The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. De Broglie Equation : Convention or Aberration ?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

De Broglie Equation : Convention or Aberration ?

  • 3 Replies
  • 4385 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline McQueen (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 763
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php
De Broglie Equation : Convention or Aberration ?
« on: 30/05/2016 06:04:05 »
Planck's Constant was first recognized by its originator Max Planck in 1900,  who  initially considered it to be  the proportionality constant between the minimal increment of energy, e, of a hypothetical electrically charged oscillator in a cavity that contained black body radiation, and the frequency, 260b57b4fdee8c5a001c09b555ccd28d.gif, of its associated electromagnetic wave. In 1905 Einstein further implemented this relationship by linking it to the energy of the of the electromagnetic wave. The value e, the minimal energy increment of a hypothetical oscillator, was theoretically associated by Einstein with a "quantum" or minimal element of the energy of the electromagnetic wave itself. The light quantum behaved in some respects as an electrically neutral particle, as opposed to an electromagnetic wave. It was eventually called the photon.

The point under consideration is whether, when such an anomalous definition of the photon is given, namely that it is a wave that behaved in some respects as an electrically neutral particle, were all the permutations and manipulations of the  relationship that was Planck's constant justified ? 

Where:

e = Energy of a particle,
m = mass of particle
c = Speed of light
h = Planck's constant

260b57b4fdee8c5a001c09b555ccd28d.gif = Frequency of light
Einstein's equation :        796f64e97cdd054d8b097f589e4fdc00.gif
Planck's equation :          1c6dc3f344b103493433b046e2e91325.gif
Equating both we get :     dfe2157a7b590f7e9941d4a92be2dbfd.gif
we know that :               8c1efef9dba26b424728e07d4941a8e0.gif
                                   9a0ce33ffeb402bbb8169a72717e6dd7.gif
                                   97e29411c1638e9f8776e774e22b0adb.gif
or :                              7998f26f5058041031e5b07a0fc20463.gif   

for macroscopic particles v can replace c:

Thus the equation becomes b51041685fb4558046915512358ee522.gif

Now ,  mv = p ( momentum of particle) and therefore,

De Broglie relation:    4976bad938f41bc82a7b6d9da6adc323.gif

Notice that these 'equations' only hold good IF the premise of  wave/particle duality in the sense of classical wave and a classical particle hold good.  If the premise fails then so does the theory and the equation becomes unproductive, since it points to a non-existent relationship.

For instance would it be possible, or even worthwhile, to apply the De Broglie relation to a hyper sonic sound wave such as used in lithotripsy ? These hypersonic  sound waves, are definitely waves but they behave like particles in the sense that they possess the ability to break and even shatter stones. Suppose  that frequency of the sound is 2 Hz and that the speed of sound is 343m/s

Then the wave-length would be 343/2 = 171.5 m.
so according to De Broglie:   08113cbdf24d5021bd8eb63f19895f46.gif  = 0f5ec7fb0ac898d3da62b3b594d4d864.gif =9ba65166485d25db000df2740de59a07.gif

Dividing by v  we find that mass of the sound wave = e5448e988bf5729d08a56cb3fe98c0cd.gif Kg. approx.

Does it make sense, only if it is absolutely essential and you want it to.

What is needed and what unfortunately was never considered, everything being in a state of chaos and excitement was a new type of wave on the lines of the hypersonic waves used in lithotripsy, which incidentally was first introduced only in 1980, decades after all of these conventions including the de Broglie relation were firmly established.  What was needed was a new idea, and a new wave, classical waves would never fit the various paradigm that planck's discovery denoted.  The inability to come up with a new wave concept has resulted in the acceptance of the De Broglie relation with all its ambiguities and improbabilities.


« Last Edit: 30/05/2016 06:34:46 by McQueen »
Logged
Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it is wrong.?
 



Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11803
  • Activity:
    86.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: De Broglie Equation : Convention or Aberration ?
« Reply #1 on: 31/05/2016 18:02:35 »
Quote from: McQueen on 30/05/2016 06:04:05
For instance would it be possible, or even worthwhile, to apply the De Broglie relation to a hyper sonic sound wave such as used in lithotripsy ? These hypersonic  sound waves, are definitely waves but they behave like particles in the sense that they possess the ability to break and even shatter stones. Suppose  that frequency of the sound is 2 Hz and that the speed of sound is 343m/s
Rather than hypersonic, I think you should use the term ultrasonic for lithotripsy. Hence the frequency is at least 20 kHz.
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 

Offline McQueen (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 763
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php
Re: De Broglie Equation : Convention or Aberration ?
« Reply #2 on: 01/06/2016 02:55:54 »
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 31/05/2016 18:02:35
Rather than hypersonic, I think you should use the term ultrasonic for lithotripsy. Hence the frequency is at least 20 kHz.

Appreciated.
Logged
Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it is wrong.?
 

Offline heffecito

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Is a photon simply a singularity where the E and B fields are out of phase
« Reply #3 on: 15/11/2022 05:19:25 »
Premise, the propagation of a "photon" is the elastic deformation of a location which has an E field out of phase with its B field.
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 1.217 seconds with 31 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.