[GoC]

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?

[McQueen (OP)]

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.

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 V^B and the velocity of the particle is V^P   then  V^B x  V^P  = 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  V^B x  V^P  = c ² .

V^P  <   c    and    V^B >  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?

[alancalverd]

I use mc² = hf in my daily work, as does the entire nuclear power and nuclear weapons industry, and most astronomers.

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.

[Bored chemist]

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/

[Ethos_]

It would be even more interesting to be told why our stuff actually works.

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."

[GoC]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

The sea looks pretty much the same in a mirror. So the "reflection of a wavelength " either means the wavelength - or it means nothing.

[GoC]

I found it to be a good tool in analytical chemistry. So its useful for what absorbs and what does not.

[Bored chemist]

I found it to be a good tool in analytical chemistry. So its useful for what absorbs and what does not.

What is?

[GoC]

HPLC, SFC,  IR. We are discussing wavelengths. Useful in analytical chemistry.

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.

[Bored chemist]

HPLC, SFC,  IR. We are discussing wavelengths. Useful in analytical chemistry.

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.

At least most of that is nonsense.

[McQueen (OP)]

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.

McQueen : On the left side, a stands for acceleration, which has units of length divided by time squared.

also

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 .

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.

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.

[GoC]

HPLC, SFC,  IR. We are discussing wavelengths. Useful in analytical chemistry.

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.

At least most of that is nonsense.

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.

[jeffreyH]

For those that don't understand physics displacement is in units of length. That seems like a good candidate for a distance. Unless we all woke up today in the Twilight Zone.

[GoC]

Every day I wake up there is the twilight zone question. Why?

As a realest I have to assume something comes from something. From where did the first something come?

[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?
"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.

[McQueen (OP)]

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:

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.

[Bored chemist]

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".

[impyre]

There's no need to attempt to be insulting. You started your post with poorly constructed arguments intended to support a point you hadn't even made yet. That made your post very confusing. Since your straw-man argument led the rest of your post, it was difficult to figure out exactly where you were going with it.

The short version is, you're wrong.

[GoC]

F=ma is kinetic energy. E=c is total available energy of space. ma reduces E of space c as a ratio we measure by clocks. We can compare the clock measurements between two or more frames as a ratio of available energy. The amount of energy available in a frame cannot be fixed to a standard energy of total energy available except at the speed of light where total energy is consumed. Measurement of the speed of light is always constant in all frames because the mass and the photon are confounded in all frames. So yes F=E as kinetic energy.

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.