The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 23501 times)

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #475 on: 06/08/2016 15:49:12 »
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?
If there is an inverted time gravitational time dilation, this leads to the cyclic universe that I have described in words.

I don't need a mathematical model to show me that this is the case, and although I understand that most peoples brains would need the maths to be able to visualise what I am talking about, I don't, in much the same way that I don't need to see musical notation in order to replicate a tune.

If I am correct, then no one would be able to say this was their idea.  It's written in stone on forums and websites and email communications that I am the originator of this idea.

If I am correct in this idea, the person who is responsible for calculating the fact would be world famous for their contribution.  Why would they contest mine?
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #476 on: 06/08/2016 16:05:19 »
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?
If there is an inverted time gravitational time dilation, this leads to the cyclic universe that I have described in words.

I don't need a mathematical model to show me that this is the case, and although I understand that most peoples brains would need the maths to be able to visualise what I am talking about, I don't, in much the same way that I don't need to see musical notation in order to replicate a tune.

If I am correct, then no one would be able to say this was their idea.  It's written in stone on forums and websites and email communications that I am the originator of this idea.

If I am correct in this idea, the person who is responsible for calculating the fact would be world famous for their contribution.  Why would they contest mine?

Because it doesn't compute. Your mental model is not mathematically rigorous. That is what various people have been trying to tell you.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #477 on: 06/08/2016 16:17:57 »
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?
If there is an inverted time gravitational time dilation, this leads to the cyclic universe that I have described in words.

I don't need a mathematical model to show me that this is the case, and although I understand that most peoples brains would need the maths to be able to visualise what I am talking about, I don't, in much the same way that I don't need to see musical notation in order to replicate a tune.

If I am correct, then no one would be able to say this was their idea.  It's written in stone on forums and websites and email communications that I am the originator of this idea.

If I am correct in this idea, the person who is responsible for calculating the fact would be world famous for their contribution.  Why would they contest mine?

Because it doesn't compute. Your mental model is not mathematically rigorous. That is what various people have been trying to tell you.

Rubbish!!!

No one here has made attempt to calculate my model, nor, for the most part, made serious attempt to understand it...
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #478 on: 06/08/2016 16:21:46 »
Let me see. How many mathermaticians are famous. Partially famous in the UK Johnny Ball and Carole Vordeman spring to mind. Internationally you might add Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein. So mathematics is not much of a spectator sport. Normally you won't see mathematicians pushing themselves into the limelight. If you ask someone in Britain who won the Nobel prize for physics in 1966 they might look at you strangely. Ask them who scored the winning goal in the final of the world cup of the same year and you would get a much more enthusiastic response. So good luck in your search for that fame hungry calculator.
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #479 on: 06/08/2016 16:40:14 »
Just so there is no ambiguity here is the definition of a mathematical inverse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_(mathematics)#/search

If we follow the definition then an inverse of time dilation has to involve an inverse of gamma which you yourself said was not what you meant. If that is the case then demonstrate the method you see that will produce the required effect without an inverse gamma function. The onus is not on us to prove you correct but on you to demonstrate that you are right.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #480 on: 06/08/2016 16:41:07 »

Rubbish!!!

No one here has made attempt to calculate my model, nor, for the most part, made serious attempt to understand it...
No one here timey? I have made every effort to give you the benefit of the doubt. And yet, you make the statement that; "No one here has made attempt to calculate my model, nor, for the most part, made serious attempt to understand it."

All my calculations have produced nothing in support of your theory, nevertheless, I have made an honest effort to understand your ideas and have even written you personal messages in an effort to encourage this thought experiment.

Turn me over,......................I'm done!
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #481 on: 06/08/2016 16:43:14 »
Let me see. How many mathermaticians are famous. Partially famous in the UK Johnny Ball and Carole Vordeman spring to mind. Internationally you might add Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein. So mathematics is not much of a spectator sport. Normally you won't see mathematicians pushing themselves into the limelight. If you ask someone in Britain who won the Nobel prize for physics in 1966 they might look at you strangely. Ask them who scored the winning goal in the final of the world cup of the same year and you would get a much more enthusiastic response. So good luck in your search for that fame hungry calculator.

Says the man who passes comment on a book he hasn't read!
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #482 on: 06/08/2016 16:48:41 »

Rubbish!!!

No one here has made attempt to calculate my model, nor, for the most part, made serious attempt to understand it...
No one here timey? I have made every effort to give you the benefit of the doubt. And yet, you make the statement that; "No one here has made attempt to calculate my model, nor, for the most part, made serious attempt to understand it."

All my calculations have produced nothing in support of your theory, nevertheless, I have made an honest effort to understand your ideas and have even written you personal messages in an effort to encourage this thought experiment.

Turn me over,......................I'm done!
I'm sorry Ethos but you have not posted any of your workings, nor pm'd me any workings.

Alan has posted workings, but he thinks that I think that m*g*h is a calculation of mass, not of potential energy for mass, so...

What can I say?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #483 on: 06/08/2016 16:53:30 »
Just so there is no ambiguity here is the definition of a mathematical inverse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_(mathematics)#/search

If we follow the definition then an inverse of time dilation has to involve an inverse of gamma which you yourself said was not what you meant. If that is the case then demonstrate the method you see that will produce the required effect without an inverse gamma function. The onus is not on us to prove you correct but on you to demonstrate that you are right.
I am quite simply posting on this forum in order to meet a mathematician who will listen, understand what I'm saying and calculate the model.

Period!
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #484 on: 06/08/2016 17:36:23 »
I listened. I understood what you were saying. It didn't work.
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #485 on: 06/08/2016 17:58:14 »
Here is the basis of your model G = F(X(q), Y(dq/dt), Z(-t)). Trust me I am a trained professional.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4714
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #486 on: 06/08/2016 18:09:49 »

Alan has posted workings, but he thinks that I think that m*g*h is a calculation of mass, not of potential energy for mass, so...


Please don't pretend that what you wrote is what I think. It's a quick way to lose a friend and really piss off a potential collaborator.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #487 on: 06/08/2016 19:01:19 »
Here is the basis of your model G = F(X(q), Y(dq/dt), Z(-t)). Trust me I am a trained professional.
As a someone who is telling you that they are not proficient in maths, do you not think that it is a bit of an insult to me that you do not explain your workings in words as well?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #488 on: 06/08/2016 19:03:40 »
[quote authorb=timey link=topic=66831.msg494909#msg494909 date=1470498521]

Alan has posted workings, but he thinks that I think that m*g*h is a calculation of mass, not of potential energy for mass, so...


Please don't pretend that what you wrote is what I think. It's a quick way to lose a friend and really piss off a potential collaborator.
[/quote]Alan, you said earlier this thread that I had said that m*g*h is for calculating mass.  I do nor know what you think unless you tell me.

It is not my intention to insult anyone, I just do not have the time for idol banter.  I've told you my situation, I'm literally existing in the dark ages here, no mod cons, often going hungry and on the verge of having to give up everything I've worked for.  I'm not having a good time, OK.  No enjoying the sunshine, as you have suggested, for me under these circumstances...
« Last Edit: 06/08/2016 19:07:55 by timey »
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #489 on: 06/08/2016 19:30:59 »
Here is the basis of your model G = F(X(q), Y(dq/dt), Z(-t)). Trust me I am a trained professional.
As a someone who is telling you that they are not proficient in maths, do you not think that it is a bit of an insult to me that you do not explain your workings in words as well?

The point is, no you wouldn't understand. Someone could tell you anything with a very plausible sounding explanation. That is a major drawback of your approach. The function above should be more correctly stated as G = F(X1(q), X2(dq/dt), X3(-t)). We have parameters of position, velocity and inverted time. In that order from left to right. We can feed in a time reversed sequence describing an object with negative acceleration moving away from a large mass. We can then compare this with the object actually launched with the same initial velocity as a projective. This way we can check to see if the system is actually time reversible.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #490 on: 06/08/2016 19:58:11 »
Here is the basis of your model G = F(X(q), Y(dq/dt), Z(-t)). Trust me I am a trained professional.
As a someone who is telling you that they are not proficient in maths, do you not think that it is a bit of an insult to me that you do not explain your workings in words as well?

The point is, no you wouldn't understand. Someone could tell you anything with a very plausible sounding explanation. That is a major drawback of your approach. The function above should be more correctly stated as G = F(X1(q), X2(dq/dt), X3(-t)). We have parameters of position, velocity and inverted time. In that order from left to right. We can feed in a time reversed sequence describing an object with negative acceleration moving away from a large mass. We can then compare this with the object actually launched with the same initial velocity as a projective. This way we can check to see if the system is actually time reversible.
If you are calculating a reversal of the process you describe, ie: any type of reversal of time, then this has as much bearing on what I have been describing as your notion of calculating my model by reversing the gamma. ie: none wot-so-ever.
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #491 on: 06/08/2016 20:15:52 »
How do you know this has no bearing? Can you see where I am going with it? If so then be my guest. Tell me where I am heading.
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #492 on: 06/08/2016 20:22:41 »
Ok. So do you want to state publicly that you have no interest now or in the future in the model I am intending to propose.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #493 on: 06/08/2016 22:06:07 »
How do you know this has no bearing? Can you see where I am going with it? If so then be my guest. Tell me where I am heading.

Look Jeff - the only reason I'm calling it inverted gravitational time dilation is because it does the opposite, or almost the opposite, to GR gravitational time dilation in the gravity field.

There is no reversal of any existing dimension.  However there are many ways to skin a cat, I'll admit, and escape velocity does have a part to play in the concept, because an outward trajectory would be moving through slower time, but a trajectory moving towards mass would experience the opposite, so free fall and inertia would constitute the reversal of escape velocity.

Your right, I have no idea what you are driving towards with your description of a time sequence being time reversed, but if you care to tell me, I'm all ears.

P.S. I don't know what the heck you mean by your subsequent post, but when I said on the verve of having to give up, I was referring to my business, my horses and my other financial plans, due to having been treated very badly by people of social responsibility and position who really should have behaved better.  Not giving up on my 8 years development of my idea.  OK.
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #494 on: 06/08/2016 22:11:43 »
So hedging your bets then. That is likely a wise move. Since you can't be exactly sure what my model entails.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #495 on: 06/08/2016 22:46:28 »
So hedging your bets then. That is likely a wise move. Since you can't be exactly sure what my model entails.
I'm not into this school yard crapola.  Its trite!

Any one is always welcome to come up with their own model.  When they explain their model in words, which all serious physicists do, I'll always give it a fair read.
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #496 on: 06/08/2016 22:49:08 »
Ok. My model is called "Inversion of the gravitational gradient in interstellar space".
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #497 on: 06/08/2016 22:57:41 »
Ok. My model is called "Inversion of the gravitational gradient in interstellar space".
Can I speak to a grown up now please
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #498 on: 06/08/2016 23:10:16 »
Let's consider the wavelength of a hypothetical force carrier of the gravitational field. Its wavelength is much longer than that of the photon. The effect of gravitation on the wavelength of light could result in the opposite effect on the wavelength of the graviton. This blue shift would be far less noticeable due to the much longer wavelength. Energy would increase over time but would only be noticeable over very long distances where the force carriers interact with particles in deep space during this interval. This could well have implications for the cosmological constant and both dark matter and energy. How does it sound so far?
« Last Edit: 06/08/2016 23:13:19 by jeffreyH »
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #499 on: 06/08/2016 23:33:37 »
Of course the increasing energy of the gravitational field with radial distance from the centre of a galaxy implies an increase in orbital velocity with increasing radial distance.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #499 on: 06/08/2016 23:33:37 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums