The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 23656 times)

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #675 on: 29/08/2016 20:26:33 »
That is a different cyclic model.  That is the model where the outward expansion slows down stops and everything contracts - in the reverse of how it expanded - to a point again and then 'bounces' into an expansion.
This model places our present day position in this theory as on the outward expansion.
This model had lost a lot of its viability with the discovery that redshifts are indicating that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
The alternative to the logic of this theory is a theory named The Big Freeze.

My model places our present day position as already in the contraction period.  The contraction period started from the moment inflation period ceased.
My model places the black hole phenomenon as the precipitation of both the end and beginning of the universes cycles, and the inflation period is caused by the superluminal jets of the end of the universes cycle's singular black hole.

Nobody has ever described a cyclic universe like this.

I understand how maths work.  I use and experience mathematics in everything I do.  My brain makes mathematical decisions of critical nature every time I negotiate a corner or turn when driving.  My brain calculates exactly where my hand should be to catch a ball.
I understand geometry and patterns.  I understand the ratios of the cogs in an old fashioned pocket watch.  I understand how musical scales are mathematical steps, and harmonics are achieved.

Its how to describe what my brain naturally knows and understands of mathematics in mathematical notation that I do not know how to do.

Of course I understand that physics is a group effort.  I am here sharing my idea for anyone to participate.  If I were a proper physicist no one but myself and 3 other collaborators would hear of this idea until it was proofed and proven, or not at all.

This being because only 4 people can share a Nobel prize, and because if we were wrong we wouldn't want to risk our physics careers in unwanted embarrassment.
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #676 on: 29/08/2016 21:06:11 »
Ever heard the phrase peer review?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #677 on: 29/08/2016 21:48:13 »
Yes - Have you any suggestion?

...or if you are being snide and suggesting that 'you' are peer review... then I concur that it would be a distinct possibility.  You do have a keen mind...

But this would only be on the basis that you actually read what I write, which you don't, as it is now clear that you have been making comments on my description of the mechanics of a cyclic universe that are formulated based on your understanding of a theory of a cyclic universe that is NOT my model!
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #678 on: 30/08/2016 20:43:48 »
You said people work in small groups protective of their work and reputations. I asked you if you had heard of peer review. The two are incompatible.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #679 on: 30/08/2016 22:09:34 »
Out of all the interesting things I've been discussing on this thread, this is your response?

Small groups of professional physicists collaborating on new ideas, as far as I'm aware, mathematically proof these ideas before submitting them for peer revue.

As said - if you have any suggestion as to where I may submit my idea of this model of a cyclic universe that I am describing without mathematical proofs, then please do tell...
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #680 on: 30/08/2016 22:36:14 »
Science doesn't prove things. It can't. Science builds models and theories that approximate processes. In the case of the unit circle we can say that pi/2 is an exact value of the number of radians in an angle but pi is an irrational number. Prove pi is irrational. There is a challenge. You could always google it. BTW do you know how many degrees in pi/2 radians? You say you understand the unit circle.
« Last Edit: 30/08/2016 22:39:29 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #681 on: 31/08/2016 09:00:08 »
Mathematically proofed means proven mathematically viable Jeff...

I could also Google what you are asking me about Pi and answer you, but why?

I can't Google what I am asking of this forum, and this forum cannot google it either!
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #682 on: 31/08/2016 20:22:21 »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #683 on: 31/08/2016 21:07:30 »
You are posting completely off topic!

There are many googles of conversations that I have had with people online.

What of it?

Do you really think that I meant that one can google my conversations?  I meant that one cannot Google my idea and get answers as one can google how many degrees in pi/2 radians?

I am now through with the obtuse nature of your replies, you are taking the piss.

What a complete and total waste of my time!

I give thanks to David Cooper who rescued me from that nasty site, introducing me to this one where I have learned a lot about the nature of the maths I need.

In particular I thank Alan Calverd, who has been instrumental in this understanding.

I also thank Evan for his participation with me last year. Space Flow for confirming the Lorentz transformation's, Colin for his patience, Pete for some of the links he provided, Ethos and John Faust for their interest.  Anyone who has responded in context with intelligence, and all who have been a good laugh.

Thank you very much.

This conversation is not progressive, and has become a midden of out of context trite replies...
There is no point in my continuing with it!
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #684 on: 31/08/2016 21:54:36 »
So does that mean I can steer the thread back to its original point? It has been off topic for quite a while.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #685 on: 14/09/2016 13:48:26 »
So does that mean I can steer the thread back to its original point? It has been off topic for quite a while.

...and that would be a steer of the bovine variety, right?

In your field of bullocks no doubt Jeff!

*

In light of anyone else being as curious as I am as to the mathematical viability of my alternative cyclic model, I am now elsewhere on net raising money to hire a mathematician to calculate the ideas that I have put forth above...
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #686 on: 14/09/2016 14:00:04 »
So does that mean I can steer the thread back to its original point? It has been off topic for quite a while.

...and that would be a steer of the bovine variety, right?

In your field of bullocks no doubt Jeff!

*

In light of anyone else being as curious as I am as to the mathematical viability of my alternative cyclic model, I am now elsewhere on net raising money to hire a mathematician to calculate the ideas that I have put forth above...

Even BS beats the nonsense you are peddling.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #687 on: 14/09/2016 18:00:55 »
So does that mean I can steer the thread back to its original point? It has been off topic for quite a while.

...and that would be a steer of the bovine variety, right?

In your field of bullocks no doubt Jeff!

*

In light of anyone else being as curious as I am as to the mathematical viability of my alternative cyclic model, I am now elsewhere on net raising money to hire a mathematician to calculate the ideas that I have put forth above...

Even BS beats the nonsense you are peddling.

You know Jeff, I thought that becoming a moderator might actually be the making of you... That we all might see you emulating the calibre of posts and information that other moderators do, without the type of personal biased and what is coming across a 'jealous cow' syndrome that your posts here are literally reeking of.

Earlier this thread I invited you to elaborate on how your ideas affect the universe and what changes would be initiated when examining the universe operating under the principles of your changes when these changes you make are applied to how the universe developed and how the universe will progress in the future, and you said that you hadn't given it any thought.

Clearly Jeff you do not have an original idea for a model of the universe, and are peddling nothing at all...

And whilst I am not peddling anything, just simply stating an idea of a cyclic universe, its mechanics and how these mechanics affect the development of my model of the universe both historically and futuristically, and am just requiring help to calculate these ideas,  you...who have already stated that you have had to work really hard to understand these current physics concepts, (whereas I did not struggle with any understanding of these concepts and find physics to be simplicity itself), you are incapable of applying any changes to the current notions because clearly you are barely understanding the situation of physics as it currently stands.

I have an idea for a model of an alternative cyclic universe!

You don't!

A page or two earlier this thread you said that relativity might not be safe, that there is a possibility that timey may be right, and then you revert back to my posts being a case of me selling something suspect.

Clearly you haven't got a clue what you think and have no hope of comprehending what another is saying.

As a moderator you have a duty to this forum to keep your personal beliefs to yourself and answer posts objectively.  A person who puts forth an idea is peddling nothing.  What you are peddling is your own ignorant interpretation of an idea that you have not understood.  It is your own misunderstanding of the idea that is the problem, not the idea itself.  Anything can be calculated Jeff.

My idea can be calculated.  If it is not proportional to GR maths then it is not mathematically viable.  Even if my idea is not viable it is still a genius idea and I am proud of it whether it is viable or not.

Eat your heart out Jeff!  You will never come up with an idea as good as this... ever!

Now do please go ahead and make your reply.  I'm quite sure that it will reveal even more unsavoury cracks in your character.
« Last Edit: 14/09/2016 18:40:22 by timey »
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #688 on: 14/09/2016 18:42:54 »
Does this mean I don't get the thread back? I would rather know for certain either way.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #689 on: 14/09/2016 20:44:50 »
Does this mean I don't get the thread back? I would rather know for certain either way.

Yes Jeff, by all means the thread is yours.  In fact I did suggest earlier this thread that you split the 20 or so posts out of 675, that are pertaining to your own input, away from the remainder that pertain to my idea in relation to your original post.

You declined to do so remember, so your complaints of thread napping are BS as well.

As I said, a deficiency in character, plain and simple.  What a shame!  Hope you can sort it out!
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #690 on: 14/09/2016 21:04:54 »
So basically I should have taken the posts I made in the thread I started and move them out of your way. No one can accuse you of modesty. I still don't have my thread back BTW. You just keep filling it up with nit picking.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #691 on: 14/09/2016 21:58:47 »
So basically I should have taken the posts I made in the thread I started and move them out of your way. No one can accuse you of modesty. I still don't have my thread back BTW. You just keep filling it up with nit picking.

I would hardly call a description of an alternative cyclic universe and a different perspective on the De Broglie wavelength nitpicking...and since 30/8/2016 you filled the thread with what?

I just gave you the means to the solution.  You are a moderator and unlike me, you do have the capacity to split the thread, not that it matters anymore, as said, I've gone elsewhere with my idea.

I guess we can now add 'a bit on the slow side' to your repertoire. Deary me!  How tedious!

And fancy that... a forum moderator who gets territorial over a thread.  Laughable really!  Whatever next I wonder?
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #692 on: 14/09/2016 22:11:56 »
For someone so eager to rush off and peddle, sorry crowd fund, your wonderful theorem, you seem to be doing a lot of insult throwing rather than getting on with it. Not a brilliant start.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #693 on: 14/09/2016 23:01:24 »
Not insults.  Facts!

And you are still talking about anything apart from physics as per usual, a fact that has literally bored me off the forum!

My only reason for responding is that you, without even understanding the physics of my model, denounce it...

I'm just making sure that everyone else realises the truth of this thread, what has and has not been said, and the fact that you are well and truly out of order for speaking out of turn about an idea that you have not even bothered to read properly, let alone understand.

Indeed I was actually invited more than once to elaborate on my idea right here on this thread by Alan.  You can now take up the highjacking of your precious thread with him. 
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #694 on: 14/09/2016 23:37:22 »
Not insults.  Facts!

And you are still talking about anything apart from physics as per usual, a fact that has literally bored me off the forum!

My only reason for responding is that you, without even understanding the physics of my model, denounce it...

I'm just making sure that everyone else realises the truth of this thread, what has and has not been said, and the fact that you are well and truly out of order for speaking out of turn about an idea that you have not even bothered to read properly, let alone understand.

Indeed I was actually invited more than once to elaborate on my idea right here on this thread by Alan.  You can now take up the highjacking of your precious thread with him.

You go for the dramatic exit then. My daughter, when she was a child, had tantrums such as yours.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #695 on: 15/09/2016 03:26:15 »
Not insults.  Facts!

And you are still talking about anything apart from physics as per usual, a fact that has literally bored me off the forum!

My only reason for responding is that you, without even understanding the physics of my model, denounce it...

I'm just making sure that everyone else realises the truth of this thread, what has and has not been said, and the fact that you are well and truly out of order for speaking out of turn about an idea that you have not even bothered to read properly, let alone understand.

Indeed I was actually invited more than once to elaborate on my idea right here on this thread by Alan.  You can now take up the highjacking of your precious thread with him.

You go for the dramatic exit then. My daughter, when she was a child, had tantrums such as yours.

...I'm certainly not going for the dynamic conversation that's for sure!  (chuckle)

As to your daughter, still not exactly physics but always happy to hear about the fam, and that normality ensues...

I'm actually waiting for your dramatic reentry tbh, but it would seem as of so far that New Theories really isn't your forte, and that trivial school yard triteness is!

Happy to be proved wrong though!

Go for it...
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #696 on: 16/09/2016 13:42:30 »

My model places the black hole phenomenon as the precipitation of both the end and beginning of the universes cycles, and the inflation period is caused by the superluminal jets of the end of the universes cycle's singular black hole.

Nobody has ever described a cyclic universe like this.



I think Hawking's "Black holes and baby universes" came fairly close, and only 40 years after the unpublished Calverd-Kibblewhite conversations on the same subject.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #697 on: 16/09/2016 18:00:37 »

My model places the black hole phenomenon as the precipitation of both the end and beginning of the universes cycles, and the inflation period is caused by the superluminal jets of the end of the universes cycle's singular black hole.

Nobody has ever described a cyclic universe like this.



I think Hawking's "Black holes and baby universes" came fairly close, and only 40 years after the unpublished Calverd-Kibblewhite conversations on the same subject.
I do not know what yourself and Kibblewhite discussed, but the Black holes and baby universes places newly forming universes inside black holes and is a multi verse theory.

My model is not a multi verse theory.  My model places black holes that we see 'in' our universe as miniature big bangs, and very hot indeed.  My model states we do not observe much of a black hole because of observational time frame dependency that is caused by gravitational time dilation differences between observation point and black hole.  This gives cause and explanation for the observation of a black holes temperature decreasing by inverse square law proportionally to added mass.

My model, although it does not discount the possibility of there being multiple universes, states that this universe is a solitary act.  That any multi verse scenarios are entirely unconnected to each other, and are therefore not usefully considerable.

My model states that the trend for mass clumping will eventually result in all the mass of the universe being compressed into a singular black hole, that this black hole will, without any other gravitational counterpart, eject all of its content via its superluminal jets (inflation period) in particle form to create a sea of particles.  That from this point onwards all of the development of these particles clumping into bodies of mass occurs on the contraction trajectory.  The contraction is facilitated by mass clumping and forming gravitational orbits, and 'empty tracts of space' are created by particles vacating these spaces as they trend to clumping.  The spatial dimensions of the universe slowly contract as mass further clumps, and this contraction starts very slowly and accelerates as masses become bigger and more attractive.

The black hole phenomenon, although being the cause of the end of the universes cycle and the beginning of its next cycle, also functions during the cycle as a means of staving off the trend to clumping and spatial contraction by ejecting the mass that falls into the black hole in particle form via superluminal jets as we observe.  But the balance will tip in favour of clumping in the end, black holes will become predominant and merge into each other until there is just a singular black hole left to initiate the big bang of the next cycle.

My model is a combination of a lot of concepts.  Its a black holes and baby universes non multi verse theory vaguely mixed with the cyclic universe Bounce theory...  So no, not exactly original thoughts, just an original combination based on the work of others and facilitated by the mechanics of an original addition, this being Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation, to GR...
« Last Edit: 16/09/2016 18:06:01 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #698 on: 17/09/2016 00:06:17 »
An odd interpretation of multiverse, I think. As I see it a multiverse model is one in which what actually happens is the most probable or least energetic of an everexpanding and unobservable infinity of possible outcomes - fundamental Feynmanism! It's the difference between Bach's quantum compositions (every note is a surprise until you get to the end of the phrase and look back and see the masterful logic) and Mozart's linear inevitability.

Recycling though black hole ejecta and instability takes place within the observable universe, suely.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #699 on: 17/09/2016 01:27:38 »
I am interpreting multi verse as being more than one universe.

I do appreciate Feynman!  A true acrobat of intellectualism and wicked sense of humour to boot, but...

"an ever expanding and unobservable infinity of possible outcomes"

...I couldn't disagree more!  The way I see it the mechanics of the universe can only work as a cause and effect unit in one specialised precision arrangement...  Like a jig saw puzzle of dimensions and parameters that can only fit together as one to reveal the entire picture by finding each piece its corresponding shape...

I'll have to make a study of Bach versus Mozart and understand what you refer to.  Philistine me rarely bothers to note the artist or composer, but I find classical music to be predictable.  There are only so many variations of scale and rhythm that can follow on.  Jazz oriented complexities can be far less predictable, but given time, and ear adjustment, I find that patterns will still emerge all the same. 

Yes, we observe active black holes in the observable universe.  General Relativity predicts that black holes will be predominant in the far flung future of the universe.  In a universe that is developing particles into bodies of mass in the contraction period of the cycle, (this being GR minus dark energy, minus Hubble's red shift "velocities"), gravity will pull particles into bodies of mass, masses will continue to build in size, black holes will form, eventually black holes will become predominant, start merging together and end up as a singular black hole.

Is there any other model apart from mine that gives cause and effect mechanics of big bang, inflation period and contraction?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #699 on: 17/09/2016 01:27:38 »

 

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