Post by: McQueen on 31/03/2017 02:57:20
Consider again the proposition F=E . On the left side is force, and on the right side is energy. These are again different things, represented by different units, and so this equality makes no sense.
The point of this exercise is to ask: Does this sound familiar ? Isn't it all too much like the De Broglie relation ?
Where:
e = Energy of a particle,
m = mass of particle
c = Speed of light
h = Planck's constant
= Frequency of lightEinstein's equation : e = mc2
Planck's equation :
(Planck's equation applies surely to the energy of a wave?)
Equating both we get :
(Here on the left we have a unit of mass multiplied by the speed of light squared, which has units of length squared divided by time squared and on the right is a constant h multiplied by
a wave. The two units don't match! One represents a mass ( something solid occupying a definite space and position) and the other represents a wave ( something non-localised possessing no mass.) (How can you equate the energy of a solid particle with the energy of a wave ?)
The rest of it is a farce or a play on words in much the same way that F = E
Given that :
or :
for macroscopic particles v can replace c:
Thus the equation becomes
Now , mv = p ( momentum of particle) and therefore,
De Broglie relation:
Where does this leave wave-particle duality ?
Post by: jeffreyH on 31/03/2017 12:17:49
Post by: jeffreyH on 31/03/2017 12:23:32
Post by: jeffreyH on 31/03/2017 12:32:31
Post by: GoC on 31/03/2017 13:01:08
Interestingly you could say ha = mv. Where h is the Planck action, a is acceleration, m is the relativistic mass of the photon. That leaves v....? Now there is a conundrum.It's only a conundrum when you believe mass is energy other than kinetic. E =mc * c is the clue to McQueen's examples. The main stream model does not explain the perpetual motion of the electron or photon. The photon is a representation of the distance for energy propagation with no entropy. It is a indirect measure of energy c. At some point the indisputable relationship between energy and mass will reveal mass is a conduit for the energy of space. The photon indirectly measures the distance energy can propagate at c in a frame. A clock measures the energy as distance a photon traveled in space. Which coincidentally is the same as the electron cycle in every frame causing equivalence between GR and SR. The equivalence is electron travel distance through space and photon travel distance through space. The controlling energy is c from space. What moves the electron in main streams model?
The speed of light squared is not an acceleration. So no to the original question.
The frequency is the indirect measure of energy leaving energy in its fundamental state for the equation. Mass is the ratio of kinetic to fundamental energy. Clocks measure the available energy in a frame. Dilation in GR and speed in SR remove available energy in the mass frame as a ratio.
Post by: Ethos_ on 31/03/2017 15:49:23
The main stream model does not explain the perpetual motion of the electron or photon. The photon is a representation of the distance for energy propagation with no entropy.The main stream model is overlooking what the word "perpetual" actually means when speaking about the life of the photon. The photon experiences no time, therefore, it is not "perpetual" in it's frame of reference. It's birth and death occur simultaneously within it's frame of existence so it's life does not represent "perpetual motion" or perpetual anything else.
And in the case of "slow light", the photon which enters that experiment is not the same one exiting. Each individual photon still travels at c in this experiment and if not, we can disregard the standard model.
Plainly put, the photon doesn't live long enough to loose the energy of it's wave. We may observe the lengthening or shortening of this wave in our frame but in the photon's frame, it's all over in an instant.
Post by: McQueen on 01/04/2017 03:01:36
Quote
jeffreyH: The speed of light squared is not an acceleration. So no to the original question.
Agreed. Thank you.
Quote
jeffreyH: As to the rest it is h times frequency that is energy. Not h times wavelength. Then the cycles per second cancel the time element of the action.
I stand corrected an unintentional mistake. Using wavelength the equation could be written:
E = hc/\lambda (E = h*c / wavelength )
Quote
jeffreyH : Interestingly you could say ha = mv. Where h is the Planck action, a is acceleration, m is the relativistic mass of the photon. That leaves v....? Now there is a conundrum.
Then again v cannot be equated with a in any case, the two are completely different units.
P.S Whatever happened to the latex function at this (the nakedscientists) forum, which used to be one of the best on the net ?
Post by: McQueen on 01/04/2017 08:09:15
Quote
GoC : The photon is a representation of the distance for energy propagation with no entropy.
Just a thought. If there is no entropy, where does the inverse square law fit into all this ?
Quote
jeffreyH : The speed of light squared is not an acceleration. So no to the original question.
Yes. Because the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/04/2017 10:42:42
Post by: McQueen on 01/04/2017 11:00:20
Quote
alancalverd : No, obviously. Energy is force x distance.
Absolutely true, also true is that anything travelling at a constant speed is not accelerating. Was a negative at the start of the sentence necessary ?
Also E is not equal to force x displacement , it is W = F x s (Work = force x distance ) and E = Fa : Energy = Force x velocity / time
Post by: GoC on 01/04/2017 14:16:48
The main stream model does not explain the perpetual motion of the electron or photon. The photon is a representation of the distance for energy propagation with no entropy.The main stream model is overlooking what the word "perpetual" actually means when speaking about the life of the photon. The photon experiences no time, therefore, it is not "perpetual" in it's frame of reference. It's birth and death occur simultaneously within it's frame of existence so it's life does not represent "perpetual motion" or perpetual anything else.
A photon has no consciousness and as such does not experience anything. This does not exclude the perpetual speed and distance traveled. The electron also has this same aspect causing relativity. The electron is a perpetual motion machine.
Quote
And in the case of "slow light", the photon which enters that experiment is not the same one exiting. Each individual photon still travels at c in this experiment and if not, we can disregard the standard model.
Subjective interpretation? Of what does a photon consist? That needs to be answered correctly first.
Quote
Plainly put, the photon doesn't live long enough to loose the energy of it's wave. We may observe the lengthening or shortening of this wave in our frame but in the photon's frame, it's all over in an instant.
A wave may not change its wavelength. It could be the calibration of the detector changing in different dilation positions. It's all over in our instant. We are not a standard as our synapsis fire extremely slow compared to light distance.
MaQueen
The speed of light does not have entropy. How we perceive it with distance is a wave packet distribution issue only. This expands the distance between wave packets interpreted by our brains as a reduction in the image. No entropy in the packets themselves as speed. Gravity, volume, magnetism and light all follow the inverse square law. This is a hint to the structure of space causing the mathematics of observation. The structure of space is uniform by observation to allow what we call laws.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/04/2017 23:42:33
Was a negative at the start of the sentence necessary ?It is the answer to the question.
Quote
Also E is not equal to force x displacement , it is W = F x s (Work = force x distance ) and E = Fa : Energy = Force x velocity / timeI suggest you re-read Physics 101, especially the definition and dimensions of energy.
Post by: McQueen on 05/04/2017 00:06:59
Quote
Alan Calverd: I suggest you re-read Physics 101, especially the definition and dimensions of energy.It is indeed an admirable suggestion providing you follow it for yourself before using it derogatorily to others:
Work is defined as: Work = F *Displacement.
Here is your statement:
Quote
Alan Calverd : No, obviously. Energy is force x distance.I think it is plain enough that your definition of energy above is wrong. What is there to argue about ?
Post by: McQueen on 06/04/2017 11:24:39
Quote
I think it is plain enough that your definition of energy above is wrong. What is there to argue about ?
has no personal bias, and is merely stating that the particular statement , namely:
Quote
Alan Calverd : No, obviously. Energy is force x distance.
has too wide a basis to have any meaningful import.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/04/2017 21:37:21
"Longest ever discussion of a simple error in algebra"
Post by: GoC on 07/04/2017 11:49:20
Post by: McQueen on 08/04/2017 03:31:38
Quote
Boring Chemist : Is this thread some sort of world record attempt?
"Longest ever discussion of a simple error in algebra"
I wish it were, unfortunately, the longest discussion based on a simple error in algebra is the whole of quantum mechanics theory which happens to be based on just such a simple error :
e= mc 2 and e = h x frequency
equating both we get : mc 2 = h x frequency !
Don't tell me that the speed of light square which is units of length squared divided by units of time squared is equivalent to frequency, which is the number of crests of a wave that move past a given point in a given unit of time. Obviously the two are glaringly different. Surely mass in not the equivalent of the constant h by any stretch of the imagination ?
This is the whole basis of wave particle duality without which there would be no science known as quantum mechanics. Perhaps it doesn't deserve a longer discussion but then again maybe it does, especially in light of the repeated claims that quantum mechanics is the most perfect science known to man. .
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2017 11:28:56
What you have described as an "error" has been experimentally verified as the truth.QuoteBoring Chemist : Is this thread some sort of world record attempt?
"Longest ever discussion of a simple error in algebra"
I wish it were, unfortunately, the longest discussion based on a simple error in algebra is the whole of quantum mechanics theory which happens to be based on just such a simple error :
e= mc 2 and e = h x frequency
equating both we get : mc 2 = h x frequency !
Don't tell me that the speed of light square which is units of length squared divided by units of time squared is equivalent to frequency, which is the number of crests of a wave that move past a given point in a given unit of time. Obviously the two are glaringly different. Surely mass in not the equivalent of the constant h by any stretch of the imagination ?
This is the whole basis of wave particle duality without which there would be no science known as quantum mechanics. Perhaps it doesn't deserve a longer discussion but then again maybe it does, especially in light of the repeated claims that quantum mechanics is the most perfect science known to man. .
Also, it has the advantage that the maths works- whereas the thread title's maths doesn't work.
It's been verified that the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency (whether you like it or not).
So where you say "Don't tell me that the speed of light ..."
It's not me who is telling you that.
Reality is telling you that.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/04/2017 11:47:37
Don't tell me that the speed of light square which is units of length squared divided by units of time squared is equivalent to frequency,
Anyone with functioning synapses can see it isn't, which is why Planck introduced a dimensioned constant h, 117 years ago. It is left as an exercise to the reader to discover the dimensions of h. But why bother? It's more fun to shout than to learn, and being wrong isn't wrong these days, just "alt".
Post by: jeffreyH on 08/04/2017 12:20:56
Post by: GoC on 08/04/2017 13:05:20
The value of mc^2 is in joules (energy). The value of hf is in joules (energy). You need to understand dimensional analysis to appreciate this.
Unfortunately the very reason for energy is needed to understand the cause of different frequencies. What moves the electron?
Post by: McQueen on 09/04/2017 12:16:58
Quote
Alan Calverd: .It's more fun to shout than to learn, and being wrong isn't wrong these days, just "alt".
The point that is being overlooked here is that Planck's constant is a discovery that is based on purely empirical investigation and research. This is unlike the real question in the OP which is whether Louis De Broglie's postulate that mc2 = h x frequency actually makes sense, according to you it does, despite the fact that the two formula do not match up in any way at all, mathematically it is ludicrous to compare a solid with a wave. Just face it that's common sense. Nor does it make sense to compare mass to a dimensional constant unless that is, the context in which it is taken is so broad as to lose all practical meaning. Maybe a little use of the cortical synapses would come in handy here.
Quote
Boring Chemist: What you have described as an "error" has been experimentally verified as the truth. Also, it has the advantage that the maths works- whereas the thread title's maths doesn't work.
The point you seem to miss is that it doesn't make mathematical sense, even if you and your uncle Harry say it does! You seem to be forgetting that mainstream science believed for a long time that the earth was flat, till it was disproved by people following their theories to a logical conclusion. Again for centuries mainstream science held that the earth was at the centre of the universe! They believed this so strongly that hundreds and even thousands of people were put to death for arguing about it or even for thinking about presenting alternate theories. People said man would never fly and that to stand on the moon was impossible. The only thing that all these people had in common was that they stood against verified, verfiable science. I put it to you once more.. Look at the equation mc2 = h x frequency and say that it is not wrong!
It is not possible to compare a solid with a wave and then to generalise that all matter has corresponding waves. I can see that you are already highly sceptical but thiink about this:
Louis de broglie equated the energy equations of planck and einstein:
E= mc2 ; E = hf
m is the moving mass of the particle, for a photon the rest mass is zero( or very nearly]
so it does not undergo relativistic variation of mass .Hence mass energy equivalence for the photon becomes meaningless. From this it follows that it is impossible to equate the two equations
Looked at from another view point: Here E=hf does not give the energy of electron. It gives the energy required / released when electrons change their energy levels. How then is it possible if E = hf applies to a change of energy in an electron for E = hf to equal E = mc2 ? hf = mc2
From the above it follows that f = mc2/h
Suppose an electron with a mass of 9.1 x 10-31 Kg
Then its frequency ( in the context of its energy should be ( 9.1 x 10-31 x 9 x1016 / 6.63 x 10 -34 J/s) what does this mean if anything ?
Ans = 7.76x1021 Hz. So apart from everything else electrons have an intrinsic frequency of around 10,000,000THz ! wow!
You could go on: If the velocity of the de brogile wave is VB and the velocity of the particle is VP then VB x VP = c 2 .
Presumably if the two velocities are multiplied the result is the speed of light squared? What an amazing relation.........
Do you still advise unquestioning obedience by myself and everyone else in this New Theories forum and to insist that we should be satisfied that the De Broglie hypotheses has been verified!
Further since VB x VP = c 2 .
VP < c and VB > c. The velocity of the De Broglie wave will always be faster than the speed of light, change with the velocity of the particle AND the Velocity of the matter wave changes. What kind of wave is this? It has totally unacceptable wave properties. Is it a probability wave that has a dual existence? One existence in probability and another ( when necessary) in reality?
But the real question is why go to all this ridiculous speculation if a straightforward explanation is available?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/04/2017 12:40:51
It's interesting to be told that we are all wrong, especially by a bloke who doesn't know the difference between velocity and acceleration. "Out of the mouths of babes", perhaps?
It would be even more interesting to be told why our stuff actually works.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2017 15:03:15
This is unlike the real question in the OP which is whether Louis De Broglie's postulate that mc2 = h x frequency actually makes sense, according to you it does, despite the fact that the two formula do not match up in any way at all, mathematically it is ludicrous to compare a solid with a wave. Just face it that's common sense.Common sense is wrong.
lumps of stuff really have a wavelength and you can do diffraction experiments with them.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/quantum-interference-with-big-molecules-approaches-the-macroscopic/
Post by: Ethos_ on 09/04/2017 15:17:19
As the old saying goes: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Maybe it would be more appropriate to say: "If it isn't broke, ain't no need to fix it."
It would be even more interesting to be told why our stuff actually works.
Post by: GoC on 09/04/2017 15:34:16
This is unlike the real question in the OP which is whether Louis De Broglie's postulate that mc2 = h x frequency actually makes sense, according to you it does, despite the fact that the two formula do not match up in any way at all, mathematically it is ludicrous to compare a solid with a wave. Just face it that's common sense.Common sense is wrong.
lumps of stuff really have a wavelength and you can do diffraction experiments with them.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/quantum-interference-with-big-molecules-approaches-the-macroscopic/
Does the lumps have a wavelength or just a reflection of a wavelength. Burning sodium creates a wavelength. A photograph can have a negative.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2017 17:17:53
The sea looks pretty much the same in a mirror. So the "reflection of a wavelength " either means the wavelength - or it means nothing.This is unlike the real question in the OP which is whether Louis De Broglie's postulate that mc2 = h x frequency actually makes sense, according to you it does, despite the fact that the two formula do not match up in any way at all, mathematically it is ludicrous to compare a solid with a wave. Just face it that's common sense.Common sense is wrong.
lumps of stuff really have a wavelength and you can do diffraction experiments with them.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/quantum-interference-with-big-molecules-approaches-the-macroscopic/
Does the lumps have a wavelength or just a reflection of a wavelength. Burning sodium creates a wavelength. A photograph can have a negative.
Post by: GoC on 09/04/2017 18:57:07
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2017 19:49:39
I found it to be a good tool in analytical chemistry. So its useful for what absorbs and what does not.What is?
Post by: GoC on 10/04/2017 11:22:18
Main stream theory of wavelengths changing as they travel through different gravity potentials has a math basis but so does wavelengths staying the same while the gradient dilation of the energy state changing the calibration of the instrument cell length to reading. Take the fixed sodium wavelength, the calibration will always read the same wavelength in every frame. This is similar to measuring the same speed of light in every frame. It depends on where the wavelength is created and where it is detected that will read the same or different wave shift. Each different gradient position has a different measuring stick. So you create the light in one dilation and measure it in another dilation there will be a measured shift in wavelength while the wavelength remained the same. This is the same reason the speed of light is measured the same in every frame of SR and GR. In SR the geometry of the finite speed of light increases the length of view in a measuring stick with light. Visual only. GR dilation of the electron path increases the relative size of your measuring stick. A physical change. They are equivalent for distance of light per volume of energy state density.
What moves the electron? Energy moves the electron. e path + dilation = E path
When mass reaches the speed of light on the surface of a sun the dilation exceeds the energy of space and all of the atoms compress into a BH where space between the atoms no longer exists. The volume of our sun would compress to about 1.7 miles in diameter.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/04/2017 19:37:41
HPLC, SFC, IR. We are discussing wavelengths. Useful in analytical chemistry.At least most of that is nonsense.
Main stream theory of wavelengths changing as they travel through different gravity potentials has a math basis but so does wavelengths staying the same while the gradient dilation of the energy state changing the calibration of the instrument cell length to reading. Take the fixed sodium wavelength, the calibration will always read the same wavelength in every frame. This is similar to measuring the same speed of light in every frame. It depends on where the wavelength is created and where it is detected that will read the same or different wave shift. Each different gradient position has a different measuring stick. So you create the light in one dilation and measure it in another dilation there will be a measured shift in wavelength while the wavelength remained the same. This is the same reason the speed of light is measured the same in every frame of SR and GR. In SR the geometry of the finite speed of light increases the length of view in a measuring stick with light. Visual only. GR dilation of the electron path increases the relative size of your measuring stick. A physical change. They are equivalent for distance of light per volume of energy state density.
What moves the electron? Energy moves the electron. e path + dilation = E path
When mass reaches the speed of light on the surface of a sun the dilation exceeds the energy of space and all of the atoms compress into a BH where space between the atoms no longer exists. The volume of our sun would compress to about 1.7 miles in diameter.
Post by: McQueen on 11/04/2017 03:26:25
Quote
Alan Calverd : It's interesting to be told that we are all wrong, especially by a bloke who doesn't know the difference between velocity and acceleration. "Out of the mouths of babes", perhaps?
This is the kind of moronic reiteration namely repeatedly repeating the same mistake and attributing it to someone else that is a result of too much self-absorption. To illustrate here is what I said about acceleration and velocity.
Quote
McQueen : On the left side, a stands for acceleration, which has units of length divided by time squared.also
Quote
McQueen: E is not equal to force x displacement (as claimed by Alan Calverd nuclear physicist!) , it is W = F x s (Work = force x distance ) and E = Fa : Energy = Force x velocity / time .
Quote
Alan Calverd: It would be even more interesting to be told why our stuff actually works
How did the early theory of the propagation of electricity in a wire formulated by Drude and Lorentz survive for so many years before being replaced by the even more inaccurate quantum version.
That said it seems to be pointless to reply to these toothless and inaccurate barbs which I will ignore in the future.
Quote
Bored Chemist : Common sense is wrong.
That is indeed a useful refuge in which to seek safety but in this case it is not just common sense it is everything else that is also wrong the most glaring and obvious of which of which is the maths.
Post by: GoC on 11/04/2017 11:39:58
HPLC, SFC, IR. We are discussing wavelengths. Useful in analytical chemistry.At least most of that is nonsense.
Main stream theory of wavelengths changing as they travel through different gravity potentials has a math basis but so does wavelengths staying the same while the gradient dilation of the energy state changing the calibration of the instrument cell length to reading. Take the fixed sodium wavelength, the calibration will always read the same wavelength in every frame. This is similar to measuring the same speed of light in every frame. It depends on where the wavelength is created and where it is detected that will read the same or different wave shift. Each different gradient position has a different measuring stick. So you create the light in one dilation and measure it in another dilation there will be a measured shift in wavelength while the wavelength remained the same. This is the same reason the speed of light is measured the same in every frame of SR and GR. In SR the geometry of the finite speed of light increases the length of view in a measuring stick with light. Visual only. GR dilation of the electron path increases the relative size of your measuring stick. A physical change. They are equivalent for distance of light per volume of energy state density.
What moves the electron? Energy moves the electron. e path + dilation = E path
When mass reaches the speed of light on the surface of a sun the dilation exceeds the energy of space and all of the atoms compress into a BH where space between the atoms no longer exists. The volume of our sun would compress to about 1.7 miles in diameter.
Yes, until you understand Relativity. In SR the light travels the hypotenuse of the two legs of a right triangle in vector speed. The extra distance exactly matches the Lorentz contraction for time (slowing down) and increase distance for view. This is equivalent to dilation of space in GR. Can you sit down and play a piano well without any lessons? No that would be nonsense. I can do the math for you if you cannot. It's 7th grade geometry and a understanding of Relativity. Apply yourself or continue to view the universe as nonsense.
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/04/2017 19:17:50
Post by: GoC on 12/04/2017 11:38:30
As a realest I have to assume something comes from something. From where did the first something come?
Post by: impyre on 13/04/2017 03:05:59
"Taking the ma=mc^2 part of the equation..."
What equation? Where have those two things ever been equated? It seems like you like to use symbols without understanding what they represent. Or algebra?
Observe:
If F=ma, then m=F/a. Basic algebra. The first one says: to get a given mass to a given acceleration, you require a specific amount of force. The second one says: For a given force and a desired acceleration, you require a specific amount of mass. Both agree.
Also, if E=mc^2, then m=E/c^2. The first says: an amount of mass multiplied by this constant will tell how much energy it *is*, not *has*. This is where the term mass-energy equivalence comes from.
so if E/c^2=m=F/a then E/c^2=F/a or aE/c^2=F. And I'm sure it does, as this is just a restatement of the basic acceleration equation. The last one says: to get a given mass(described by it's equivalent energy) to a given acceleration, you require a specific amount of force.
"An equality must have the same units on both sides of the equation."
This is just flat-out incorrect. If this *were* true, we would've never had more than one unit... since usually when a new unit is needed the only way to measure and describe it is in terms of another different unit.
Let's try a thought experiment to show why this is true:
I'm an ancient thinker and I've been wondering about how fast things move. Surely, some things move faster than others. It might be really useful to be able to compare fastness? Speed? But how could I do this? It seems that faster things go further in less time. To make comparisons easier, I'll set one of them to 1. Seconds makes the most sense to me. I'll need a new unit, let's call them blips, 1 blip = 10 feet per second.
We don't actually have special units for speed obviously, partially because it's a simple thing to work with. But if we did, you could rest assured the equations would not have the same units on each side. That doesn't make them any less true, or any less useful. The problem arises (and this is when dimensional analysis comes in) when you have units that are defined by other units, that are themselves defined by still other units, and you have to convert each of them... sometimes more than once. Sometimes it may not be entirely obvious whether the units agree or not. Also, occasionally the same unit can be used in different ways. Take, for example, the classic issue of the Newton-meter vs the Joule. Since one J=Nm, some might be tempted to think that one newton-meter is the same as one Joule. This is obviously incorrect; the problem is that the newton-meter is actually defined in terms of mass and acceleration. It's the amount of torque caused by a force of one Newton at the end of a one meter lever. The Joule is a measure of energy, specifically the amount of energy required to accelerate a 1 kg mass over 1 meter at an acceleration of 1m/s. Of course this means it can also be used as a measure of work.
Post by: McQueen on 13/04/2017 13:36:20
Quote
Impyre ; If F=ma and E=mc^2, it seems apparent that F and E aren't the same thing. It sounds in your post as if you're disputing something that noone ever said was a thing to begin with. I don't think anyone else thinks F=E, who are you trying to convince?Age of Impyre, you seem to be only too keen to attribute to me motives that are non-existent or in direct opposition to what you seem to imply. It was clearly ( from a complete reading of the OP) never my intention to establish that F = E bur rather to show what a ridiculous statement it is. The other equally ridiculous statement in physics is the De Broglie equation where Einstein's equation : e = mc^^2 is equated with Planck's equation where e = hf
equating the two mc^^2 = hf
This is utterly ridiculous because a wave is not localised a wave does not have mass how then can it be made equivalent to an object occupying a definite position and possessing a definite mass. It is a ridiculous assumption. You may spout all you like but in the end you cannot compare a physical constant with mass or with the speed of light squared. Heaping more ignominy on the subject is the fact that the De Broglie relation claims to somehow derive from this equation that all mass has associated 'matter waves' which to this day more than a century later no-one knows exactly what is waving or what they are. Certainly these waves have nothing at all in common with any other waves found on earth or in the Universe. I have then attempted to show just how nonsensical the whole scenario is:
Quote
McQueen: It is not possible to compare a solid with a wave and then to generalise that all matter has corresponding waves. I can see that you are already highly sceptical but think about this:
Louis de broglie equated the energy equations of planck and einstein:
E= mc2 ; E = hf
m is the moving mass of the particle, for a photon the rest mass is zero( or very nearly]
so it does not undergo relativistic variation of mass .Hence mass energy equivalence for the photon becomes meaningless. From this it follows that it is impossible to equate the two equations
Looked at from another view point: Here E=hf does not give the energy of electron. It gives the energy required / released when electrons change their energy levels. How then is it possible if E = hf applies to a change of energy in an electron for E = hf to equal E = mc2 ? hf = mc2
From the above it follows that f = mc2/h
Suppose an electron with a mass of 9.1 x 10-31 Kg
Then its frequency ( in the context of its energy should be ( 9.1 x 10-31 x 9 x1016 / 6.63 x 10 -34 J/s) what does this mean if anything ?
Ans = 7.76x1021 Hz. So apart from everything else electrons have an intrinsic frequency of around 10,000,000 THz ! wow!
You could go on: If the velocity of the De Broglie wave is VB and the velocity of the particle is VP then VB x VP = c 2.
Presumably if the two velocities are multiplied the result is the speed of light squared? What an amazing relation.........
Do you still advise unquestioning obedience by myself and everyone else in this New Theories forum and to insist that we should be satisfied that the De Broglie hypotheses has been verified!
Further since VB x VP = c 2 .
VP < c and VB > c. The velocity of the De Broglie wave will always be faster than the speed of light, change with the velocity of the particle AND the Velocity of the matter wave changes. What kind of wave is this? It has totally unacceptable wave properties. Is it a probability wave that has a dual existence? One existence in probability and another ( when necessary) in reality?
As I have said before the De Broglie relation is the last resort of scientists who had no other recourse.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2017 14:02:24
As I have said before the De Broglie relation is the last resort of scientists who had no other recourse.You are right it's the (current) refuge of scientists who, having found that it works, have no other recourse but to accept the evidence.
That's to say, "scientists".
Post by: impyre on 14/04/2017 04:43:32
The short version is, you're wrong.
Post by: GoC on 17/04/2017 15:34:53
The angular momentum of the electron when it jumps creates a DNA type wave of hf. Depending on the dilation of space the wave is created in regulates the f and h in GR. This is equivalent to vector speed in SR for h and f. They are both based on available energy c. c of space is an inescapable part of relativity. c fits relativity to a t.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/04/2017 16:26:28
F=ma is kinetic energy.
Not in any physics textbook, nor in real life.
Post by: jeffreyH on 17/04/2017 17:05:36
Post by: GoC on 18/04/2017 14:49:51
F=ma is kinetic energy.
Not in any physics textbook, nor in real life.
Can you share your interpretation of real life? Physics text books have a limited understanding as do you and I. But whose understanding is more limited?
ma reduces c energy by making the electrons of m travel further by going through space. If m could go c than the cycle of the electron would be zero and m having all kinetic energy same as a BH. That would be the equivalence between SR and GR. How much thinking on your own do you do? If you let the training by others be your limit what have you accomplished in real life?
Post by: Spring Theory on 05/05/2017 16:15:56
Pressure = Force/Area = Energy/Volume
so:
Force = Energy/length
or
Energy = Force x length (distance)