A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Physics]
|
Prev: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FLIGHT RESERVATIONS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next: superlatives of Volcano-Electricity #47 Volcano-Electricity: Earth's Energy Future
From: cjcountess on 24 Jan 2010 09:59 On Jan 24, 6:39 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > E = hf/c^2 is utter nonsense .. hf/c^2 is a formula for mass only NOT for > energy. Basic dimensional analysis as taught in high school proves that. > > E = hf is the correct formula, as well you should know. > > You can't divide energy by c^2 and still have energy .. that is just > nonsense. The reason you can devide photon energy by c^2 is because photon energy only comes as a division of c^2, because energy = to c^2, is (matter/rest mas), therefore photon energy, which is less than rest mass at c^2, is just a division of c^2. Conrad J Countess Dimensional analysis is transended by (E=mc^2), just as the law of conservation of mass and energy, as separate intities. Dimentional analisis says that different dimensional symbols cannot be equated yet E and m clearly are in this equation.. see this from from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis last sentenc under Commensurability section Only like-dimensioned quantities may be added, subtracted, compared, or equated. When unlike-dimensioned quantities appear opposite of the "+" or "-" or "=" sign, that physical equation is not plausible, which might prompt one to correct errors before proceeding to use it. and this from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html Sheldon Glashow Theoretical Physicist Boston University "what I'd like people to understand is that once upon a time there was a law of conservation of mass. Lavoisier, in the 1700s, showed that when you have chemical reactions, the mass of the reactants is the same as the mass of the final products. That was a keystone to science, and a second keystone was the law of conservation of energy developed in the 19th century. And what E = mc2 does is tell us that both of those laws are wrong--"
From: cjcountess on 24 Jan 2010 11:11 The Geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), contains more info than equation alone, including electron structure. (E=mc^2), tells us that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter, and that they are one, related through mathematical conversion factor c^2, but does not show how. Neither can physicist and professors explain it. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html This geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), shows exactly how energy equals, and turns to matter by showing that c^2, is not just a mathematical conversion factor with no physical structure, but is an actual conversion frequency / wavelength, where energy turns to, and gets trapped inside of matter, by acquiring a circular, and or spherical configuration. It also shows that (c = the natural unit, square root, of the natural unit -1), and that (h/2pi/2) is no longer the limit of uncertainty of position and momentum, of particle, because it is the actual measure of the position and momentum, both of which can be measured simultaneously geometrically. Just as (square root -1), can not be derived by regular linear equation, because there is no number that when multiplied by itself gives -1, but can be derived geometrically, so too (h/2pi/2), as measure of both position and momentum, although may not be derived at by regular means, because regular equations do not commute according to: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=uncertainty+principle+equation+n... But the geometrical structure of electron, how energy gets trapped inside of and equals matter at c^2, how (c = the natural unit sqrt of the natural unit -1) and how both position and momentum of particle can be derived geometrically, is demonstrated at http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dsn5q6f_101hgtjv9fb&revision=_latest and collaborating there as well as below . ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Collaboration that "Uncertainty Principle", can be explained Geometrically See: arXiv:physics/0404044 [pdf] Title: What is rest mass in the wave-particle duality? A proposed model Authors: Donald C. Chang Comments: 14 pages, 2 figures. Comments welcome Subjects: General Physics (physics.gen-ph) "pages 8, 9 1. It provides a simple explanation for the âUncertainty principleâ of Heisenberg. When one regards the particle as a point-like object, as in the traditional concept of quantum physics, it is very difficult to explain the âUncertainty principleâ of Heisenberg. We were usually told that this principle is an observation of nature, and we have not found any a priori 8 explanation behind it [12]. If the particle is indeed a wavepacket representing the excitation of a real physical field, as suggested in this model, we can explain the âUncertainty principleâ in a straight forward way based on the wave nature of the âparticleâ. As shown in Eq. (16), the longitudinal component of the wave function has a phase angle (k·x â Ït). Because the particle is a wavepacket, it must have certain widths in the spatial and temporal dimensions, Îx and Ît, which can be linked to the linewidths of the wave number and frequency by the following relations, Îk·Îx ~ 2Ï , (31A) and ÎÏ·Ît ~ 2Ï . (31B) Substituting Eqs. (18) and (19) into the above relations, we have Îp·Îx ~ h , (32A) and ÎE·Ît ~ h , (32B) Thus, one cannot simultaneously determine the values of position and momentum (or time and energy) of a free particle more precisely than what is described in Eqs. (32A) and (32B), which are basically the âUncertainty principleâ of Heisenberg. page 11 5. "It implies a consistent geometrical relationship between mass, energy and momentum. In the study of theoretical physics, it is not uncommon to consider some of the physical relationships in term of geometry. We would like to explore if the result of our model makes good sense based on a geometrical consideration. Using the natural unit in which c = 1, the well established mass-energy relation (i.e., Eq. (26)) can be written as E2=P2 + m2 which appears as a geometrical relationship that E is the vector sum of two perpendicular vectors with amplitudes equal to p and m. (See Fig. 2a). Since m (or E) is a scalar instead of a vector, Eq. (39) cannot be regarded as a real vectorial relationship. Instead, it may suggest that m is associated with some sort of âintrinsic momentumâ that characterizes the spatial variation of the wave function in directions orthogonal to p." ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ According to my evidence, rest mass is a real vector product of two perpendicular vectors of c in linear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction, creating a 90 degree arc trajectory, which if constant creates a circle, and a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces. This is how E or energy = m or rest mass at (c^2) = to (G), because of the gravity mass/inertia mass equivalence, and also because both are measured (L/T^2), and = to (h/2pi), which is also energy in circular motion or more precisely (h/2pi/2) which is also energy in circler motion, making two rotations in order to complete one wave cycle, and also explains the, "Einstein mass/energy relation", and "The Uncertainty Principle" and the backward spin eplains the -1 charge. And last but not least, Einstein and Minkowski's, (ci) or (cti) = (E=mc^2) v^2 = c^2, (which is the highest velocity squared), c^2 = r^2, because c in the linear direction and /or the 90 degree angular direction which creates the 90 degree arc, (which is foundation for circle) = radius of circle, and c = h because c is constant speed of light which gives it its constant kinetic energy/mass of h. Therefore (E=hf /c^2), the equation for quantum energy/ mass = (F=mm/ r^2), Newtons equation for gravity, minus the big G, sense h is its own constant, and (F=mv^2), the equation of force or energy of mass in motion = (E=mc^2), the equation for energy/mass equivalence, on the quantum level and (a=v^2/r) = (a=c^2/c). And so the same force that compresses energy into rest mass particles at (E=hf/c^2) = (E=mc^2) pushes rest mass particles together at (F=mv/r^2) = (F=Gmm/r^2). They are equivalent at quantum level and directly proportional at macro level. (c^2 = G = h/2pi/2) and (c = h = r = i = 2pi ) Collaboration that sqrt-1 can be explained geometrically which supports my idea that (c = natural unit square root of, natural unit -1) 1) First of all, because c x c, or c^2, leads to backward spinning (-1 charged), standing spherical wave, making 2 rotations, to complete 1 wave cycle, or (spin 1/2), which geometry of Electron (-1 charged ). Refer to geometrical illustrations above. 2) Second, because of the description referenced below: An Imaginary Tale: The Story of the Square Root of -1 by Paul J. Nahin page 53 paragraph 2: âsquare root of -1 is directed line segment of length 1 pointing straight up along the vertical axis or at long last, [i = = 1 â 90 degree angle]. This is so important a statement that it is the only mathematical expression in the entire book that I have enclosedâ page 54 paragraph 2: âmultiplying be square root of -1 is geometrically, simply a rotation by 90 degrees in the counterclockwise sense Because of this property square root of -1 is often said to be rotator operator, in addition to being an imaginary number.â If c^2 or c in linear direction x, c pointing straight up in 90 degree angular direction, creates 90 degree counter clockwise rotation or arc, which if constant creates a circle, and if this is also what creates a backward spinning, standing spherical wave, such as electron, of -1 charge, than (c = i), and Einstein's and Minkowski's, (ct x i) or (c x i) = energy in circular and /or spherical rotation with rest mass and also = (E=mc^2) And so if [i =sqrt-1 = 1 â 90 degree angle] , than [i = sqrt-1= c â 90 degree angle] (by convention c=1), and is the natural unit, square root of, the natural unit -1. 3) And last but not least, because, (square root -1), works so well in solving, "otherwise intractable situations", in electronics problems, which involve electrons, Square root-1 must be intimately connected to the electron, which is the natural unit -1, and so c, must be the "natural unit" square root of "the natural unit -1", which is the electron itself. See: http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dsn5q6f_101hgtjv9fb&revision=_latest Conrad J Countess
From: glird on 24 Jan 2010 12:58 On Jan 23, 7:12 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > On Jan 23, 5:45 am, Spencer Spindrift > > <spencerspindr...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > I started this thread 251 posts ago with a simple question. > > By now I think I've shown that there is no simple answer; hence the > > 251 posts. The question was:- > > How can a photon have momentum but not mass? > > Of course a photon has no rest mass as it only exists at C, the speed > > of light. > > Again- You are supposing that a photon has momentum, > no rest mass... > That is, this whole supposition is based on the assumption > that photons exists, and not just an artifact...i.e., a 'red > herring'. > > > I agree that a wave carries energy ..... > > Another assumption. > > When you can really prove, and not with round-about- > mathematical equations that may not apply under the > conditions, and/or that may not even be true- all the > facts that apply to to your question, then maybe you > can answer this for your self. > > Go back and really, and I mean really, study all my past > posts to get some of the truths that apply to your > conundrum AND get rid of all the dogmas within physics > associated with your question that may instantly cloud > your line of thinking. > > In other words; the mystery is really not too hard to > resolve. > > > I am not one of them. I can use maths as a tool but it can never give > > me any answers to satisfy my mind. > > Good for you. > > D.Y.K. Well said, D, Y, K.!
From: Inertial on 24 Jan 2010 17:11 "cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:00b0f298-b668-43b3-b849-e8142a4abb53(a)q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 24, 6:39 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> E = hf/c^2 is utter nonsense .. hf/c^2 is a formula for mass only NOT for >> energy. Basic dimensional analysis as taught in high school proves that. >> >> E = hf is the correct formula, as well you should know. >> >> You can't divide energy by c^2 and still have energy .. that is just >> nonsense. > > The reason you can devide photon energy by c^2 is because photon > energy only comes as a division of c^2, That statement is nonsense > because energy = to c^2, is > (matter/rest mas), therefore photon energy, which is less than rest > mass at c^2, is just a division of c^2. That statement is nonsense
From: cjcountess on 24 Jan 2010 18:47
On Jan 24, 5:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:34c43ced-bc47-4bcc-a59e-5b88f9259435(a)e11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > > There you have it folks > > No .. we do not > > > Even John Archibald Wheeler, agress with me, (E=hf/c^2), is valid > > equation. > > No .. he does not. Stop your lies. This is beyond your comprehension (c is natural unit sqrt of natural unit -1) and I have taken it out of the imaginary realm, into the real realm of natural units. This is so beyond you as your name is inertia and your mind is in a state of inertia But you can snap out of it though. Just admit that you are wrong. You even deny that John Archinald Wheeler, uses the equation (E=hf/ c^2), in book, when it is right befor your eyes and the eyes of whitnesses to these post, or do you just think that even he is wrong? > > > > > > Inertia, is an obstructionist, true to his name: Web definitions for > > inertia > > inactiveness: a disposition to remain inactive or inert; "he had to > > overcome his inertia and get back to work" > > wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Definition in context > > From search page Web definitions for inertia > > >http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1R2TSHB_enUS361&hl=en&source=hp&q=in... > > > You cannot stand in the way of an idea whose time has come > > > 1) Planck discovered E=hf for photons > > 2) Einstein discovered E=mc^2 for electron's/matter > > 3) deBroglie discovered (E=hf) = (E=mc^2) for electron of -1 charge, > > and that electron was also a wave. > > 4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to > > circumference of circle with angular momentum of a multiple integer > > of > > h/2pi > > 5) Therefore it follows from this and my geometrical evidence, that is > > independant > > of but supports above evidence, making it twice reinforced that > > (E=mc^2) = > > (E= mc^circled) and c=(square root of -1) > > c does NOT equal the square root of -1. c is a real number > > you keep making stupid statements > > > > > > > If we draw progressively shorter waves, with progressively higher > > energy, we will evidentially arrive at a wave whose 90 degree angular > > energy/momentum equals its linear energy/momentum, which create a > > balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces, and 90 degree arc, > > which if constant creates a circle in 2d, or a spherical wave in 3d. > > This 3d wave makes two rotations in order to complete one wave cycle, > > (spin1/2) and also spins backward counter to it trajectory in half > > the > > cases which is how electron gets its -1 charge. In the other half of > > cases a forward spinning positron emerged. > > A smooth transition from photon to electron, energy to matter, along > > the same EM spectrum, which might from now on be called the (energy/ > > matter), spectrum as well as (electromagnetic), is geometrically > > demonstrated. > > Photons do have constant mass/energy = to h, that come from kinetic > > energy of constant speed of c. > > Mass / energy increases with frequency increase at (E=hf/c^2) > > WRONG > > E = hf > > E does NOT = hf/c^2 > > Get it right > > > > > > > until > > it > > reaches (E=hf=c^2) or (E=hf=mc^2) as deBroglie stated, at which it > > attains rest mass. > > Rest mass is just relative mass in circular and or spherical > > rotation, > > such as a standing spherical waves, (electron). > > Therefore (E=hf /c2), the equation for quantum energy/ mass = (F=mm/ > > r2), Newtons equation for gravity, minus the big G, sense h is its > > own > > constant, and (F=mv2), the equation of force or energy of mass in > > motion = (E=mc2), the equation for energy/mass equivalence, on the > > quantum level and (a=v2/r) = (a=c2/c). And so the same force that > > compresses energy into rest mass particles at (E=hf/c2) = (E=mc2) > > pushes rest mass particles together at (F=mv/r2) = (F=Gmm/r2). They > > are equivalent at quantum level and directly proportional at macro > > level. > >http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dsn5q6f_101hgtjv9fb&revision=_latest > > > Conrad J Countess > > > As you can see, I use equation (E=hf/c^2) in last parragraph, > > Which is TOTALLY WRONG > > > to show > > equality and direct correspondence to (F=mm/r^2), which I can and have > > extended elsware to (F=mv/r^2) and even (F=Gmm/r^2) and (F=mv^2) = > > (E=mc^2), on quantum level, and the same force that compresses energy > > into rest mas particles, causes rest mass particles to gravitate > > togather. > It is all true inertia you need to get in step with it Are you still in denial that E=hf/c^2 is valid equation that even John Archibald Wheeler uses? Conrad J Countess |