0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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.

The speed of light squared is not an acceleration. So no to the original question.

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.

jeffreyH: The speed of light squared is not an acceleration. So no to the original question.

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.

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.

GoC : The photon is a representation of the distance for energy propagation with no entropy.

jeffreyH : The speed of light squared is not an acceleration. So no to the original question.

alancalverd : No, obviously. Energy is force x distance.

Quote from: GoC on 31/03/2017 13:01:08 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.

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

Alan Calverd: I suggest you re-read Physics 101, especially the definition and dimensions of energy.

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 ?

Boring Chemist : Is this thread some sort of world record attempt?"Longest ever discussion of a simple error in algebra"

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. .

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,

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.

Alan Calverd: .It's more fun to shout than to learn, and being wrong isn't wrong these days, just "alt".

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.

This is unlike the real question in the OP which is whether Louis De Broglie's postulate that mc^{2} = 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.

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

Quote from: McQueen on 09/04/2017 12:16:58 This is unlike the real question in the OP which is whether Louis De Broglie's postulate that mc^{2} = 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....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

Quote from: Bored chemist on 09/04/2017 15:03:15Quote from: McQueen on 09/04/2017 12:16:58 This is unlike the real question in the OP which is whether Louis De Broglie's postulate that mc^{2} = 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....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINDoes the lumps have a wavelength or just a reflection of a wavelength. Burning sodium creates a wavelength. A photograph can have a negative.

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

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 pathWhen 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.

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?

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

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

Bored Chemist : Common sense is wrong.

Quote from: GoC on 10/04/2017 11:22:18HPLC, 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 pathWhen 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.

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?

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 = hfm 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 = mc2From 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.

F=ma is kinetic energy.

Quote from: GoC on 17/04/2017 15:34:53F=ma is kinetic energy. Not in any physics textbook, nor in real life.