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,