The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An analysis of the de Broglie equation  (Read 23426 times)

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #700 on: 17/09/2016 01:30:54 »
Only if the world lines of every particle in the universe ends inside a black hole will you have the conditions necessary for a cyclic universe of the type you propose. More than this, gravitation would need to be strong enough to pull all the black holes together before they evaporate due to hawking radiation. If not you would simply be left with a uniformly dense and heat dead universe.

Even if the conditions are met you need a mechanism that can reverse the polarity of gravitation. Otherwise nothing leaves the event horizon. Good luck overcoming those obstacles.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #701 on: 17/09/2016 03:25:34 »
You make valid points Jeff.

The mechanics of this model are facilitated by the addition of the Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation of open space.

I am actually proposing that the dimension of a gravity field be split into 2 phenomenon.
Firstly - that all mass's carry charge, ie: electrons and... (please note: this concept is not strictly speaking mine but is loosely based on John Faust's interpretation of gravity) ... that a force of attraction is facilitated by an electrons magnetic moment.
Secondly - that a gravity field is causing time dilation.  It is increasing the rate of time for mass in relation to mass via gravity potential, ie: GR gravitational time dilation...  And also decreasing the rate of time for open space in relation to mass... ie: Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation.

As the gravity field weakens with distance from all mass, the rate of time becomes slower and slower.  The spacial dimensions of the universe are defined to the edge of the universe by the time dimension of space time.  When the inverse square law reduces the gravity field to fractions of almost nothing, time will nearly stop.  Eventually time must stop altogether and this can be said to be the edge of the universe.  Existence cannot exist without time to exist in.

Looking at this proposed phenomenon in reverse it becomes clear that any body of mass that is on a trajectory that will cause it to become trapped into a gravity field greater than its own will be accelerated as it moves closer to the greater body because the rate of time is increasing in the stronger gravity field.  (the body of mass's rate of time will also be vastly increased by the greater body of masses gravity field via gravity potential, but its own rate of the will be decreasing as it is drawn into lower gravity potential and will match up with local time at ground level)
Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation also matches local time at ground level...

Now to address Hawkings radiation:
I am suggesting that black holes are very very hot.  This is in direct contradiction to observation, (these observations being in complete contradiction to the second law, and conservation of energy law), that a black holes temperature decreases via the inverse square law proportional to increase in mass.

I am suggesting that observing a phenomenon that is experiencing a drastic difference of rate of time to the rate of time of the observation point will result in what I am describing as observational time frame dependency, and that the degree of observable time frames of the observation will be proportional to the difference in the rate of time of the two locations.
Long and short is that black holes are very hot and full of energy.  The dead heat scenario only really works for reduced energy black holes and is the ideal of the big freeze theory.

Lastly, and this one is easy!  We already observe matter escaping black holes in our observable universe via superluminal jets.  As I understand it, these superluminal jets occur when something of significant size falls in.  I am proposing that this superluminal jet phenomenon is caused by the violent shift of the gravitational field, and that this effects a reaction in the black hole that causes it to eject matter in this fashion...  But not all of its matter because the black hole still has some equivalent gravitational force within the universe acting upon it...
When the universe is compacted into a scenario of just black holes, these black holes will form a kind of galaxy in the middle of a vastly spatially reduced universe.  Time will be running really fast.  These black holes will merge into each other.  When the last two merge into one there will be no other gravitational force acting upon it.  I'm proposing that this causes the final singular black hole to empty itself of all its matter in particle form to create a sea of particles.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #702 on: 20/09/2016 13:25:45 »
... 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.

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,

Having now made a study of Bach versus Mozart, I understand exactly what you refer to...
Actually to say so, it was interesting to venture on such a study, I've never applied myself as so before.  I already associated Mozart's music with Mozart because of the movie, but Bach makes for quite a study indeed.  Flipping between his piano concertos and violin oboe, the distinctive use of quantum steps, as you described it, almost becomes quite 'samey'...  But one of the piano sonatas I listened to, me oh my!  It's pretty dam clever the way the left hand becomes discordant with the right hand to the point of uncomfortableness, and then brings these out of kilter notes to gel in an alternate scale with notes from the right hand to bring it all back together to make sense again...  And one of his violin concerto d minor makes some kind of mad interplay with the pads to the main event.  Again almost discordant, off the beat delivery and strangely weird, but entirely logical when looking back.

Very apt description you made there.  Thanks for the journey!

But with regards to my model, you didn't answer my question...
There isn't any other model apart from mine that gives cause and effect mechanics for big bang, inflation period and contraction, is there?
« Last Edit: 20/09/2016 16:09:28 by timey »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #703 on: 23/09/2016 18:42:19 »
Ok... my musical observations   are clearly not of interest, so let's take a different tack...

You say that:

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 -

Looking at Everett's quantum interpretation of the collapse of wave function into superposition, and his interpretation that every quantum transition taking place on every star, in every galaxy, in every remote corner of the universe is splitting our local world on earth into myriads of copies of itself - for Everett's multi verse theory...

My model, by redefining GR gravitational time dilation and adding the proposed Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation of open space, introduces gravitational time dilation, and therefore gravity into the quantum region.  Wave function will not collapse into superposition because by calculating via the correct rate of time as per energy for both mass and open space, it will be possible to know both position and direction of an electron at the same time.  No need for the use of perturbation theory (this being a time function in itself) to ascertain probabilities...

Furthermore it will become clear when calculating using the correct rate of time as per energy of mass and associated open space that quantum is in fact a continuum.  That Planck's h constant has been measured using a constant rate of time, when the proposal of my model is that adding energy to a situation is increasing the situations rate of time.   If the increase in rate of time is not acknowledged in the calculations, this will result in the bandwidth gaps of Planck's h constant and the appearance of quantum steps.  Simply calculate using the appropriate rate of time as per energy and quantum will be a continuum.

This concept of these time dilation aspects at quantum level entirely negates the possibility of Everett's multi verse theory.

You said:
Feynman fundamentalism...

I have said I think the universe's mechanics can only work as a cause and effect unit in one specialised precision arrangement of the dimensions and parameters that we observe, however the possibility of wave function collapsing into any number of superpositions being negated via the redefinition of GR and the addition of Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation of my model, with our universe being a solo act of known mechanical virtue, does not mean that everything that occurs within it becomes preordained.  Entropy is always increasing and with it all manner of possibilities of which, as opposed to Everett, only one of these possibilities will occur.  In that this one incident occurred, the former possibilities become negated and a new series of possibilities arise of which only one will occur, etc.  The only parts of the universe that are preordained are its mechanics, not the variety of details within occurring as a result of those mechanics.

There are other multi verse theories.
My model negates the "black holes and baby universes theory" as the black hole phenomenon is otherwise described as being an intrinsic part of the mechanics of this universe. 
I know that string theory describes the possibility of multiple universes in maths that describe multiple dimensions of various number dependent upon which string theory.  This, as far as I can make out, is in as much as a different approach to Everett's multiple universe via quantum indeterminacy...
My model does not discount there being other verses in a multi verse scenario, or that these other verses may or may not be similarly arranged in their physics to our universe, but it states these possibilities of other verses as entirely separate from our universes mechanics and therefore not usefully considerable when examining the physics of our universe.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #704 on: 29/09/2016 17:50:59 »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_theory_(quantum_mechanics)

Quote:
"Time-dependent perturbation theory, developed by Paul Dirac, studies the effect of a time-dependent perturbationV(t) applied to a time-independent Hamiltonian H0.

Since the perturbed Hamiltonian is time-dependent, so are its energy levels and eigenstates. Thus, the goals of time-dependent perturbation theory are slightly different from time-independent perturbation theory. One is interested in the following quantities:

The time-dependent expectation value of some observable A, for a given initial state.The time-dependent amplitudes[clarification needed] of those quantum states that are energy eigenkets (eigenvectors) in the unperturbed system.

The first quantity is important because it gives rise to the classical result of anA measurement performed on a macroscopic number of copies of the perturbed system. For example, we could take A to be the displacement in the x-direction of the electron in a hydrogen atom, in which case the expected value, when multiplied by an appropriate coefficient, gives the time-dependent dielectric polarization of a hydrogen gas. With an appropriate choice of perturbation (i.e. an oscillating electric potential), this allows one to calculate the AC permittivity of the gas.

The second quantity looks at the time-dependent probability of occupation for each eigenstate. This is particularly useful in laser physics, where one is interested in the populations of different atomic states in a gas when a time-dependent electric field is applied. These probabilities are also useful for calculating the "quantum broadening" of spectral lines (see line broadening) and particle decay in particle physicsand nuclear physics."
Unquote:

Everret's multi world multiverse states these alternate realities as being eigenvectors of imaginary phase space. ie: Schrödinger's box full of particles...when a quantum computer is factorising a 250 digit number, it does so by operating in a superposition of 10power500 states.  It is usual to think in terms of phase space, but Deutsch on the basis of Everret deduces that the quantum computation is itself a real and physical thing, not just something imagined by mathematicians. The calculation involves, in this case, 10power500 real computers working together.  Where are they?  Deutsch makes the point forcefully:

Quote:
"To those who still cling to a single universe world view, I issue this challenge: explain how Shor's algorithm works... When Shor's algorithm has factorised a number, using 10power500 or so times computational resources that can be seen to be present, where was the number factorised?  There are only about 10power80 atoms in the entire visible universe, an utterly minisclue number compared to 10power500.  So if the visible universe were the extent of physical reality, physical reality would not even remotely contain the resources required to factorise such a large number.  Who did factorise it, then?  How, and where, was the computation performed?"
Unquote:

My model answers this question, but first:

Quantum computing uses NRI, which is actually MRI but patients are scared of the word nuclear, to record the results of the quantum calculations.  This works because a) the computer is required to generate multiples of the same calculation in case of error due to outside interference.
And b) because the results are recorded via the NRI which due to it recording all the results simultaneously, this does not result in the collapse of wave function as observing the result a singular quantum calculation would.

The first published MRI image of a human was made in a superconducting 0.1 T magnet (I used to work for the inventor, and I met the patient). There were some systems that used the earth's magnetic field  as a polariser but they were never more than curiosities. You need at least 0.2 T to get enough signal/noise ratio to produce a useful image before the patient dies of boredom.

All MRI systems use RF energy.

And they all use reiterative 3D inverse-space reconstruction algorithms to produce the image because that's the only way you can do it. Whilst the algorithms themselves are fun, proving that a new algorithm is indefinitely stable and uniquely convergent is a mathematical orgasm, way beyond a mere KISS.

Quote:
"Perturbation theory is systematically used to generate root finding algorithms. Depending on the number of correction terms in the perturbation expansion and the number of Taylor expansion terms, different root finding formulas can be generated. The way of separating the resulting equations after the perturbation expansion alters the root-finding formulas also."
Unquote:

So what we are seeing here is the use of perturbation theory in the analysis of quantum computing and also within the building of an NRI picture of the quantum results.
You may correct me but I'm pretty certain that it is a time dependent perturbation that is required for both cases of these algorithms, as well as being required to calculate quantum probability.

I'm proposing that there has been a crossing of wires here.  That probability is suggesting an outcome of a function and that Everett's proposal that each possible outcome exists in an alternative reality is misconceived.  That these possible outcomes are just that, possible outcomes based on input parameters.  That it is the time dependent perturbations of the calculations that are the true extent of a reality that is operating in a rate of time that is drastically slower than the standard second which all quantum calculations are calculated via.  That within this slower rate of time relative to the standard second there is the facility for many more events than it is possible to observe within the time frames available of a standard second.  This is why a single electron can occupy more than one position at the same time, or appear to have dematerialised and rematerialized at another position without having apparently travelled the space inbetween.  The calculations of the probable outcome are valid, but the time perturbations, if replaced with the appropriate rate of time as per energy of the situation, will result in knowing both the position and the velocity of the electron, and probability becomes only a mathematical means of working out the most likely outcome of a future event, with probability trending to the universal tendency for the course of least action. (a concept you mentioned earlier)

So how and where does a quantum computer make its calculations?  I am proposing that it makes these calculations in the manner of usual computations, and it does so in our universe only, in a much slower rate of time, and ouri observation of this slower timei is observational time frame dependant and proportional to the difference in rate of time between observation and observer.

Anyway Alan - it would seem you are perhaps ignoring me, so if you do not wish to partake in the discussion anymore then just say so.  I'll not bother you any further!
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #705 on: 29/09/2016 19:35:14 »
I haven't noticed you on the forum lately - thought you had abandoned us!
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #706 on: 29/09/2016 19:54:43 »
The 3 last posts above directed specifically to you indicate a state of non desertion... I thought you might be declining any response, but perhaps you just didn't notice them.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #707 on: 29/09/2016 21:56:02 »
How dense is your probability?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #708 on: 29/09/2016 23:36:15 »
I can't say I've ever heard of probability being dense.  The probability that something is dense perhaps.   Given that you imply that probability can be dense, and given that you are a moderator who is bound by forum rules not to be misleading.  If you were being misleading then I'd have to say the probability is that it is you who are dense, but this is unlikely given the parameters therefore I do not accuse you of being a liar.  The possibility that probability can be dense may exist for all I know, but really and truly I can't for the life of me discern why you would think this relevant to the context!!!

Context is incredibly important!

Any chance you may enlighten me?  I'd say probably not, but I do accept that perhaps my probability really might well be dense...and therefore would, as a natural result of such, rather require you explaining yourself!
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #709 on: 29/09/2016 23:53:19 »
Blame the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, not me.

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

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #710 on: 30/09/2016 00:33:32 »
Your undefined Double Dutch is what presents the problems of interpretation for me.  What is the problem with plain speaking?

Nothing about what I've said so far has covered probability amplitude, only that the probability itself is ascertained via perturbation theory, and that perturbation involves jimmying around with time.  ie: determining what might be going on at certain points in time and then calculating the probability of what can occur in between based on those parameters.

Probability amplitude would in my model be negated by the continuum of the proposed Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation of open space.  It will be possible when calculating under the remit of this concept to know the position and velocity of that electron in an atomic orbital of the hydrogen atom.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #711 on: 30/09/2016 01:25:52 »
So your stance is that perturbation theory has nothing to do with probability amplitude. Interesting.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #712 on: 30/09/2016 03:10:41 »
So your stance is that perturbation theory has nothing to do with probability amplitude. Interesting.

It really would help a lot if you'd  just read what I have already written Jeff.

Perturbation theory has everything to do with probability amplitude as per the link I provided  and quoted...

I'm saying that perturbation theory as a time based function is using perturbations as extra time.  I'm saying that this extra time relative to the standard second is real and is caused by my proposed Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation of open space in relation to GR gravitational time dilation.  Therefore it will not be necessary to calculate probability to ascertain the electrons current position and velocity.  Both will be calculable simultaneously and the where and how explained by the mechanics in a continuum.

Probability amplitude under the remit of my model is rendered redundant!
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #713 on: 01/10/2016 16:26:44 »
Perturbation theory involves the solution of partial differential equation for harmonic oscillation. It would be advisable to start with an ordinary differential equation for simple harmonic motion first.

You can start with d2x/dt2 = -kx

So you want to end up with equations of position x and velocity v

Solutions?

« Last Edit: 01/10/2016 16:29:14 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #714 on: 01/10/2016 19:10:55 »
Are you asking me the solution to a mathematical question Jeff?  ...Because it would seem a little misconceived to be requiring such from a self stated non mathematician wouldn't it?

In any case what you are asking seems to me to be an oversimplification...  What I wish to achieve is -

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

- matching the blue line to the black line by increasing the rate of the second as energy is added.

The standard second is being used as a means of stating how much energy is being added per second.  As the lines start diverging decrease the length of the second so that the blue line does not diverge.

This concept is stating that adding energy to a situation increases the situations rate of time...

This concept suggests that the adding of both thermal and gravitational energy will increase the rate of time for any situation, and can be observed as such in objects that are subject to increased gravity potential energy, and objects that have been removed from refrigerated/frozen scenarios and exposed to thermal energy.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #715 on: 01/10/2016 21:48:24 »
The ultraviolet catastrophe was sorted out by Planck via the quantisation of electromagnetic energy. That is by discovering what later became the photon. Why do you believe that there is still a problem? Are you just making this stuff up as you go along to make yourself appear knowledgeable? Tell me all you understand about perturbation theory. That might change my mind.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #716 on: 02/10/2016 00:34:40 »
My substantial investigations into the history of physics has informed me that Planck actually stated that he had fudged the maths to make the data of his black body experiment work.  (Ref: Manjit Kumar "Quantum")

Why don't you try coming up with the mathematical solution to decreasing the length of a second as energy is added so that the blue line (Planck's measurements) of the wiki diagram of the ultraviolet catastrophe does not diverge from the black line (classical theory)?

For a vastly simplified description of time dependent perturbation theory: Perturbations are stretching time (via square law?) and calculating all the possibilities that may occur in this stretched out state given the input parameters.
Algorithms then break down the data (via inverse square law?) resulting in probable outcome...
Without in any way detracting from the importance of such, any further description of the mathematical juggling involved is superfluous to my concept.

No - I am not making anything up apart from my concept.  I am knowledgeable where I am knowledgeable, and where I am not knowledgeable I state myself so without fail.  In fact whenever is possible of late, just to make sure that my terminology remains sound, where I have not been quoting directly from wiki links, I have been copying text directly from John Gribbin's "In Search of the Multiverse"...

I am focused on the purpose of finding someone to calculate my model, not on appearing to be knowledgeable...  I really couldn't give a flying f**k what anyone thinks of me tbh.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #717 on: 02/10/2016 00:55:09 »
Planck's formula is confirmed by experiment so no hole to plug there
either. Maybe you were day dreaming of fudge cake.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #718 on: 02/10/2016 01:46:55 »
For goodness sake Jeff!!!

Planks h constant is, of course, confirmed by experiment, and this is, of course, due to the fact that it was derived by experiment!  This does not mean that a misinterpretation has not occurred and as the results are the indeterminacy of these quantum leaps and its smoothing these leaps out that I'm concerning myself with, something that Plank tried but failed to manage ... Calculating as I suggest 'should' result in a classical continuum and unify the standard model with gravity via my proposed altered version of GR... resulting in a model of a  'never before described' cyclic universe that provides fully described cause and effect mechanics of big bang, inflation, contraction, and does so without adding any unobserved phenomenon to balance the books. (No other model does this)

This concept is calculable and the maths will be proportional to existing GR maths.  In fact they are GR maths for most part.

This concept can be proven or disproven by the experiment that I have previously suggested.

Its as simple as that Jeff!  What's the problem?

...now what where you saying about "piece of cake"?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #719 on: 02/10/2016 02:04:17 »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor

Please see - examples in science
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #720 on: 02/10/2016 19:51:43 »
Read this then come back and tell me you know the answer.

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/lectures/planck/planck.html
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #721 on: 02/10/2016 20:04:17 »
So then Planck's constant can be derived from experiment. Fudge sundae anyone?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #722 on: 02/10/2016 21:59:04 »
If you were talking about the gravitational constant you would have a point. This distinction isn't trivial.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #723 on: 02/10/2016 22:20:26 »
OK so as was pointed out 4d36d6f3b066e23610fb32ff27cf6989.gif. Therefore in the case of the photon the energy equation becomes 9e0382d0a5b7dbf48558fa950dcd37bf.gif.

If we take our wavelength as L (1 light second) then we can show that 0462b435389f2d627d49ac8e415db311.gif. This 1 hertz wave then shows the direct relationship to the Planck constant.

Ok this may or may not post the Tex properly. If it does I will expand on this post.

In the above we have the expression h/t. If we multiply both numerator and denominator by the ratio tP/t, where tP is one Planck time, then we have an energy unit expressed at the Planck scale. Now we can consider the rate of time as constant and the Planck value as variable. What does this tell us?
« Last Edit: 02/10/2016 22:31:32 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #724 on: 06/10/2016 22:21:29 »
In considering the thimble full of neutronium I had a thought. What if action is dilated rather than just time. Then E = h/t can be restated as u = E0*t. Where E0 is emission energy. Then we can define u = E0*t + (1/2)(E0/c2)g*r*t. Action dilation is then in joule seconds. This excludes length contraction altogether.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #724 on: 06/10/2016 22:21:29 »

 

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