The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 23672 times)

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #450 on: 03/08/2016 17:55:18 »


 and that dimensional analysis subsequently has very little to say about these dimensionless quantities...

Dimensional Analysis has everything to do with constructing these dimensionless numbers timey. Without the knowledge it takes to balance these equations, one can quite easily construct erroneous results.

I'm sorry if you've taken my contributions as an insult, they were not meant to be insulting. Facts are; several of us have been more than patient concerning your views. Nevertheless, if I've offended you in any way, I apologize.

 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #451 on: 03/08/2016 18:41:10 »


 and that dimensional analysis subsequently has very little to say about these dimensionless quantities...

Dimensional Analysis has everything to do with constructing these dimensionless numbers timey. Without the knowledge it takes to balance these equations, one can quite easily construct erroneous results.

I'm sorry if you've taken my contributions as an insult, they were not meant to be insulting. Facts are; several of us have been more than patient concerning your views. Nevertheless, if I've offended you in any way, I apologize.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

Quote:
" The dimensionless constants that arise in the results obtained, such as the C in the Poiseuille's Law problem and the {\displaystyle \kappa }in the spring problems discussed above come from a more detailed analysis of the underlying physics, and often arises from integrating some differential equation. ***Dimensional analysis itself has little to say about these constants, *** but it is useful to know that they very often have a magnitude of order unity. This observation can allow one to sometimes make "back of the envelope" calculations about the phenomenon of interest, and therefore be able to more efficiently design experiments to measure it, or to judge whether it is important, etc."

Quote:
" Paradoxically, dimensional analysis can be a useful tool even if all the parameters in the underlying theory are dimensionless, e.g., lattice models such as the Ising model can be used to study phase transitions and critical phenomena. Such models can be formulated in a purely dimensionless way. As we approach the critical point closer and closer, the distance over which the variables in the lattice model are correlated (the so-called correlation length, {\displaystyle \xi } ) becomes larger and larger. Now, the correlation length is the relevant length scale related to critical phenomena, so one can, e.g., surmise on "dimensional grounds" that the non-analytical part of the free energy per lattice site should be {\displaystyle \sim 1/\xi ^{d}} where {\displaystyle d}is the dimension of the lattice.

It has been argued by some physicists, e.g., M. J. Duff,[19][20] that the laws of physics are inherently dimensionless. The fact that we have assigned incompatible dimensions to Length, Time and Mass is, according to this point of view, just a matter of convention, borne out of the fact that before the advent of modern physics, there was no way to relate mass, length, and time to each other. The three independent dimensionful constants: c,ħ, and G, in the fundamental equations of physics must then be seen as mere conversion factors to convert Mass, Time and Length into each other."
Unquote:

Now that we both know that I have read the wiki link, perhaps we can move on?

You tell me about the importance of dimensional analysis, very patiently perhaps, but get annoyed when I point out that there is failure to use it to disprove what I'm proposing... And simply stating that my introducing an additional dimension of inverted time dilation is nonsensical doesn't employ the scientific method, nor address the analysis required to investigate the redistributed balance between the existing dimensions with the proposed addition...
Not insulted, just frustrated!
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 156 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #452 on: 04/08/2016 20:35:38 »
The fact remains that if you propose an equation involving mass, length and time, or any other physical parameters that involve them, if it doesn't balance, you have got it wrong. Simply writing a = b x c + d "because I say so" is fine for economics or sociology, or even climate "science", but it won't wash in physics.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #453 on: 05/08/2016 00:57:24 »
The fact remains that if you propose an equation involving mass, length and time, or any other physical parameters that involve them, if it doesn't balance, you have got it wrong. Simply writing a = b x c + d "because I say so" is fine for economics or sociology, or even climate "science", but it won't wash in physics.

Yes Alan - I am aware that any addition to, or augmentation of GR that my model proposes will have to be proportional mathematically to, or with, existing dimensions or the model will not be mathematically viable.  I'm proposing that my model is mathatically proprtoonal to GR as a concept.

I am not saying "because I said so"... I'm saying "because alternative means of viewing observation exists"...

Fact remains that I am a self professed non-mathematician, who is posting on this forum because she knows that in light of her lacking of formal background in mathematics she doesn't have a hope in hell of calculating an entire model describing a cyclic universe, and that it would be stupid of her, or anyone else for that matter, to think she could.  Evan posted last year that even Einstein needed help to mathematically describe his concepts.

Fact remains that I am not asking for help in learning mathematics.  I am looking for some one to listen to my description of this model in words, understand it, and then calculate the model.

Again I will point out the obvious, in that if I were a mathematician, I wouldn't be requiring a mathematicians input!

There is absolutely no reason why a competent mathematician cannot transpose a concept explained to him, or her, in words, and then calculate it.

Non mathematicians can actually be intelligent, and are more than capable of understanding, and even producing complex ideas.

http://m.mentalfloss.com/article/69251/6-famous-scientists-and-inventors-who-struggled-math
 
Michael Faraday:
" Like most impoverished boys, he’d received little formal education. Hence, Faraday’s math skills left a lot to be desired. In 1846, he boldly proposed that visible light is a form of electromagnetic radiation. But because he couldn’t back up the idea with mathematics, his colleagues ignored it. Enter James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879). Believing the older scientist’s hypothesis, this Scottish physicist & mathematician used ingenious equations to finally prove Faraday right eighteen years later."

Thomas Edison:
" “I can always hire a mathematician,” Edison once remarked, “[but] they can’t hire me.” Like all successful entrepreneurs, he was keenly aware of his strengths and weaknesses. As a boy, Edison trudged through Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica(“Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”). In his own words, the book left him with nothing but “a distaste for mathematics from which I never recovered.”
Unquote:

I do not understand Alan, given the nature of my request, that you keep insisting that 'I' produce the mathematics and dimensional analysis for the concepts of this model that I am proposing.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #454 on: 05/08/2016 01:26:35 »
No one is going to spend any time on an idea that you cannot state in precise terms that they can understand. The language of physics has a set structure and terminology for a very good reason. If the books you read didn't make this apparent then they didn't do a good job.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #455 on: 05/08/2016 02:42:42 »
No one is going to spend any time on an idea that you cannot state in precise terms that they can understand. The language of physics has a set structure and terminology for a very good reason. If the books you read didn't make this apparent then they didn't do a good job.
Right I see - straight back to it being an inadequacy on my part, or on the part of the authors who wrote the books I've read.  It couldn't be because actually no one is listening, now could it?

What part of - "the length of a wavelength is not distant related, but is inverted time dilation related and can be calculated with the speed distance time formula, where c is speed, wavelength is distance, and a time value can be extracted, that challenges Hubble's concept of an expanding universe, rendering GR, minus the cosmological constant, correct in describing a contracting universe" - do you not understand, or find to be contrary to physics terms, or logical reason?

This was a great contribution that you made earlier this thread:

Consider a sine wave. Nothing to do with light or gravity. Forget those. If the wave length is constant we can move along the wave marking it off at regular intervals. Everything will be constant and cyclic. Now if we start again but this time continuously vary the intervals at which we mark off the wave using a function to determine the increase or decrease in the steps we can see how this can make it appear that something has changed. If we were blissfully unaware that our function existed then we may come to the conclusion that it was the wave that was changing.

Consider the time period of a standard second becoming dilated in the weaker gravity field.  Not for objects with mass 'in' the gravity field, but for locations in the gravity field itself).  Anything free falling through a gravity field would be experiencing acceleration due to time periods (inverted time dilation), contracting near mass.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #456 on: 05/08/2016 08:10:41 »
That simply showed how the change in gravitational potential can affect wavelength and hence kinetic energy. Nothing to do with your concept. When you say "The length of a wavelength is not distance related" what exactly do you mean? How can you remove distance from a wave LENGTH calculation. If you had said inverted length contraction it would make more sense. It would however then be obvious how wrong you were. Muddying the waters by mixing up length and time causes much confusion for the reader.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #457 on: 05/08/2016 12:54:27 »
That simply showed how the change in gravitational potential can affect wavelength and hence kinetic energy. Nothing to do with your concept. When you say "The length of a wavelength is not distance related" what exactly do you mean? How can you remove distance from a wave LENGTH calculation. If you had said inverted length contraction it would make more sense. It would however then be obvious how wrong you were. Muddying the waters by mixing up length and time causes much confusion for the reader.

'That' can be used to describe anything that gets longer (or shorter) as it travels along, and can be used to describe my proposed concept of inverted time dilation.

What do I mean when I say the length of a wavelength is time related?  Looking at an 'already emitted' light wave, it has a wavelength.  This wave'length' is a distance. When this wavelength travels through a gravity field it is either contracted (blue shifted), or dilated (red shifted).   The wavelength becomes shorter, or longer in its length.

I'm suggesting that the wavelength of already emitted light does not change in actual length, in the gravity field.  I'm suggesting that it is the time period of a second that is contracting, or dilating as a result of the gravity field as per this proposed inverted time dilation - and that blue shifted and red shifted light waves are simply taking a shorter or longer amount of time to travel the same distance.  (ie: the same distance being the length the lights wavelength was when emitted.)

If you are going to class anything that you won't find in a physics text book as being a muddying of the waters Jeff, what point is there in having a 'New Theory' forum?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #458 on: 05/08/2016 13:03:07 »


 and that dimensional analysis subsequently has very little to say about these dimensionless quantities...

Dimensional Analysis has everything to do with constructing these dimensionless numbers timey. Without the knowledge it takes to balance these equations, one can quite easily construct erroneous results.

I'm sorry if you've taken my contributions as an insult, they were not meant to be insulting. Facts are; several of us have been more than patient concerning your views. Nevertheless, if I've offended you in any way, I apologize.

Ethos - I composed this post in answer to your post from last night that has now disappeared or you have deleted it.  You were mentioning the importance of dimensions again and your thoughts on a cyclic model:

In analysing the proposed additional dimension of an inverted gravitational time dilation, it is crucial that one understand that the resulting physics of our universe are quite different...

The only reason that this can possibly be viable is if these physics are the exact opposite to that which is currently described.

My model describes a cyclic universe, but this cyclic universe does not resemble any previous cyclic model... While the model describes a big bang, inflation period, and big crunch, these phenomenon of my model also bear no resemblance to any previous model.

This is how my model differs:

The big bang is currently described as everything originating from a point...
My model describes the big bang as having originated from a black hole containing all the matter of the last universe.  Because there is no equivalent gravitational force acting upon this black hole, it empties itself to its own extinction.

The inflation period is currently described as a period of accelerated inflation, distributing matter uniformly in an outward trajectory, before decelerating... (and then accelerating again as per dark energy)
My model describes the inflation period as particles being ejected via the superluminal jets of the 'big bang' black hole containing all the matter of the last universe.

The big crunch is currently described as a deceleration of the outward trajectory, resulting in gravitational forces drawing everything back together at accelerated speed.
My model describes the big crunch as being an incredibly slow process that begins just after the superluminal jets of the 'big bang' black hole eject matter in particle form, creating a more or less uniform sea of particles.  As these particles draw together, open distances of space start to form as a result of particles vacating their former solo positions by clumping together...

GR predicts a mess of black holes in the universes distant future...  Current theory, in relation to the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, rather than decelerating as the logic had previously held, has this mess of black holes disappearing into the far distance on outward trajectories resulting in a concept known as the big freeze...
My model results in a mess of black holes, by as a result if the spacial dimensions of the universe slowly contracting, this mess of black holes, that are our universes distant future, are formed by all the matter of the universe, drawn together into a galaxy of black holes that merge into each other, until there is only a singular black hole with everything in it.  With no equivalent gravitational for e acting upon it, it empties itself to extinction, leaving a sea of particles.

And... Just quickly - if you can imagine that time in the sea of particles is more or less uniform, as you would imagine gravity to be, where particles clump, time is contracted, and the open space created by particles clumping, time is dilated.
And... as per GR gravitational time dilation, a mass that is gravitationally affected by another mass will experience a contracted rate of time that dilates as the mass gets closer to the other mass.  It just so happens that anything we use that resonates at a frequency that is reminiscent of the time period of what we call a standard second, will shift in energy and frequency equally in the gravity field.  But other particles, process, etc, will occur at differing frequencies from each other in a reference frame, and all will shift proportionally in the gravity field giving physical process for the concept of an observer aging in keeping with his clock.

This is but a brief outline of a huge concept, the further details of which all fit together as a jigsaw puzzle to describe this cyclic model that 'should' be mathematically proportional to GR, and therefore viable.  Furthermore, unlike GR, (or any other), this model does not require any unobserved entities to describe the mechanics.
« Last Edit: 05/08/2016 13:21:56 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 156 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #459 on: 05/08/2016 15:17:30 »

Again I will point out the obvious, in that if I were a mathematician, I wouldn't be requiring a mathematicians input!......................
I do not understand Alan, given the nature of my request, that you keep insisting that 'I' produce the mathematics and dimensional analysis for the concepts of this model that I am proposing.

As I have said many times, the mathematics is trivial and well within the capability of anyone who knows what multiply and divide mean - as I am sure you do - and has a "square root" button opn a calculator - as I am pretty sure you have.

The underlying problem is that you keep trying to describe the physics in terms of equations or even sentences that have no dimensional balance and therefore no physical reality. Since dimensional analysis is even easier than arithmetic (it doesn't involve adding or subtracting!) I really commend it to you.

What unobserved entities are required by GR?
« Last Edit: 05/08/2016 15:27:23 by alancalverd »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #460 on: 05/08/2016 16:04:05 »

Again I will point out the obvious, in that if I were a mathematician, I wouldn't be requiring a mathematicians input!......................
I do not understand Alan, given the nature of my request, that you keep insisting that 'I' produce the mathematics and dimensional analysis for the concepts of this model that I am proposing.

As I have said many times, the mathematics is trivial and well within the capability of anyone who knows what multiply and divide mean - as I am sure you do - and has a "square root" button opn a calculator - as I am pretty sure you have.

The underlying problem is that you keep trying to describe the physics in terms of equations or even sentences that have no dimensional balance and therefore no physical reality. Since dimensional analysis is even easier than arithmetic (it doesn't involve adding or subtracting!) I really commend it to you.

What unobserved entities are required by GR?
I happen to think that driving a horse and carriage on a busy road is a piece of piss, but if I handed you the reins, saying its just a matter of a few commands, come by, come away, steady, and woah - and left you to it, I daresay you would feel that you were somewhat inadequately prepared for the task at hand.  You would understand the manoeuvres required to negotiate the traffic, and also understand the nature of the commands, but you would be lacking in the finesse of when and how to use commands to best effect.  Only practising under less demanding circumstances will afford you the ability to drive a horse and carriage on a busy road.

I don't have the time, facility, or the desire to practice mathematical manoeuvres under less busy circumstances than my model.  Therefore I am requiring that someone who is actually a mathematician calculate my model.

GR is not a mathematically viable theory without dark matter and dark energy.  GR is dimensionally unbalanced without these unobserved additions.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #461 on: 05/08/2016 16:47:56 »


Ethos - I composed this post in answer to your post from last night that has now disappeared or you have deleted it.  You were mentioning the importance of dimensions again and your thoughts on a cyclic model:

In analysing the proposed additional dimension of an inverted gravitational time dilation, it is crucial that one understand that the resulting physics of our universe are quite different...

The only reason that this can possibly be viable is if these physics are the exact opposite to that which is currently described.

I deleted that post hoping not to offend or frustrate you any further timey. It's quite apparent that you've heard enough about Dimensional Analysis so maybe we should start over and settle a few things before we get into the Math. Because frankly, the math doesn't work and that's the very reason we can't help you advance your theory starting from that position.

Bare with me timey, I'm interested in your theory but, so far, I have failed to establish a sound mathematical foundation upon which to support these ideas. For this reason, I'm going to ask you to help us with a few problems that your theory currently presents.

Firstly: Tell us briefly how we can get around the current accelerated  universal expansion we presently observe. Because your theory suggests that instead of expanding, the universe is contracting. And if you can, give us all your supporting evidence that suggests such a contraction. Without this critical evidence, I'm afraid your theory has little chance of success.

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 156 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #462 on: 05/08/2016 17:11:27 »
I have at least studied equestrianism to the point of knowing which bit of a horse is the front*, and I've never shied away from learning more. Indeed if I had any intention of driving a carriage, I'd happily listen to you and at least learn what the commands mean. Simply repeating "I can't do it" won't get the bugger off the runway, let alone back down again, so I would take the trouble to learn about fetlocks and aileron drag, or whatever it is that makes them go round corners, before offering the world a whole new perspective on the Grand National based on the Reverse Horse Principle, and saying "it's just a matter of counting their legs, or maybe nosebags, which I can't do".

The most general object of physics is to develop and refine mathematical models of the universe. It is very difficult to do this if the person presenting the model refuses to discuss it in terms of mathematics or physics. But it is fun to try.


*it's the bit that bites. Or maybe farts. I have read the book, and the difference is just a matter of sign convention, surely.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #463 on: 05/08/2016 18:50:04 »


Ethos - I composed this post in answer to your post from last night that has now disappeared or you have deleted it.  You were mentioning the importance of dimensions again and your thoughts on a cyclic model:

In analysing the proposed additional dimension of an inverted gravitational time dilation, it is crucial that one understand that the resulting physics of our universe are quite different...

The only reason that this can possibly be viable is if these physics are the exact opposite to that which is currently described.

I deleted that post hoping not to offend or frustrate you any further timey. It's quite apparent that you've heard enough about Dimensional Analysis so maybe we should start over and settle a few things before we get into the Math. Because frankly, the math doesn't work and that's the very reason we can't help you advance your theory starting from that position.

Bare with me timey, I'm interested in your theory but, so far, I have failed to establish a sound mathematical foundation upon which to support these ideas. For this reason, I'm going to ask you to help us with a few problems that your theory currently presents.

Firstly: Tell us briefly how we can get around the current accelerated  universal expansion we presently observe. Because your theory suggests that instead of expanding, the universe is contracting. And if you can, give us all your supporting evidence that suggests such a contraction. Without this critical evidence, I'm afraid your theory has little chance of success.

What we observe is the phenomenon of red shift.

When Einstein came up with GR, he included a cosmological constant to stop his preconceived idea of a static universe from collapsing under the force of gravity.  He then retracted the constant as his biggest blunder.  Hubble had calculated velocities for the magnitudes of Doppler shift effect for the red shift observations, and these velocities were attributed to the rate that a light source is accelerating away from us at...
The notion of the big bang and an expanding universe was extrapolated.

But...this does not 'have' to be the explanation of the phenomenon of red shift and the associated velocities of the associated Doppler shift effect.  I am certainly not the only person questioning the premise of the expanding universe concept.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

Taking the velocities and distances associated with light sources expanding away from us, and subjecting these to the speed, distance, time, formula, time values can be attributed to redshift velocities.  We can then say that this is by how much time is running slower in space than it does here on earth, and when we recalculate the distance the light source is situated away from us, the distance will be shorter and the light source, although its trajectory may well still be moving away from our position due to its gravitational relationships of centrifugal forces within its galaxy and the trajectory of the galaxy in relation to that galaxies neighbours in space, the light source is now not expanding away from us at those ridiculous speeds.

This is mathematically proportional to GR because the slower time of space transposed into standard seconds means that it takes the same amount of time as we measure it, for light to travel this shorter distance.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #464 on: 05/08/2016 19:03:19 »
I have at least studied equestrianism to the point of knowing which bit of a horse is the front*, and I've never shied away from learning more. Indeed if I had any intention of driving a carriage, I'd happily listen to you and at least learn what the commands mean. Simply repeating "I can't do it" won't get the bugger off the runway, let alone back down again, so I would take the trouble to learn about fetlocks and aileron drag, or whatever it is that makes them go round corners, before offering the world a whole new perspective on the Grand National based on the Reverse Horse Principle, and saying "it's just a matter of counting their legs, or maybe nosebags, which I can't do".

The most general object of physics is to develop and refine mathematical models of the universe. It is very difficult to do this if the person presenting the model refuses to discuss it in terms of mathematics or physics. But it is fun to try.


*it's the bit that bites. Or maybe farts. I have read the book, and the difference is just a matter of sign convention, surely.
I've studied theoretical physics for over 8 years.

I've been working directly with horses for 18 years, however, it is my experience that I never stop learning about horses, and despite the fact that you have not been studying horse related matters for 8 years, I certainly would not discount the possibility that you may make observation that I might learn from, nor would I ridicule you for trying, or think it unacceptable you presenting your observations in terminology that is not usual to the subject.

I am indeed learning more about maths everyday, but I am intelligent enough to know that this is not going to be sufficient.  I need the input of a qualified and confident mathematician.  And this need 'is' my sole reason for posting on this forum.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #465 on: 05/08/2016 19:42:11 »


What we observe is the phenomenon of red shift.

Yes, this is the current explanation for accelerated expansion. And, BTW, thanks for the link. It was interesting although several of the comments related to it were less than agreeable. That is nevertheless an expected reaction when unconventional ideas are submitted.

Concerning the issue of red shift. Several ideas have been offered for this phenomenon other than expansion. One being what is called "tired light". Not sure if you are familiar with the term but in essence, it blames the red shift on a theory that light looses some of it's energy over vast distances of travel. I'm not particularly a fan of this explanation myself.

There is also another question for us to consider timey. We know that if expansion is the culprit, red shift would indeed be one of the observed results.  But for the sake of argument, I'll grant you that expansion "might not" be the true cause. So now, here is my next question:

If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?
















 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #466 on: 05/08/2016 20:07:08 »
Light moving away from the source of a gravitational field loses kinetic energy. This energy could then be said to have been transferred to the gravitational field where its force carriers are blue shifted as a consequence. This would in fact produce exactly the phenomena of tired light over the distances involved.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #467 on: 05/08/2016 20:27:06 »


What we observe is the phenomenon of red shift.

Yes, this is the current explanation for accelerated expansion. And, BTW, thanks for the link. It was interesting although several of the comments related to it were less than agreeable. That is nevertheless an expected reaction when unconventional ideas are submitted.

Concerning the issue of red shift. Several ideas have been offered for this phenomenon other than expansion. One being what is called "tired light". Not sure if you are familiar with the term but in essence, it blames the red shift on a theory that light looses some of it's energy over vast distances of travel. I'm not particularly a fan of this explanation myself.

There is also another question for us to consider timey. We know that if expansion is the culprit, red shift would indeed be one of the observed results.  But for the sake of argument, I'll grant you that expansion "might not" be the true cause. So now, here is my next question:

If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?

I've read about tired light theory, including description of why Lee Smolin discounted the notion, and I personally dismissed it out of hand for reasons I can't be bothered to remember.  It is a fact that red shifted light has a reduced frequency, and tgerefore reduced energy, but we must always remember that when we see this red shifted light, it has been blue shifted in our increased gravity field before it reaches our eyes in our reference frame on earth.

If red shift did not describe an expansion, then blue shift, being red shift in reverse, would not describe contraction.

When I say a contracting universe, the contraction is facilitated by mass being drawn into clumps...
Red shift would be indicative of an ever decreasing strength of gravity field between far flung masses, but this being due to the general trend of mass itself becoming more tightly compacted together with the passing of time, and not due to a light source hurtling away from us at speeds that are faster than the speed of light.

The velocities associated with redshifts transposed into time values and viewed as slower time in space that light must travel through, is a much more subtle means to the same observation.
« Last Edit: 05/08/2016 20:33:56 by timey »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #468 on: 06/08/2016 11:59:05 »
Smolin's book should have been titled "The trouble with string theory" since physics is doing a fine job everywhere else. There may not be a reconciliation between general relativity and quantum mechanics but that is unlikely to be brought about by string theory.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #469 on: 06/08/2016 12:22:31 »
Smolin's book should have been titled "The trouble with string theory" since physics is doing a fine job everywhere else. There may not be a reconciliation between general relativity and quantum mechanics but that is unlikely to be brought about by string theory.


Have you actually read the book?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #470 on: 06/08/2016 13:26:20 »
OK Let's have a look at one of the topics I am currently studying as a result of reading up on advanced calculus. Time evolution and propagation operators. It is to do with Hamiltonian mechanics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_evolution

That is the level I am now at. Have a look at the page. Take a look at the notation. It has taken me a few years of hard slog to be able to understand what it means. Starting with a revision of algebra and just continual reading and learning. Now I would say that is studying physics.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #471 on: 06/08/2016 13:42:38 »
If you map the potential differences around two dense objects in orbit around each other you will actually be able to plot the propagation of gravitational waves as a time evolving system. When you have finished your calculation there is now data with which to compare it. If they match you are likely to be going in the right direction. This is why physics without mathematics is not viable.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #472 on: 06/08/2016 14:22:39 »
OK Let's have a look at one of the topics I am currently studying as a result of reading up on advanced calculus. Time evolution and propagation operators. It is to do with Hamiltonian mechanics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_evolution

That is the level I am now at. Have a look at the page. Take a look at the notation. It has taken me a few years of hard slog to be able to understand what it means. Starting with a revision of algebra and just continual reading and learning. Now I would say that is studying physics.

Well now you've finished telling us why you are so much more qualified than I to come up with an interesting alternative idea regarding physics, I'd like to get back to the fact that I'm requiring a qualified and confident mathematician to calculate the idea that I have come up with.

Thank you...

So you haven't read "The Trouble with Physics" then?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #473 on: 06/08/2016 15:01:55 »
You could be right in your general assumption but wrong in all the reasons you put forward to explain it. How would you know? If I constructed a mathematical model that showed a difference in gravitational potential in inter stellar space contrary to both general relativity and your own hypothesis who would the work belong to? If the model made predictions but was not the result of your ideas what then? How would you go about contesting it?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #474 on: 06/08/2016 15:36:04 »
OK Let's have a look at one of the topics I am currently studying as a result of reading up on advanced calculus. Time evolution and propagation operators. It is to do with Hamiltonian mechanics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_evolution

That is the level I am now at. Have a look at the page. Take a look at the notation. It has taken me a few years of hard slog to be able to understand what it means. Starting with a revision of algebra and just continual reading and learning. Now I would say that is studying physics.

Well now you've finished telling us why you are so much more qualified than I to come up with an interesting alternative idea regarding physics, I'd like to get back to the fact that I'm requiring a qualified and confident mathematician to calculate the idea that I have come up with.

Thank you...

So you haven't read "The Trouble with Physics" then?

I'm not likely to read it. I do know it has upset a lot of string theorists. So mission accomplished for Lee Smolin.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #474 on: 06/08/2016 15:36:04 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length