So our mass is increased in this case by 115.5% approx at half light speed. If anybody sees an error in my working please point it out.

This is the mathematical description. The physical causes are an entirely different matter. Find that and you will be famous.

Ok - bloody brilliant Jeff, thanks...

I've moved your comment to this New Theories thread in order that I may comment more freely...

A few observations, please correct me if I'm wrong:

On the basis that gamma has no given physical causality in relativity, but that the mathematical process of gamma is a proportionally correct and working hypothesis, there is the opportunity to 'change' the given explanation of the physicality of relativistic mass as long as the mathematical proportionality of the given alternate physical process remains consistent.

In that case all you are doing is replaceing gamma by an equivalent which gives the same result as gamma. This has to equal gamma so you achieve nothing.

Quote
I can see that a calculation that divides will have some proportionality to an identical calculation that multiplies.

Any mathematical operation has an inverse operation (a reciprocal) which undoes the operation. So that if you multiply 4 by 1/2 you get 2. The reciprocal of 1/2 is 2 so this multiplied by the previous result of 2 gives us back the original number 4.

Quote
I can see that v^2/c^2 will have some proportionality to v/c

In the Doppler shift/redshift equation we can see that v=gh/c , where h is height.  And that 1 and square root of 1 are applied in relation to v/c.

Am I correct in saying that vc=f?  f being frequency.

I would have to refer back to where Alan wrote the equation so let's discuss this later but you will have to remind me of this.

Quote
Now I am going to suggest an alternative: that relativistic mass is redundant and that energy is time related.  The more energy a system, or field has, the faster its rate of time.

That is a very interesting point and one that should be your main focus. However I would remove time altogether. That way you can have what is known as a configuration space. That is for another time though.

Quote
(Note: we are going to be ignoring KE for the moment.)

Looking at gh/c=v:

If we take g, which is an 'acceleration', per meter, per second (standard), and we subject the value of g to the speed, distance, time formula to transpose the 'acceleration' per standard second into a time aspect, ie: 9.807 meters per second squared.

I don't really understand your meaning here but let me think about it and I may have questions.

Quote
I'm not sure 'how' to do this... The per second 'squared' is throwing me...but if g (as per earth's g) is accelerating by 9.807 meters every second, (or indeed decelerating by 9.806 meters per second in the opposing direction) and a second is defined by the distance of 299 792 458 meters as per speed of light... then it should be possible to simply subtract (or add) the gh=v velocity to the the speed of light and then divide by the speed of light to define a longer or shorter second relative to a standard second.

You need to walk before you can run. I will read this through again later and get back to you on it.

Quote
This would negate the necessity for relativistic mass, as the speed of light may remain constant, whereby it is the rate of time (inverted time dilation) that is the variable, and 'I think' this notion remains within the proportionality of the original mathematical process, but gives us a physical causality for observation.
(Note: light being massless is not gravitationally affected by potential energy, or KE, only the 'time' acceleration/deceleration of g.  KE for mass would be subtracted for a slowing of time)

The benefits of this notion lead to the mechanics of a fully described cyclic universe.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #193 on: 18/06/2016 06:58:09 »
My latex adventures may go very wrong here but I will attempt to post the equation I will discuss.

If it works this should be the escape velocity equation.

Woo Hoo! I can now resize equations so that you don't need a microscope to read them.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #194 on: 18/06/2016 11:20:04 »
For your standard time you need a scale with limits at the extremes. Time is said to stop at the event horizon of a black hole so this is the lower limit. The force of gravity being inverse square in nature is zero at infinity so that time will be changing at its fastest there. So the upper limit occurs at infinity. However the rate of passage of time is an increasing function whereas the force of gravitation is decreasing along the same scale. Therefore we need a function that can map to the time scale and decrease in proportion to the decrease in the force of gravity. Hence the escape velocity equation. Since Ve is the speed of light at the event horizon and zero at infinity. Also with velocity time is implicit to its derivation.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #195 on: 18/06/2016 12:20:17 »
Ok Jeff - I am following what you are saying, however it doesn't relate to the notion I'm putting forward, not that I'll let this put me off reading what you say though...

However, the consequence of this notion of inverted time dilation is that the rate of time runs faster for the black hole and stops at the end of the inverse square law at 0.

That the reason we think otherwise is because anything of mass in an elevation to bigger mass (higher gravity potential) will be subject to the 'additional energy' of gravity potential... and physics is mistakenly attributing a measurement of what happens for mass regarding time dilation to 'open space'... whereas light, being massless, is not affected by gravity potential and is only subject to the inverted time dilation.  Hence lights wavelength decreasing as it gets closer to a body of mass, whereas atoms/mass's wavelengths 'decrease' when placed 'further away' from the body of mass.  The addition of gravity potential energy increases the rate of time for the elevated mass.

Therefore light has ***no escape velocity*** and is only subject to the acceleration/deceleration of g, ...and I'm suggesting that the acceleration/deceleration of g 'is' inverted time dilation, rendering the geometry of space flat, with the time aspect of space time being inverted time dilation ***causing curvature***.

Holding mass and the speed of light as a constants, this notion also holds both distance and lengths as constant.  The 'variable' is inverted time dilation.

Edit:  Our measurement of time based on the rotation of the planet 'for our convenience' is not a description of the phenomenon of time itself.

This notion gives a full description of the phenomenon of time, (that is inclusive of general relativity time dilation), giving time causality and a physical process within the mechanics of the universe.
« Last Edit: 18/06/2016 12:31:05 by timey »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #196 on: 18/06/2016 12:39:49 »
In that case all you are doing is replaceing gamma by an equivalent which gives the same result as gamma. This has to equal gamma so you achieve nothing.

Really - because if you replace the concept of gamma, which has no given physical causality, with a fully described physical process that is proportional mathematically, and this physical process answers unanswered conundrums in physics such as bigger black holes appearing cooler than smaller black holes, plus much, much more, one would have achieved rather a lot, I would have thought...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #197 on: 18/06/2016 19:22:03 »

However, the consequence of this notion of inverted time dilation is that the rate of time runs faster for the black hole and stops at the end of the inverse square law at 0.

It follows from what you wrote that time will pass at an infinite rate at the event horizon of a black hole. I can't see how this can possibly fit with observation.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1297
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #198 on: 18/06/2016 20:46:24 »
No - it would be a faster rate of time that is finite...  An event horizon of a black hole is merely where it starts to be too hot for light to shine.  A black holes gravity well will be geometrically flat, it's acceleration of time causing the curvature.

What observations does this notion of time running faster for bodies of mass, and slower for open space not fit with?

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #199 on: 18/06/2016 21:19:49 »
No - it would be a faster rate of time that is finite...  An event horizon of a black hole is merely where it starts to be too hot for light to shine.  A black holes gravity well will be geometrically flat, it's acceleration of time causing the curvature.

What observations does this notion of time running faster for bodies of mass, and slower for open space not fit with?

Why do you believe that it is temperature that prevents photons from escaping a black hole? That is incorrect.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #199 on: 18/06/2016 21:19:49 »