The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 23249 times)

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #650 on: 23/08/2016 00:18:43 »
My model then adds a 3rd dimension of time dilation.  Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation that is not gravity potential related, but gravity field related.

Tantalising.

A potential-related dilation can only be observed by an observer at a different potential but a field-related  dilation would be apparent to an observer at the same potential but in a different field. So let's put a source on the surface of Mars, say, and an observer at a point in space where the earth's field has decreased to g ~ 4 m/s^2 - around 40,000 km.

It's a feasible experiment!
 
The following users thanked this post: timey

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #651 on: 23/08/2016 00:44:05 »
Good grief my man, you are completely missing the point.

ONLY THAT WHICH HAS ****NO MASS*** WILL BE SUBJECT TO VIKKI RAMSAY GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION!!!

IE: THE SPACE BETWEEN MASSES...

Come on Alan, its not a difficult concept...  Normally you're so bright!  Why the mental block?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #652 on: 23/08/2016 01:22:32 »
Timey, if you are going to follow what I am going to say you need to read up on the imaginary unit, the complex plane and the unit circle. Let me know when you have done that.
 
The following users thanked this post: timey

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #653 on: 23/08/2016 02:43:01 »
Will do that...be back soon.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #654 on: 23/08/2016 21:11:29 »
Timey, if you are going to follow what I am going to say you need to read up on the imaginary unit, the complex plane and the unit circle. Let me know when you have done that.

Jeff - I understand imaginary numbers in relation to the complex plane...

I also understand unit circle, although this understanding is in some respect aesthetically impaired.  This may be ironed out when I come to see your process, but if I see it becoming a problem, I'll raise the reservation in context, rather than now.

If I could gently remind you that as much explanation of process in words as is possible will be helpful...
...and now please do go on, I'm really interested to hear what you have say...
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #655 on: 23/08/2016 22:16:22 »
Good grief my man, you are completely missing the point.

ONLY THAT WHICH HAS ****NO MASS*** WILL BE SUBJECT TO VIKKI RAMSAY GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION!!!

IE: THE SPACE BETWEEN MASSES...

Come on Alan, its not a difficult concept...  Normally you're so bright!  Why the mental block?

So what happens in the space between masses? If "nothing" then time of any sort is irrelevant. If "photons" then the sturdy old GR equations seem to work pretty well. As far as we know, the space betwen masses contains the gravitational field of the masses it is between, and it seems that both particles and photons travelling in that space follow those boring Einsteinian pathways.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #656 on: 24/08/2016 00:49:54 »
How can nothing happen in the spaces between mass?

All mass is constantly changing position in it on every scale.  Quantum, micro, macro and cosmic.

All masses are subject to both GR and SR time dilation, but still have to travel 'through' Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation in these spaces between mass.

The consequences of mass (or light*) travelling through Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation will 'appear' observationally as what we currently describe as an acceleration of gravity.

*in my model - light, having no rest mass, is not subject to gravity potential energy or kinetic energy, and the changes in wavelength light of any frequency experiences n a gravity field are purely Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation related.
« Last Edit: 24/08/2016 00:54:51 by timey »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #657 on: 24/08/2016 11:40:31 »
To make a visual description of Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation:

We can take a small clock face radius... and the velocity that the outer tip end of the seconds hand will move at in order to depict the time period of a standard second will be of a certain velocity.

If we take a bigger clock face radius, the velocity that the tip of the seconds hand has to move at to carry on depicting the time period of a standard second will increase.

If we do not increase the velocity that the tip of the seconds hand moves at round this bigger radius, we are no longer depicting the time period of a standard second.  A second will be longer.

If we decrease the radius of the face of the clock, and do not change the velocity of the seconds hand, then the clock will be depicting seconds that are shorter than the standard second.

There is a direct relationship here between length and velocity...

If we look at the situation reversed, whereas we understand by how much the velocity of the seconds hand needs to be increased for the bigger clock, and we increase the seconds hand to that velocity, but neglect to increase the radius of the clock... The seconds hand will be depicting seconds that are faster than would be for the clock with the greater radius.

We can see that keeping the seconds hand on a clock radius at a constant velocity and changing the radius of the clock face can work to determine the lengths of dilated or contracted seconds.

I can see that it would be possible, perhaps, to mathematically work out exactly which ratio of radius to velocity a standard second is best suited to, and then simply dilate or contract the radius to depict dilated or contracted standard seconds.

A mass size will determine the strength of a gravity field, and the strength of a gravity field will determine the length of a second, but I'm pretty sure it is the inverse square law of the reducing strength of the gravity field that will determine how the length of this second increases in the space between masses, with distance from mass.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #658 on: 24/08/2016 15:17:06 »
Nothing can happen in the space between masses because there is by definition nothing there for it to happen to. The concept of time is meaningless in the absence of change.

Now let's have a small mossbauer source and a small receptor, some distance apart in deep space. "Small" so that neither has a significant gravitational field, and they arfe a long way from any other object. Describe what happens to the photon as the distance between source and receptor varies.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #659 on: 24/08/2016 17:04:59 »
Nothing there for it to happened to: That is simply not true.  Mass is situated in these spaces and Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation affects what mass does in these spaces.

The fact that mass experiences time differently to how the spaces between masses experience time doesn't negate these masses from being affected by Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation, and I am saying that Vikki Ramsay time dilation is already being calculated within current physics as an acceleration of gravity.

As to the mossbauers being alone in deep space, I'm not up on particle physics, or the process by which atoms and molecular structures form and decay, but I suspect that 2 mossbauers alone in deep space would no longer be mossbauers.

But... Light of any frequencies wavelength will have become proportionally really, really long, and I am saying that this is because the time period of a second in deep space relative to a standard second is really, really long, and light in my model is not subject to gravity potential energy, or kinetic energy and therefore is ***only*** subject to Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #660 on: 24/08/2016 17:28:15 »
I am saying that Vikki Ramsay time dilation is already being calculated within current physics as an acceleration of gravity.
but g is zero in deep space between masses and increases smoothly as you approach a mass, with no change in time dilation other than that calculated by GR and SR.

Quote
As to the mossbauers being alone in deep space, I'm not up on particle physics, or the process by which atoms and molecular structures form and decay, but I suspect that 2 mossbauers alone in deep space would no longer be mossbauers.
and there you would be wrong. Gravity or lack thereof has no effect on nucleon decay except as predicted by GR and SR (cosmic ray muon decay is very interesting in that respect)

Quote
But... Light of any frequencies wavelength will have become proportionally really, really long, and I am saying that this is because the time period of a second in deep space relative to a standard second is really, really long, and light in my model is not subject to gravity potential energy, or kinetic energy and therefore is ***only*** subject to Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation.
If by "really really long" you don't mean infinite, then what value would you give it? Remembering that E = hc/lambda (can't do Greek on this forum anymore!) you will need a very large value for intergalactic c (which doesn't seem to accord with experiment) or somewhere for the energy to go, so that it can all be restored the instant the photon reaches a detector.

Whilst not decrying your inventiveness, the soon-to-be-famous VRGTT model so far seems to have added a lot of complication without explaining anything. But it's early days. It took 2000 years and a couple of human sacrifices to prove that Aristotle was a liar!
« Last Edit: 24/08/2016 19:03:02 by alancalverd »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #661 on: 24/08/2016 21:11:15 »
Gravity gets weaker via the inverse square law.

I'm sorry but under the remit of inverse square, it would seem to me that an absolute zero gravity field cannot exist within the universe.

*

That would be red shifted light wavelength between galaxy sort of length, which is why the diagram I sent you shows that the distance that current physics thinks a light source is, and the distance that a light source is in my model are different, and that a light source is closer to us than GR is calculating.

*

Righto - thanks for the info on mossbauer.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #662 on: 24/08/2016 22:01:03 »
Alan - my model basically is GR minus Hubble's law, minus the abandoned cosmological constant that physics reinstates in the form of dark energy.

My model states e=mc^2 as for rest mass only, and states observation of additional energy, (thermal, potential, or kinetic), added to rest mass, or for kinetic energy subtracted from the added thermal or potential energies as being time dilation related.  An increase in energy will cause an observation that will appear in our current physics understanding as an acceleration of gravity.

My model doesn't add mass to light.

Apart from adding to the equivalence principle the statement:
"The speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time"

...my model does not differ further from GR, and the proportions of the maths that I am suggesting will be proportional to the maths of GR, but for alternate reasons.

GR requires additional unobserved phenomenon to balance the books, does not describe the big bang, inflation period, contraction, nor can it be reconciled with quantum.

My model does not require unobserved additions, does describe the mechanics of big bang, inflation period, contraction, and can be reconciled with quantum.

So what exactly is so great about GR that my model adds unnecessary complications that don't explain anything?
« Last Edit: 24/08/2016 22:05:51 by timey »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #663 on: 25/08/2016 22:39:42 »
OK We can consider a situation in which negative kinetic energy exists. As you know kinetic energy is defined by the expression 1/2*m*v^2. This is always a positive value. In order to obtain a negative value either mass is negative or velocity is imaginary. A negative mass could be associated with a repulsive force. What about imaginary velocity? More later.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #664 on: 26/08/2016 12:49:48 »
Question: Can we define a force carrier with negative kinetic energy? If it has zero rest mass and a constant velocity then it has to depend upon the formula used to derive the wave function and how it evolves over time.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #665 on: 26/08/2016 19:16:41 »
Another important question. Would a graviton have to be trapped behind an event horizon? This may not appear to be pertinent but it is. As I will demonstrate.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #666 on: 26/08/2016 23:55:09 »
While I have 5 minutes spare ... For a positive mass with imaginary velocity the gamma function would be of the same form gamma = 1/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} but where v^2 is in the range 0 to -c^2. So gamma can be changed to gamma = 1/sqrt{1+v^2/c^2}. This means that for a velocity of zero no change in mass as expected. However as the imaginary velocity 'increases' the mass reduces. It reaches 1/2 its original mass when v^2 = -c^2. We could imagine this energy loss as dark energy if we were so inclined. Also in this scenario length extends and time speeds up as the energy is radiated away. That sounds a lot like dark energy. More thoughts on the graviton later.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #667 on: 28/08/2016 00:13:00 »
For completeness I am posting the wikipedia link on negative mass. There are some significant issues with the concept. Included but not limited to the direction of the momentum vector and the sign of both active and passive gravitational mass. A combination of imaginary velocity and negative mass may resolve some issues but may no longer describe something akin to dark energy.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #668 on: 28/08/2016 19:58:27 »
It's not particularly clear where you are going with this...

I get the negative velocity aspect, and understand that imaginary velocity could make a description of Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation.

But... I have specifically stated that there is no mass energy equivalence going on in my model.  An addition of energy increases the rate of time for the mass, and this increase in the rate of time appears as an acceleration.

There is also no requirement for dark energy in my model.  My models describes a universe that has been very slowly contracting from the moment of initial inflation, and it is this contraction that is accelerating as mass further clumps.

The observation of the extended wavelengths of red shifted light are Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation related.  As undead the reverse contracted blue shifted wavelengths are.

I have been staying quiet to give you room to make your pitch whatever it is.  Could be you are using the mass energy equivalence and dark energy references to accentuate your overall point, this being I had thought because of your post saying that there is a possibility that I might be right - but you are rather dragging it out a little perhaps...
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #669 on: 29/08/2016 10:13:25 »
Well you don't get it then. The apparent expansion indicated by red shift depends upon the speed of the particle emitting the dark energy. If these particles were increasing in speed over time then the acceleration of expansion could be an illusion. Making exactly your point. Highly speculative and very likely wrong but it does support your argument. Since it's your way or the highway this will likely be the last time I try to help you.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #670 on: 29/08/2016 11:13:05 »
A piece of advice timey. Always make your own mind up. Don't let some author with an axe to grind make it up for you. The best thing you can ever do is revisit the history of physics. Find out why certain things came about. Try reading about Tycho Brahe. You should read a little about him. Newton would have been a footnote in history without Tycho. Kepler's laws of planetary motion wouldn't be named after him. Above all you will learn the utmost importance of observation.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #671 on: 29/08/2016 14:08:42 »
A piece of advice timey. Always make your own mind up. Don't let some author with an axe to grind make it up for you. The best thing you can ever do is revisit the history of physics. Find out why certain things came about. Try reading about Tycho Brahe. You should read a little about him. Newton would have been a footnote in history without Tycho. Kepler's laws of planetary motion wouldn't be named after him. Above all you will learn the utmost importance of observation.

I have been reading about physics for 8+years.  Books, wiki, and cited material that I have googled from indexes, etc.
I read very fast.  I can read an average sized novel in just a couple of hours.  Physics books I slow down for, but generally I'm done in a couple of days.

My experience is that physics authors writing 300+ pages on physics, actually have to rely on describing the history of physics in order to fill the pages.  There just isn't that much to write about physics itself, we know hardly anything and reading extensively about physics quickly becomes repetitive...

Manjit Kumar's 'quantum' is a prime example of pages filled with history.  Bill Bryon's 'history of everything' takes you through the discoveries of physics from the geocentric model to present day.   Lee Smolin's 'the trouble with physics' also gives the history of physics discoveries and explains how each factor changes the perception of physics.

To change one little factor of how something physically works in this universe has consequences that affect how  everything works together as a unit... I have given in depth thought to what consequences arise from the addition of Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation, and the consequences are the cyclic model that I describe.

***If the addition of Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation did not result in this cyclic universe I would not be here on this forum extrapolating my idea***

You cannot state that you have helped me, or have been trying to help me unless you follow the remit of my model and calculate the idea that I put forward.  To change any part of the mechanics that I describe does not result in the cyclic universe of my model.

My model can be calculated by transposing the Doppler shift velocities of Hubble's Red shifts via the speed distance time formula into values of time, instead of velocities.  A wave'length' is now becoming longer (red shift) or shorter (blue shift) because of Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation.  The light takes a longer or shorter amount of time to coved the same unit of distance at the speed of light.
ie: 299 792 458 metres per variable second. (equivalence principle is upheld)

This means that the velocities associated with the expansion of the universe are not occurring and the universe is not expanding.  It in fact means that the gravity field of space, for the most part, is becoming weaker at an accelerated rate that is due to the trend of the universes mass content  becoming even further clumped together.
This trend to universal mass clumping together is caused by gravity, and accelerated by Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation.
This is a description of the contraction of the universe, however this is not describing all masses retracing their outward journey of inflation period in reverse to result in a point as the usual picture of universal contraction is given.  This contraction is occurring as masses conglomerate into concentrated patches of mass called galaxies and black holes, that collide and form bigger galaxies and black holes of greater gravity, and distances in space of ever (for the most part) decreasing gravity fields.

There is your alternate reason for observation of red shift.

And this alternate reason results in the universe not expanding, therefore there is NO requirement for dark energy to counteract the gravitational force.

As Einstein added a cosmological constant to counteract the gravitational contraction of the universe, and then retracted it in the face of Hubble's Doppler velocities, my model dispenses with both and then states that although the universal gravitational attraction has an established value and strength, that there should be a clear distinction between gravitational attraction and gravitational acceleration...
Although masses will be attracted to each other, this attraction will be of a certain value, and the acceleration of this gravitational attraction is Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation related.

I suspect that the dimensionless value of the gravitational coupling constant might be relevant...

However - I am not going to my spend time trying to explain this model here on this forum any further just to be referenced to repetitive reading material.  Its insulting!

I will now put my energy elsewhere on the net into raising monies to HIRE a mathematician to calculate what I am describing.

Good day to you all...
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #672 on: 29/08/2016 16:29:53 »
You don't have a model since you don't understand the mathematics. You can't put the cart before the horse. Hence why you are looking for a mathematician. If you can't express what you propose in understandable terms then it is likely wrong. Good luck anyway. You will need it.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #673 on: 29/08/2016 17:39:41 »
Correction:

Nobody has ever described a contracting universe as I have, nor a ***"medium that everything must travel through in space that affects wavelength" *** as I have been for a whole year now on this forum.
(Your comment concerning a medium that affects wavelength in space on David Cooper's thread has not gone unnoticed at all BTW)

Therefore I do have a model, but so far it is a model without mathematics.

Correction:  I do understand mathematics I just don't know how to manipulate them, which is why I came to this forum to ask for help, which I am not getting.

I don't need good luck, just money to pay someone to follow my instructions and guide me through the possibilities and impossibilities of the mathematics that I need describing without the prejudice I'm experience here, that I will indeed be paying said professional mathematician NOT to have.

My advice - you might consider that the fault you find in my model, but neglect to describe, could possibly be due to your own lacking in comprehension skills...
I always question my own understanding before denouncing another's...
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #674 on: 29/08/2016 18:19:38 »
Correction:

Nobody has ever described a contracting universe as I have, nor a ***"medium that everything must travel through in space that affects wavelength" *** as I have been for a whole year now on this forum.
(Your comment concerning a medium that affects wavelength in space on David Cooper's thread has not gone unnoticed at all BTW)

Incorrect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

Quote
Therefore I do have a model, but so far it is a model without mathematics.

Correction:  I do understand mathematics I just don't know how to manipulate them, which is why I came to this forum to ask for help, which I am not getting.

How can you understand the mathematics when you don't know how they work?

Quote
I don't need good luck, just money to pay someone to follow my instructions and guide me through the possibilities and impossibilities of the mathematics that I need describing without the prejudice I'm experience here, that I will indeed be paying said professional mathematician NOT to have.

My advice - you might consider that the fault you find in my model, but neglect to describe, could possibly be due to your own lacking in comprehension skills...
I always question my own understanding before denouncing another's...

As I said good luck. If you believe that physics is not about sharing ideas and hypotheses then that is your choice. How many people do you think contributed to relativity therory. One? Two? Several?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #674 on: 29/08/2016 18:19:38 »

 

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