An analysis of the de Broglie equation

  • 724 Replies
  • 26155 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #200 on: 18/06/2016 22:14:17 »
No - it would be a faster rate of time that is finite...  An event horizon of a black hole is merely where it starts to be too hot for light to shine.  A black holes gravity well will be geometrically flat, it's acceleration of time causing the curvature.

What observations does this notion of time running faster for bodies of mass, and slower for open space not fit with?

Why do you believe that it is temperature that prevents photons from escaping a black hole? That is incorrect.

Because all atoms have been stripped to a particle plasma that is opaque.  Light cannot shine through opaque.
(This is a description already attributed to immediate post Big Bang conditions under current theory)
« Last Edit: 18/06/2016 22:23:05 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #201 on: 18/06/2016 22:23:27 »
Because all atoms have been stripped to a particle plasma that is opaque.  Light cannot shine through opaque.
(This is a description already attributed to immediate post Big Bang conditions under current theory)

If you have a supermassive black hole then the g force at the event horizon would hardly be noticeable. So that the forces required to destroy particle cohesion would be absent. Escape velocity equalling the speed of light is the cause of photon confinement.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #202 on: 18/06/2016 22:55:15 »
Only if you attribute photons with mass.  Photon's don't have mass unless you apply the gamma.

Replacing the gamma with inverted time dilation, escape velocity doesn't apply for photon's, and the sheer compression and resulting temperature of a black hole is causing atoms to be stripped to a particle plasma.

As I am attributing the black hole phenomenon as the causation of the Big Bang, that a black hole would display conditions attributed to the Big Bang is fitting.

Black holes violently eject jets of particles via their accretion disks.

Please remember what in physics is proven, and what is not, before you start denoting 'anything' as incorrect...  What you are stating as 'correct' is unproven.

Why would g force be hardly noticeable at the event horizon of a black hole?  The mass of a black hole is greater than earth, so the g force of a black hole will also be greater... unless you stretch the 'distance' staying that a black hole warps the geometry of space, which is what relativity states.  Inverted time theory states the geometry as flat and the curvature as caused by the linear changes in the rate of time (inverted time dilation) within the changes in the gravitational gradient.

As anything moves towards a black hole, it will cover the measure of a meter in a quicker time.  Relativity states that it is the meter that will stretch.

Honestly Jeff, if it wasn't for the fact that these concepts that I am putting forward all fit together like a jig saw puzzle and portray (albeit awaiting mathematical confirmation) the mechanics of a fully described system of a cyclic universe, a notion backed up by the Higgs being 125GeV, instead of 140 for the Multiverse, or 115 for Supersymmetry, I really wouldn't be bothering with it...
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #203 on: 18/06/2016 23:29:41 »
Gamma is NOT applied to photons since they have no rest mass to apply it to. Escape velocity does apply to photons though. The g force is calculated via mass and the square of radial distance from the source. The g force decreases as the mass and event horizon radius increase. The mathematics have been shown to agree with observation so I can't see how you can refute them. The GPS system wouldn't work anymore if time dilation were inverted.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #204 on: 18/06/2016 23:56:29 »
Oh for goodness sake, what part of me saying that inverted time dilation is 'additional' to GR time dilation did you not understand?

I'm saying that both exist and that GR is calculating what time is doing for mass in elevation to mass.  Inverted time dilation is calculating what time is doing for open space in relation to mass.

If the gamma is what calculates relativistic mass, then I'm sorry, but photon's are only able to be gravitationally attracted on account of relativistic mass, so I don't understand your saying that gamma is not applied to photon's.

If photon's do not have relativistic mass then escape velocity cannot apply in the context that you are stating.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #205 on: 19/06/2016 00:33:42 »
Light has a constant velocity, hence v^2/c^2 has the ratio of the changing velocity of the source mass against the constsnt velocity oif light. If gamma were to be applicable to photons then this would become c^2/c^2 which equals 1. This is then a constant and so no change happens. Which is why gamma does not apply to photons.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #206 on: 19/06/2016 02:36:14 »
So if the gamma doesn't apply to light then what is the procedure for calculating relativistic mass for light? And why is the procedure of calculation different for light?

In any case this is purely academic because what I'm suggesting negates the necessity for relativistic mass altogether for both mass and light, offering a physical process of inverted time dilation as causality, while remaining within the mathematical proportionality of the original working hypothesis.

ie: the notion I'm suggest does the same job as relativistic mass, but unlike in the case of relativity's relativistic mass, inverted time dilation also gives causality for the physical process...

So... Light being massless is not gravitationally affected but must travel through reference frames that, due to the gradient of the gravitational field, experience rates of time inherent with longer (or shorter) seconds than the standard second that we measure time with on earth...
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #207 on: 19/06/2016 03:05:09 »
Since mc^2=hv where v is frequency and energy is E=mc^2 then the relativistic mass of the photon is hv/c^2. This will increase or decrease with a change in the frequency v. This is affected by a gravitational field as the photon passes through it. Therefore the gravitational field affects the relativistic mass of the photon. Gamma appears nowhere in the calculation.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #208 on: 19/06/2016 03:53:17 »
As Pete has stated that gravity potential is not used to calculate relativistic mass, it must be KE that is calculating relativistic mass for light.

KE=0.5mv^2. ... Light does not have rest mass to calculate this equation, and Pete stated that this equation 0.5mv^2 is not used for relativistic speeds, at which point he brought up the gamma, and hey presto... We've come full circle...

It's late now, but I'll pull up the Pound Rebka link with the gravitational shift equations in tomorrow to look at gh/c=v where h is height and v is the velocity of the Doppler shift and vc=f where f is frequency, and then examine this equation you have posted hv/c^2, where you have used v for frequency... (edit: and h is Planck's constant)

I'm saying that the velocity of gh/c (edit: where h is height) is a time aspect.  That the vc=f is akin to saying that v is a speed, c is a distance, and f is the time, or timing, whereas a wave'length' is inversely proportional to f in keeping with the gravitational field, the length of the wave remains constant and it is a longer or shorter second of the gravitational field that causes the wave to 'appear' to be longer or shorter in length.

It is an incredibly simple concept!
(challenging Hubble's redshift conjecture and therefore the concept of an expanding universe)
« Last Edit: 19/06/2016 14:56:47 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #209 on: 19/06/2016 12:46:31 »
Well - I'm not computer literate enough to copy and paste the maths from the link, but here is the link.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment

Clearly I'm not a mathematician and my given manipulation of these maths may be at fault, but I think my intended direction of calculation is clear.

I have noticed that there are quite a few proficient mathematicians posting here.  Can't someone help out?
« Last Edit: 19/06/2016 12:49:28 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4901
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #210 on: 24/06/2016 00:50:51 »
It's late now, but I'll pull up the Pound Rebka link with the gravitational shift equations in tomorrow to look at gh/c=v .....................
(challenging Hubble's redshift conjecture and therefore the concept of an expanding universe)

but you need to read the next sentence

Quote
In the more general case when h ≈ R the above is no longer true.


PS I've been in Norway for the last two weeks, eating fish, watching the midnight sun, and planning an alternative future in case the morons vote "in".
« Last Edit: 24/06/2016 00:54:40 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #211 on: 24/06/2016 01:20:02 »


PS I've been in Norway for the last two weeks, eating fish, watching the midnight sun, and planning an alternative future in case the morons vote "in".
When the voting block becomes moron dominant, we can expect a moronic future.............................Pessimism grows with each passing moment.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #212 on: 24/06/2016 04:16:07 »
It's late now, but I'll pull up the Pound Rebka link with the gravitational shift equations in tomorrow to look at gh/c=v .....................
(challenging Hubble's redshift conjecture and therefore the concept of an expanding universe)

but you need to read the next sentence

Quote
In the more general case when h ≈ R the above is no longer true.


PS I've been in Norway for the last two weeks, eating fish, watching the midnight sun, and planning an alternative future in case the morons vote "in".

... no longer hold true for using that notation for the calculation.  Presumably where h = R there is still an acceleration of gravity that is then calculated via the notation of R rather than h? (where h is height).

P.S.  Norway?  Fish?  Bang goes my visualisation of a hammock and girls in hoola skirts...(chuckle).  I daresay the flavour of your thoughts on the morons will not fail to amuse either way... Welcome back.  I missed you!
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4901
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #213 on: 24/06/2016 10:42:46 »
The full equation holds for all values of R and h.

Blondes on skis are very acceptable, and a reindeer skin by a blazing fire in a Saami tent is much more sociable than a hammock. As for the aphrodisiac qualities of dried cod, snow and midnight sun....   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #214 on: 24/06/2016 12:05:45 »
Thank goodness for that.  I don't think my model would be viable if the acceleration of gravity ran out where h = R...

So given that we now have either the notation of h, or R, to calculate in relation to g, (ie: gh/c=v) ... and vc=f... can we turn the v of the calculation into a time aspect by considering the equation to be equivalent to the speed, distance, time formula, where v can be speed, c can be distance, and f is time, or timing, and the wave'length', being inversely proportional to f, can be viewed as a longer or shorter second (relative to the standard second)?

Granted, hammocks are by design awkward and the reindeer skin by the fire in a Sammi tent, (presumably something along the lines of a yurt), sounds divine.  But dried cod, snow and midnight sun?  Hmmm, the mind boggles!  I imagine some Nordic equivalent of the Karma Sutra exists as a means of instruction?
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #215 on: 24/06/2016 15:13:40 »
An interesting angle is that using a coordinate acceleration viewed from infinity we can show a mass for the photon as m(rel) = ha/c^2. Since we also have hv/c^2 with v for frequency then a change in coordinate acceleration equates with a change in frequency. We are now dealing with acceleration terms for both gravitation and the photon. So at infinity we can establish some sort of unification mechanism.
« Last Edit: 24/06/2016 15:18:14 by jeffreyH »
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #216 on: 24/06/2016 15:51:39 »
Disregard the last post. The mathematics are incorrect.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #217 on: 24/06/2016 16:00:11 »
It should have been ha/c^2 = h/lambda so that it is wavelength and not frequency that relates to coordinate acceleration. Sorry for the confusion.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #218 on: 24/06/2016 16:04:44 »
Well - I can see where you are coming from, but just as a point of exercise try leaving the photon and the mass out of the equation, and let the equation be a calculation of the gravitational field 'only'.

If you need a focus of visualisation, imagine you are making a calculation of the De Broglie wave'length' for a 'massless graviton', where the v of gh/c=v is a time aspect that can be calculated as vc=f, and 'length' of time, (ie: length of second relative to the standard second), is inversely proportional to f.  Edit: maybe this can be calculated as c(distance)/v(speed) = wave'length'(length of second)

Edit:  I think I'm representing the maths correctly, but if I am missing out the ^2 with regards to c in those equations, please someone tell me.
« Last Edit: 24/06/2016 16:19:19 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #219 on: 24/06/2016 16:21:54 »
How am I supposed to know how to describe a graviton mathematically. Do you just want me to pop the equation out of a hat? Viola I am David Blaine.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #220 on: 24/06/2016 16:42:23 »
I just told you.

gh/c=v
vc=f
(It may be that I'm wrong in that these equations are usually c^2 in which case use c^2)

Then calculate wavelength as inversely proportional to f.

I am equating the proportions of the equation to being a time aspect by employing the speed distance time formula.

c(distance) divided by v(speed) = length of second.(wave'length')
(albeit this may be too simplistic?)

You don't need to attribute the results to a graviton and a gravitons experience of time and time dilation, just the inverse square law nature of the gravitational field and open space.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #221 on: 24/06/2016 16:59:19 »
You are assuming that graviton energy has a relation to the Planck constant h. That is a mistake. Evan said something interesting about neutrinos in another thread. They interact weakly because the target they need to hit is a fraction of the size of a nucleon. This is via the weak nuclear force. We cannot say that gravitation is not similarly connected to the strong nuclear force. So the weakness of the force of gravity may be due to the wavelength being much longer than that of the photon. Not because the energy of the graviton relates to h. The energy may well be greater than we think but just like neutrinos the interactions may be fewer.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #222 on: 24/06/2016 17:31:23 »
I do believe that the equations I gave you represent a new concept of an inverted time dilation.

If energy is stretched over slower time relative to a standard second, there will be fewer occurrences 'when' measuring via the standard second.  And the opposite if energy is compacted into faster seconds relative to a standard second.  It applies to all per second mathematics...

...And as Planck's h constant falls into the per second catagory?

Edit: it occurs that I should state terms: gh/c=v where h is height.  Where h = R, use R.
« Last Edit: 24/06/2016 17:35:15 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #223 on: 24/06/2016 17:55:30 »
I understand the terms but that is not the issue. Let's take a scalar value represented by sigma so that sigma*h will scale the action if necessary. Of course sigma could be 1. So sigma*h*a/c^2 can be stated as the equation you require using your requirements. This assumes that the speed of gravity equals the speed of light. It also assumes a coordinate speed for gravity that is equivalent to that of light. This may or may not be the case. For your theory it helps if they differ.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #224 on: 24/06/2016 19:23:06 »
Yes - the theory requires that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light.

Now where the co-ordinate speed of gravity and the co-ordinate speed of light are concerned, the energy of the gravity field clearly diminishes with distance via the inverse square law.
...and yeah, to say so it gets confusing with light because light of all frequency is gravitationally shifted.  (Hubble used a standard candle)

The energy (force?) of a gravitational field diminishes by the inverse square law, but the acceleration of a gravity field is dependant on mass, therefore for differing masses the co-ordinate speed of gravity, or acceleration of gravity would differ.  The length of any frequency of lights wavelength simply takes a longer or shorter amount of time to cover the same distance when moving away from, or into, a gravitational field, hence the longer or shorter wave'lengths', and it is the changes in the energy of the gravitational gradient causing the 'appearance' of shift in any frequency of light, and the 'appearance' of a change in the length of wavelength.  Frequency being the timing structure of the gravitational field, not the timing structure of the photon.  (ie: Doppler redshift velocities are time not distance related, and Hubble's law is challenged)
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4901
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #225 on: 25/06/2016 01:48:12 »
vc=f

A moment's reflection on the dimensional analysis of this statement will show you that it is nonsense.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #226 on: 25/06/2016 02:52:19 »
Aha - (chuckle) - and so we can see exactly why I am requiring help with the maths.

Come on Alan, my maths may not be correct, but my intended direction of calculation is surely obvious.  I'm trying to calculate the acceleration of gravity as an 'inverted time dilation' time aspect.  Or - the velocity of Doppler redshift as an 'inverted time dilation' time aspect.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #227 on: 25/06/2016 07:56:44 »
As I see it, from my untrained perspective:

The acceleration of gravity is given in meters per second squared.

The speed of light is 299 792 458 meters per second.

This means that the distance of 299 792 458 meters can be held constant to a second.

If we divide 299 792 458 meters by 299 792 458 meters, we arrive at 1 meter.

If we divide 1 meter by the speed of light, we can find that the speed of light covers 1 meter in 3.335+ ...is it a millionth of a second?

By adding the meters per second squared of the acceleration of gravity  to the distance of 299 792 458 meters and then dividing by the speed of light, we will arrive at a 1 point something measure of a meter.

Divide 1 point something meters by the speed of light.  Take this result and subtract 3.335+... from it.  The remaining fraction of a second is by how much a second gets 'longer' every 299 792 458 meters in height in the 'open space' gravitational field of the particular mass you are calculating for.

Matching these extra millionth (?) of second to extra length in wavelength of light in the weaker gravity field would of course be peachy.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4901
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #228 on: 25/06/2016 08:53:11 »
If we divide 299 792 458 meters by 299 792 458 meters, we arrive at 1 meter.
No. You get 1, a dimensionless number.

If you ignore dimensions you will end up believing your own rhetoric.

According to you, a pint of water divided by a pint of water is 1 pint, and a pint of whisky divided by a pint of whisky is 1 pint, so you might as well drink whisky if you are thirsty, or water if you want to get drunk. 
« Last Edit: 25/06/2016 08:57:53 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #229 on: 25/06/2016 09:28:13 »
As I see it, from my untrained perspective:

The acceleration of gravity is given in meters per second squared.

The speed of light is 299 792 458 meters per second.

This means that the distance of 299 792 458 meters can be held constant to a second.

If we divide 299 792 458 meters by 299 792 458 meters, we arrive at 1 meter.

If we divide 1 meter by the speed of light, we can find that the speed of light covers 1 meter in 3.335+ ...is it a millionth of a second?

By adding the meters per second squared of the acceleration of gravity  to the distance of 299 792 458 meters and then dividing by the speed of light, we will arrive at a 1 point something measure of a meter.

Divide 1 point something meters by the speed of light.  Take this result and subtract 3.335+... from it.  The remaining fraction of a second is by how much a second gets 'longer' every 299 792 458 meters in height in the 'open space' gravitational field of the particular mass you are calculating for.

Matching these extra millionth (?) of second to extra length in wavelength of light in the weaker gravity field would of course be peachy.

Bearing in mind that a second of time is defined by the gravitational field, at ground level, Earth...

Calculating for a greater gravity field than earth (ie: a greater acceleration than 9.807 m/s) would require maths that resulted in a meter be less than 1... In which case you subtract 9.807 meters squared from the higher acceleration of gravity, and minus the result from 299 792 458 meters, and then divide the result by 299 792 458 meters for a 0 point something of a meter.

Then divide the 0 point something of a meter by speed of light.  Take result and minus 3.335+ millionth of second for a negative result.  This is by how much a second is shorter in a greater gravity field to Earth.

Of course anything with mass will be GR time dilation affected in a mass in relation to mass relationship.
« Last Edit: 25/06/2016 10:05:22 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #230 on: 25/06/2016 09:32:54 »
If we divide 299 792 458 meters by 299 792 458 meters, we arrive at 1 meter.
No. You get 1, a dimensionless number.

If you ignore dimensions you will end up believing your own rhetoric.

According to you, a pint of water divided by a pint of water is 1 pint, and a pint of whisky divided by a pint of whisky is 1 pint, so you might as well drink whisky if you are thirsty, or water if you want to get drunk.

I see square root 1 used in many of the related calculations...

Can you please explain what dimension square root 1 is?

In any case all that comment results in is that it takes 3.335+ millionth (?) of a second for the speed of light to cover 1 meter, which is correct. (Given that millionth is correct)

And... don't mean to be funny but If you divide a number by itself all you are saying is that there is the number you are using 'amount' of 1 thing. (edit: and in the instance you comment on, that 1 thing is a meter)

Have you anything to say about any other part of the post?
« Last Edit: 25/06/2016 09:55:44 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #231 on: 25/06/2016 11:20:37 »
Read up on dimensional analysis. Then you will see exactly what Alan means. It is one of the most beneficial things you will ever do for you understanding of physics.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4901
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #232 on: 25/06/2016 12:59:00 »
Quote
Bearing in mind that a second of time is defined by the gravitational field, at ground level, Earth...

No. It is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom. Anywhere and everywhere.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #233 on: 25/06/2016 14:48:01 »
Read up on dimensional analysis. Then you will see exactly what Alan means. It is one of the most beneficial things you will ever do for you understanding of physics.
The best advise anyone has given in this thread to date!!
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2080
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #234 on: 25/06/2016 15:22:01 »
I agree with Alan, Jeff, and Ethos about dimensional analysis, it really helps with thinking and analysis. Just to get you started:

Can you please explain what dimension square root 1 is?
It depends what units you are working in. It can be dimensionless or it can use the units you are working with eg for 1meter the units would be √m usually written m.

And... don't mean to be funny but If you divide a number by itself all you are saying is that there is the number you are using 'amount' of 1 thing. (edit: and in the instance you comment on, that 1 thing is a meter)
No, that 1 thing is not a meter. By dividing meters by meters you create a dimensionless ratio or scaling factor (remember Jeff talking about sigma in a different context?). This ratio can be applied to quantities that are not in meters.

It's important to get these basics in place otherwise you will either lose credibility and people will miss the point you are making, or you will mislead yourself into the wrong conclusions.

and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4901
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #235 on: 25/06/2016 15:36:58 »
I used to teach dimensional analysis to Arts undergraduates who had never taken a public examination in any science. After about 2 hours' instruction, I set them an "A" level (university entrance) physics paper. They all achieved a pass grade - enough to start an apprenticeship - just by carefully analysing the questions. And this was in the 1960s when A levels were difficult and apprenticeships were worth having!
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #236 on: 25/06/2016 17:20:06 »
Excuse me - but I defined 299 792 458 as being meters, and then divided it by 299 792 458 meters.  The answer is 1 meter.

Then I defined my use of this calculation by dividing 1 meter by the speed of light to calculate what fraction of a second it takes the speed of light to travel 1 meter.

It would appear that my first division of meters by meters is arbitrary, but it is just a means of setting the scene for the meters per second squared of the acceleration of gravity to be added to the meters it takes the speed of light to travel 1 second.

The reason for the calculation of adding the meters per second to the meters covered in 1 second by the speed of light, is to find out how much of a fraction of a second longer it takes the speed of light to cover the distance of the 1 point something meter.

All I am doing is using the time distance speed formula to transpose the acceleration of gravity into an inverted time dilation aspect.  This concept ultimately holds distance as a constant and the rate of the 'inverted time dilation' as the variable, which means that the geometry of 'space' is flat, and it is 'inverted time dilation causing curvature,

Now then guys, in that I am 'changing the dimensions of the universe from an expanding universe to a slowly contracting universe, as per my model, if you think these 'NEW' dimensions are going to be instantly recognisable to you, then you's are not really as clever as I am giving you credit for.

If dimensional analysis is such a favourable tool, why not get involved and 'apply' it to the matter in hand without bias to the fact that the concept is new and foreign to you, instead of using the mention of dimensional analysis to discount the subject matter?

Surely this would be of more intellectual interest than the constant reminding me that my idea is not dimensionally 'usual' to your pre- conditioned pallets?
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4901
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #237 on: 25/06/2016 18:33:40 »
For as long as you divide apples by oranges to get chickens, nobody will take you seriously.

We know the speed of light, whether expressed in meters per second or millifurlongs per microfortnight, and the only preconception that underpins relativity is that c is constant. So far, it has worked very well.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #238 on: 25/06/2016 18:49:09 »
...and exactly what part of the fact that I am also holding the speed of light constant have you not understood?

What I am proposing would not be a possibility if the speed of light was not held constant.
« Last Edit: 25/06/2016 18:53:48 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4901
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #239 on: 25/06/2016 19:48:55 »
Excuse me - but I defined 299 792 458 as being meters, and then divided it by 299 792 458 meters.  The answer is 1 meter.
No. 299...meters divided by 299...meters is 1, not 1 meter.

Quote
Then I defined my use of this calculation by dividing 1 meter by the speed of light to calculate what fraction of a second it takes the speed of light to travel 1 meter.
about 3.3 nanoseconds

Quote
It would appear that my first division of meters by meters is arbitrary, but it is just a means of setting the scene for the meters per second squared of the acceleration of gravity to be added to the meters it takes the speed of light to travel 1 second.
so now you are adding meters per second2 to meters. If carpet is 10 per square meter, please add ninepence and tell us what the answer means.

Quote
The reason for the calculation of adding the meters per second to the meters covered in 1 second by the speed of light, is to find out how much of a fraction of a second longer it takes the speed of light to cover the distance of the 1 point something meter.
Obviously, (nought point something)/c

Quote
All I am doing is using the time distance speed formula to transpose the acceleration of gravity into an inverted time dilation aspect.  This concept ultimately holds distance as a constant and the rate of the 'inverted time dilation' as the variable, which means that the geometry of 'space' is flat, and it is 'inverted time dilation causing curvature,
uite [possibly, but you won't demonstrate anything by muddled dimensionality.

Quote
Now then guys, in that I am 'changing the dimensions of the universe from an expanding universe to a slowly contracting universe, as per my model, if you think these 'NEW' dimensions are going to be instantly recognisable to you, then you's are not really as clever as I am giving you credit for.
what new dimensions will you be using, pray? I would recommend that you sort out the  ordinary ones first, then flip into inverted ("k") space once you have achieved dimensional balance. k-space mathematics is quite simple and selfconsistent but it won't tolerate dimensional imbalance!

Quote
If dimensional analysis is such a favourable tool, why not get involved and 'apply' it to the matter in hand without bias to the fact that the concept is new and foreign to you, instead of using the mention of dimensional analysis to discount the subject matter?
Many have tried, but you keep ignoring us.


helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #240 on: 25/06/2016 20:26:28 »
If you are trying to dimensionally analyse my proposal, I must have missed your explanation of why it is dimensionally incorrect.

I'm afraid your analogies of apples and oranges, and putting the words of alcoholic water, and non alcoholic whisky in my mouth (for what reason?) have completely passed me by...

The acceleration of gravity is a dimension.  A mathematical process via the time distance speed formula in relation to the constancy of the speed of light is employed.  The result is a dimension of this proposed inverted time dilation.

The mathematical process to arrive at this dimension of inverted time dilation is not a dimension.  I am not suggesting that the time distance speed formula in relation to the constant speed of light is a dimension, anymore than using square root 1 as a mathematical process suggests that square root 1 is a dimension.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #241 on: 25/06/2016 21:05:27 »
OK - to be hopefully be more 'usual' in the mathematical process employed:

1 meter times speed of light = 299 792 458 meters

1 meter divided by speed of light = 3.3ish nano seconds.

Add meters per second squared of acceleration of gravity to 299 792 458 meters.
Divide by speed of light.
Subtract 3.3 nano seconds from result.

Is the problematic term gone?
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4901
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #242 on: 26/06/2016 00:04:45 »

The acceleration of gravity is a dimension. 
No it isn't. It is a number with two dimensions, L2T-2.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #243 on: 26/06/2016 00:06:31 »
Quote from Wiki:

"Checking equations that involve dimensions."

"The factor-label method can also be used on any mathematical equation to check whether or not the dimensional units on the left hand side of the equation are the same as the dimensional units on the right hand side of the equation. Having the same units on both sides of an equation does not guarantee that the equation is correct."


Following are my personal comments:

Having different units on both sides guarantees that the equation is in error.
As a general rule, seeking a balanced equation should result in a ratio on one side of the equation equal to the other side. This results in a ratio equal to a ratio relationship. Not one meter, kilo, or second but the number (1).

If this is not sufficient an explanation, please look up Dimensional analysis at Wiki.
You may also want to look up the term: Dimensionless numbers.


« Last Edit: 26/06/2016 00:28:35 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4901
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #244 on: 26/06/2016 00:07:14 »
1 meter times speed of light = 299 792 458 meters
No, it is a meaningless jumble of dimensions L2T-1

The rest is unworthy poppycock. I can't describe it as numerology because you haven't referred to the Great Pyramid or Fibonacci, but I'm sure you will, eventually.

Please ensure brain is in motion before engaging typing finger.
« Last Edit: 26/06/2016 00:14:09 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #245 on: 26/06/2016 00:57:54 »
On the basis Alan that - I have fully explained to you the circumstances of the fact that it's not that I'm not proficient in maths.  It's that I've 'never' done any at-all, as I did not get schooled beyond primary school education - you are being incredibly unfair in that you are demanding that I know dimensional analysis in relation to algebraic mathematics, (and I am trying), especially in relation to the fact that it is because I 'don't' know these things that I have asked for HELP!  If I knew them I wouldn't need any.

It is indeed blatantly bloody obvious what I'm trying to do, and 'confusingly' your input is slanted towards the critique of the attempts of a completely qualification-less person, when you could be employing the advantage of your degree to the purpose of assistance. Bit disappointing really!

Dimensional analysis of above calculation:

L is equal to 299 792 458 meters
M is equal to gravitational acceleration
T is equal to L+M/c (edit: minus 3.3ish nano seconds)

Am I on the right track?

L1=T1
L2=T2
« Last Edit: 26/06/2016 01:27:10 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #246 on: 26/06/2016 01:08:33 »
On the basis Alan that - I have fully explained to you the circumstances of the fact that it's not that I'm not proficient in maths.  It's that I've 'never' done any at-all, as I did not get schooled beyond primary school education - not only are you being incredibly unfair in that you are demanding that I know dimensional analysis in relation to algebraic mathematics, (and I am trying) especially in relation to the fact that it is because of I 'don't' know these things that I have asked for HELP!  If I knew them I wouldn't need any.

It is indeed blatantly bloody obvious what I'm trying to do, and 'confusingly' your input is slanted towards the critique of the attempts of a completely qualification-less person, when you could be employing the advantage of your degree to the purpose of assistance. Bit disappointing really!

Dimensional analysis of above calculation:

L is equal to 299 792 458 meters
M is equal to gravitational acceleration
T is equal to L+M/c

Am I on the right track?

L1 = T1
L2=T2
Alan is only trying to show you where your math is wrong Timey. If you are weak in math, it might be advisable for you quit using it to describe your hypothesis. If you continue to use math that turns out to be in error, please don't be upset when it's pointed out to you. You've asked for help and help is what alan and many others are attempting to give you.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #247 on: 26/06/2016 01:33:46 »
L is length in units of metres. T is time in units of seconds. M is mass in units of kilograms. Speed is therefore in units of L/T or metres per second. If we were to multiply a speed by time we would then have (L*T)/T. If we have the same unit in the numerator as in the denominator they cancel. So the 2 Ts cancel and we are left with a length. So if we have 2 metres per second and multiply by 2 seconds we end up with a length of 4 metres. Sit down with a cuppa and read this through a few times.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1513
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #248 on: 26/06/2016 02:06:41 »
Well - yes Jeff.  I've read the dimensional analysis link that Alan provided last summer.

But how do you apply it to this proposed inverted time?  It presents problems when dealing with a T that is variable in relation to M and L.  I didn't need a cup of tea, nor even more than 30 seconds pass to work this out.

I have given L in meters (in height)
I have given M in terms of g
I have given T in terms of inverted time dilation in fractions of a standard second (for M of, or less than g of earth)

As far as the 'principle' of dimensional analysis goes, in that L1 is equal to T1 under any circumstance of M, (albeit inclusive of the given limitation beyond which an altered calculation is required) the equation or mathematical process has proportional dimensions.
« Last Edit: 26/06/2016 02:13:52 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4901
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Reply #249 on: 26/06/2016 10:14:39 »
On the basis Alan that - I have fully explained to you the circumstances of the fact that it's not that I'm not proficient in maths.

There was a time when I wasn't proficient in aviation, but out of courtesy to other users of the sky, I took the trouble to learn the basics before charging into Heathrow's airspace and telling everyone else that they didn't understand.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance