The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 23533 times)

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #600 on: 19/08/2016 02:16:26 »
Jeff in reply to your post which I cannot quote either without blacklisted term error message appearing... (this means that all posting functions from thread board are no longer working for me from my phone, (which is all I have), only the reply function from recent posts board is operational now)

Aside from the necessity for a redefinition of G...

...with regards to t1,t2,t3, this would usually describe a time sequence of events, so let's be clear that this t1,t2,t3 are describing 'how' time passes rather than the passing of time.  In fact we can state that t1,t2,t3 are time calculations that are dependant on the geometric space coordinates, which are then totted up to result in the time aspect of the spacetime matrix.

It is my 'loose' understanding that matrix maths are an amalgamation of several or more aspects that are sliding scales in relation to each other.

The proposed inverted  time dilation for open space is faster near mass and slower far from mass.

The GR gravitational time dilation for mass in relation to mass is slower near mass and faster out in space.

SR motion related time dilation is slower for a faster motion, and faster for a slower motion.

We find that our time matrix has sliding scales.  If you could calculate a 1 hertz relationship to energy, and a 1 energy unit relationship to time periods, I'd suggest this would be the way to proceed.

As to a redefinition of G or g, you made a very interesting post that I've reposted twice now concerning sigma wave.  I can put this in context again if you like, but you turned your nose up last time.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #601 on: 19/08/2016 08:42:41 »
At some point in the proceedings I reckon we will have the equations required to build a TARDIS.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #602 on: 19/08/2016 09:42:32 »
Timey: Can't quote for some reason - keeps coming up with "blacklisted term" but anyway

kinetic energy E = (mv^2)/2 where v is velocity.

If m = 0 then E = hf.

Since everything in the observable universe is either a massive particle or a photon, that should cover all the maths you need.
« Last Edit: 19/08/2016 09:44:49 by alancalverd »
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #603 on: 19/08/2016 12:16:59 »
Alan - Thanks for confirming that it as simply as I had thought...

In my model kinetic energy must be subtracted, or proportionally subtracted to calculate SR motion related time dilation, and where rest mass is zero, kinetic energy doesn't apply.  And... Planck's h constant is a time dilation related function.

Jeff - My model, when calculated, should reveal (if I am correct), that it is indeed possible to warp the SR time dilation aspect in relation to the proposed inverted gravitational  time dilation aspect, and travel distance in open space a lot faster than we currently do...
Although this will in practice be a type of time travel of sorts, it will not possible to arrive in the future, or revisit the past, only to initiate the conditions to make the journey distance in a lesser amount of time passing... but I am now running before we have even learned to crawl, so...

Alan, Jeff, or anyone else - I guess my question is:

Is anyone going to help me calculate this model?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #604 on: 19/08/2016 13:20:22 »
If you can explain it, and it makes dimensional sense, the calculation will be trivial.

To start, just take one case - the static clock at altitude (no need to mess with kinetic energy!) - and explain in words why it seems to run fast when observed from the ground.
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #605 on: 19/08/2016 14:15:51 »
A clock at altitude is subject to additional gravity potential energy.  (the mass of the clock is comprised of atomic structures that are comprised of particle components, and it is these particle components that are increased in potential energy... and this increase in potential energy will occur proportionally to the energy relationship that these component particles of atomic structures maintain within their structures, and the equivalence principle is therefore maintained, and physical cause is given for an observer aging in keeping with his clock)
This additional potential energy increases the frequency of the clocks energy transitions.

The clock is at this point stationary relative to the comparison clock on the ground...  And in that any kinetic energy factor that is occurring due to the motion of both clocks co-moving with the planet Earth's motion, this kinetic energy factor is equal for both clocks.

If we then zoom a clock into motion relative to the stationary clock, (in a uniform gravity field for simplicity), then additional KE will increase the frequency of the clocks energy transitions...  We know this is wrong via experiment and observation, but not to worry, KE is a dissipating energy.  There is every reason to subtract it either entirely or, more likely proportionally, to calculate SR time dilation effect.

Its just that one would have to find another means of calculating the observation of light, which I have suggested, and given the example above of adding kinetic energy to mass for a slower rate of time, the concept of calculating kinetic energy for light is rather dubiously conceived anyway.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #606 on: 19/08/2016 17:54:14 »
Quote
This additional potential energy increases the frequency of the clocks energy transitions.
Unsubstantiated poppycock.

If increasing gravitational potential increased the binding energy of electrons in atoms, things would shrink and get stronger at altitude. Do they? 
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #607 on: 19/08/2016 19:35:15 »
Erm, you seem to have forgotten that this 'new' concept incorporates a redefinition of gravitational acceleration.  The mass of the electron will not be increased by the addition of potential energy...
(As a side issue - Pete has posted elsewhere that currents physics states that the concept of relativistic mass isn't increased by the addition of potential energy.  Can you confirm if this is true?)
...the additional potential energy will appear as though it is additional gravitational acceleration, but really it is just quicker time, and the binding will happen quicker due to this quicker time, not due to additional gravitational force.

Therefore there will be no shrinkage, as you suggest.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #608 on: 19/08/2016 21:04:17 »
Nothing to do with the mass of the electron. I'm simply examining your assertion that the quantum levels in an atom or molecule are affected by gravitational potential. 
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #609 on: 19/08/2016 21:26:36 »
So why would more energy cause a greater strength of binding and result in shrinkage?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #610 on: 19/08/2016 21:44:50 »
That's what binding energy does. It holds the atoms together. It also determines the wavelength of the photon emissions associated with electron transitions, so if one alters, so must the other.
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #611 on: 19/08/2016 22:03:25 »
...and what is the opposing force that stops the atomic structure from collapsing?

Given that all energy relationships will increase proportionally?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #612 on: 19/08/2016 23:54:26 »
...and what is the opposing force that stops the atomic structure from collapsing?'
quantum mechanics

Quote
Given that all energy relationships will increase proportionally?
bollocks (see "quantum mechanics" above)
« Last Edit: 20/08/2016 00:04:48 by alancalverd »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #613 on: 19/08/2016 23:57:06 »
Quote from: timey

Aside from the necessity for a redefinition of G...

As to a redefinition of G or g, you made a very interesting post that I've reposted twice now concerning sigma wave.  I can put this in context again if you like, but you turned your nose up last time.

Here G is not the gravitational constant. It is a function with a set of parameters. I am awaiting your instructions on how to define the expression that the function will use.
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #614 on: 20/08/2016 00:16:42 »
...and what is the opposing force that stops the atomic structure from collapsing?'
quantum mechanics

Quote
Given that all energy relationships will increase proportionally?
bollocks (see "quantum mechanics" above)
I'm sorry, the meaning of your  reply is unclear...

I am saying that an atomic structure that has a binding energy that holds the structure together either incorporates, or has an opposing energy that stops the structure from collapsing upon itself.

If the energy that holds the structure together is increased by gravity potential energy, the energy that prevents the atom from collapsing will also be increased proportionally.

ie: No shrinkage.

Wots with the poppycock and bollocks mate?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #615 on: 20/08/2016 00:23:36 »
I'm sure you will find the Poppycock and Bollocks paper somewhere on arxiv.
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #616 on: 20/08/2016 00:32:04 »
Quote from: timey

Aside from the necessity for a redefinition of G...

As to a redefinition of G or g, you made a very interesting post that I've reposted twice now concerning sigma wave.  I can put this in context again if you like, but you turned your nose up last time.
Here G is not the gravitational constant. It is a function with a set of parameters. I am awaiting your instructions on how to define the expression that the function will use.
I do not understand the mechanics of how you will mathematically use the G function in relation to the spatial and time dimensions.

I just see spatial coordinates giving gravity values being plugged into the 3 dimensional time matrix, and the sliding scales of energy levels of the time matrix being transposed to time values and totted up to give us the 'proper time' at any given spatial coordinate.
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #617 on: 20/08/2016 00:38:39 »
I'm sure you will find the Poppycock and Bollocks paper somewhere on arxiv.
Good, good, and back to the subject matter perhaps?  A non collapsing atomic structure?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #618 on: 20/08/2016 10:59:53 »
Quote
If the energy that holds the structure together is increased by gravity potential energy, the energy that prevents the atom from collapsing will also be increased proportionally.

Part of your problem is that the atom has no idea of its gravitational potential since that is only defined with respect to an arbitrary body of which it has no knowledge.

A hydrogen atom on the moon has gravitational potential  x joules with respect to the surface of the earth, y with respect to the sun, z with respect to Mars, and -a with respect to a point in free space at infinity. How does it know what energy corresponds to its own hyperfine 1s split (the "21 cm line")? The only rational answer is that the emitted photon energy is constant everywhere and the gravitational frequency shift is dependent on the relative position of the observer. 

For what it's worth, you can also untangle photons and clocks by considering "hydrogen 1s". The photon frequency is about 1.4 GHz, so can be used both as a detectable radio wave (astronomers love it) and as the timebase for a practical clock.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #619 on: 20/08/2016 11:03:26 »
I'm sure you will find the Poppycock and Bollocks paper somewhere on arxiv.

Not just "somewhere" but almost everywhere! They are very prolific authors, particularly in the socail sciences. I believe they have been extensively studied by Dunning and Kruger, who were intrigued by the vast quantity and negligible quality of their output. 
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #620 on: 20/08/2016 12:20:01 »
Quote
If the energy that holds the structure together is increased by gravity potential energy, the energy that prevents the atom from collapsing will also be increased proportionally.

Part of your problem is that the atom has no idea of its gravitational potential since that is only defined with respect to an arbitrary body of which it has no knowledge.

A hydrogen atom on the moon has gravitational potential  x joules with respect to the surface of the earth, y with respect to the sun, z with respect to Mars, and -a with respect to a point in free space at infinity. How does it know what energy corresponds to its own hyperfine 1s split (the "21 cm line")? The only rational answer is that the emitted photon energy is constant everywhere and the gravitational frequency shift is dependent on the relative position of the observer. 

For what it's worth, you can also untangle photons and clocks by considering "hydrogen 1s". The photon frequency is about 1.4 GHz, so can be used both as a detectable radio wave (astronomers love it) and as the timebase for a practical clock.
Oh of course silly me!  I see my error now.  I am expecting a particle to have consciousness of how much energy it has and they don't have brains.

Idiots aye!

http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtut/atomic/WhyTheElectron.html

The electrons in the link above don't have brains, but even if we don't currently know where they are in the radius of the nucleus, the gravity potential that they experience insures that they don't fall into the nucleus of the atom.  Increase the potential energy of the atom and the whole system will still operate as is, only faster.

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

Quote:
" Classically a bound system is at a lower energy level than its unbound constituents, and its mass must be less than the total mass of its unbound constituents. For systems with low binding energies, this "lost" mass after binding may be fractionally small. For systems with high binding energies, however, the missing mass may be an easily measurable fraction. This missing mass may be lost during the process of binding as energy in the form of heat or light, with the removed energy corresponding to removed mass through Einstein's equation E = mc2. Note that in the process of binding, the constituents of the system might enter higher energy states of the nucleus/atom/molecule, but these types of energy also have mass, and it is necessary that they be removed from the system before its mass may decrease. Once the system cools to normal temperatures and returns to ground states in terms of energy levels, there is less mass remaining in the system than there was when it first combined and was at high energy. In that case, the removed heat represents exactly the mass "deficit", and the heat itself retains the mass which was lost (from the point of view of the initial system). This mass appears in any other system which absorbs the heat and gains thermal energy.[8]

As an illustration, consider two objects attracting each other in space through their gravitational field. The attraction force accelerates the objects and they gain some speed toward each other converting the potential (gravity) energy into kinetic (movement) energy. When either the particles 1) pass through each other without interaction or 2) elastically repel during the collision, the gained kinetic energy (related to speed), starts to revert into potential form driving the collided particles apart. The decelerating particles will return to the initial distance and beyond into infinity or stop and repeat the collision (oscillation takes place)."
Unquote:

Above we can see that a bound energy system can and does enter higher energy states.

Also we can see that your earlier calculations of potential energy for particle constituents of an atom were misconceived, because the bound energy of an atom amounts to less than the sum of its constituents, as energy is used and dissipated by the mechanics of the atom.
 
So...particles do not need brains in order to physically react to energy increases or decreases, it's only physicists who need brains to understand why!

...and when altering the why conceptually to make a fit for a new theory, the mathematics will not be the same...
I am posting here in search of a mathematician who actually is interested in calculating a new concept.

...and in that I have been posting here since April last year, putting a hell of a lot of energy into doing so, in light of the last 2 posts above, I can see that I've been wasting this energy and my time, which I shall now put into creating a crowd fund raiser with the intention of raising money to ***employ*** a mathematician instead.

So I guess its now a case of:

That's all folks!
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #621 on: 20/08/2016 12:52:56 »
You don't need a mathematician. You need to listen to a physicist. Or try reading your references. You swill find the word "gravity" remarkably absent beyond

Quote
The proposal, first made in 1913, that the centrifugal force of the revolving electron just exactly balances the attractive force of the nucleus (in analogy with the centrifugal force of the moon in its orbit exactly counteracting the pull of the Earth's gravity) is a nice picture, but is simply untenable.
 

....now read on....
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #622 on: 20/08/2016 12:54:07 »
You don't need to talk to a mathematician. You need to listen to a physicist. Or try reading your references. You will find the word "gravity" remarkably absent beyond

Quote
The proposal, first made in 1913, that the centrifugal force of the revolving electron just exactly balances the attractive force of the nucleus (in analogy with the centrifugal force of the moon in its orbit exactly counteracting the pull of the Earth's gravity) is a nice picture, but is simply untenable.
 

....now read on....
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #623 on: 20/08/2016 14:44:45 »
You don't need to talk to a mathematician. You need to listen to a physicist. Or try reading your references. You will find the word "gravity" remarkably absent beyond

Quote
The proposal, first made in 1913, that the centrifugal force of the revolving electron just exactly balances the attractive force of the nucleus (in analogy with the centrifugal force of the moon in its orbit exactly counteracting the pull of the Earth's gravity) is a nice picture, but is simply untenable.
 

....now read on....
Why is it that you think that in changing the 'why' of a particles reaction to energy, this reverts the physics to a previously held concept?

Despite the fact that a nucleus and it's surrounding electrons do not resemble the moon in gravitational orbit to the earth, the process of how the electrons do interact with the nucleus has gravity potential energy and kinetic energy written all over it.

Furthermore, you said the energy level has nothing to do with the mass of the electron, but as the link states, the energy level affects the mass of the electron as per current mathematics.

Simply changing this concept of an increase in mass to being an increase in the rate of time, (observed by experiment via the greater frequency of energy transitions), in relation to an inverted gravitational time dilation of the open space of the atom, affords same observation for altered reason.

This altered reason results in a fully described cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle in the black hole phenomenon, and needs no unobserved phenomenon to dimensionally balance its mechanics.  The model can explain all observation and gives explanation for previously unknown quantities and unexplained observations.

I'm all for having a laugh and a bit of fun but I don't really enjoy having 8+ years of serious thought process and related study dismissed out of hand by words like bollocks and poppycock, when sometimes it would seem that you haven't even read the post you are commenting on.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #624 on: 20/08/2016 15:59:33 »
i
You don't need to talk to a mathematician. You need to listen to a physicist. Or try reading your references. You will find the word "gravity" remarkably absent beyond

Quote
The proposal, first made in 1913, that the centrifugal force of the revolving electron just exactly balances the attractive force of the nucleus (in analogy with the centrifugal force of the moon in its orbit exactly counteracting the pull of the Earth's gravity) is a nice picture, but is simply untenable.
 

....now read on....
Why is it that you think that in changing the 'why' of a particles reaction to energy, this reverts the physics to a previously held concept?

Despite the fact that a nucleus and it's surrounding electrons do not resemble the moon in gravitational orbit to the earth, the process of how the electrons do interact with the nucleus has gravity potential energy and kinetic energy written all over it.

Somewhere in all those books you must have read of probability densities.

Gravitation is so weak in nuclear interactions that it may as well be absent. It takes a very large mass for gravitation to have any appreciable effect.

Quote
Furthermore, you said the energy level has nothing to do with the mass of the electron, but as the link states, the energy level affects the mass of the electron as per current mathematics.

I'm not even sure what you are referring to here.

Quote
Simply changing this concept of an increase in mass to being an increase in the rate of time, (observed by experiment via the greater frequency of energy transitions), in relation to an inverted gravitational time dilation of the open space of the atom, affords same observation for altered reason.

It's called spacetime not masstime.

Quote
This altered reason results in a fully described cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle in the black hole phenomenon, and needs no unobserved phenomenon to dimensionally balance its mechanics.  The model can explain all observation and gives explanation for previously unknown quantities and unexplained observations.

I'm all for having a laugh and a bit of fun but I don't really enjoy having 8+ years of serious thought process and related study dismissed out of hand by words like bollocks and poppycock, when sometimes it would seem that you haven't even read the post you are commenting on.

If you really believe the universe is cyclic then learn how physics describes the current situation before attempting to change it. I am afraid it is not possible to understand the required physics without understanding the mathematics. That is just the way it is. That is why you are looking for a mathematician to help you. If all the physicists(mathematicians) are telling you that you are wrong then you need to understand why.
« Last Edit: 20/08/2016 16:02:42 by jeffreyH »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #624 on: 20/08/2016 15:59:33 »

 

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