Quantum Gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 27 May 2005 12:38 cjcountess wrote: > [snip] > By frequency of one I mean longest possible wavelength on a cosmic > scale. 1) Why do you think there *is* a "longest possible wavelength"? 2) Why on earth do you use "frequency one" to denote that? > As far as using velocity of light instead of speed of light I will use > that if that is more correct. Do you *really* not know what the difference between "speed" and "velocity" is? > I refered to gravity as a contractive force because it is said to be > attractive Right. > and when things attract the space between them contractes. Huh??? > Also it is said that gravity contracts or pulls energy and matter into > smaller spaces: Pulls, yes. Contracts? > example black holes are said to be contracting matter. No. Where did you get that from? > When I speak of force, if f=ma, than whatever the energy of E=h*1 Could you *please* write this as something like E=h*f_0, where f_0 is the (hypothetical!!!) frequency corresponding to this "longest possible wavelength"? E=h*1 makes no sense, as I already explained. > equals in mass m = h*f_0/c^2. That would be the *relativistic* mass of a photon of a wave with the hypothetical "longest possible wavelength". > can be multiplied by acceleration By which acceleration? > to get the force Which force? > as I am sure they have been translated into each other in events like the > photo electric effect. I have no clue what this is supposed to mean. > As for the verticle lines representing frequency in the case of a > wavestream traveling horrizontaly, I admitt that they would also > represent amplitude Not "also". *Only*. > by its verticle length but their very existence > would indicate the presence of waves orherwise there will only be a > straight line. Right. So what??? "they indicate the presence of waves" does in no way imply "they represent frequency"! > You say that E=h*1 is just h Indeed. h multiplied by 1 *obviously* is just h. > and represents an action and not a wave > with energy of h*1 as I see it. Indeed. > You also ask what makes me thimk that > there is a lowest possible energy. It just seems logical > and mathmaticle that if E=h*f at some point E=h*1. For the 5th time, at least: E=h*1 makes no sense. 1 what? 1 Hz? 1 /min? 1/year? ************************************ ********** U N I T S ! ! ! ********* ************************************ > Also if one can imagine > the tracing of the expanding universe back in time to a point that > might indicate a Big Bang or other major event, why can't one imagine > tracing energy levels concerning wavelength and Plamck energy backward > to a point. Err, because energy levels are not something spatial??? Because energy levels and the Planck energy have precisely nothing to do with the expansion of the universe??? > Do you think that frequency and therfore wavelength are > infinite on both ends as some do? There is nothing known so far that would indicate otherwise, so that looks like a sensible assumption. > I can understand that but I do not > because as you know I think that c^2 represents a frequency *sigh* ************************************ ********** U N I T S ! ! ! ********* ************************************ > where a wave attains rest mass. Frequencies are measured in Hertz. Please express c^2 in Hertz. Give a number. > And also if electromagnetic waves are created > by ocsillating massive particles while these particles cannot ocsillate > at ifinite speeds, that limits their size on the small end unless we > are talking about frequencies inside the atom and don't they also > correspond to motion of osillating massive particles. But electromagnetic waves are not created only by oscillating massive particles. They are created by any accelerated charge. The energy of the created photons can be up to the energy of the moving charge. Read up on "bremsstrahlung". > Shorter waves may > be related to the nucleus, but would you still call them > electromagnetic? Yes! Gamma rays are still electromagnetic radiation! > And if they have a limit on the small end they may > also have one on the large end, that of E=h*1. *sigh* > To prove that the cosmological constant, Planck's constant, and lowest > frequency wave are equivalent will not be easy but I think it can be > done in time. You can't prove something that makes no sense. What you are attempting to do is equivalent to trying to prove 2=3. Bye, Bjoern
From: cjcountess on 29 May 2005 07:02 Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: > cjcountess wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > By frequency of one I mean longest possible wavelength on a cosmic > > scale. > > 1) Why do you think there *is* a "longest possible wavelength"? > 2) Why on earth do you use "frequency one" to denote that? > > > > As far as using velocity of light instead of speed of light I will use > > that if that is more correct. > > Do you *really* not know what the difference between "speed" and > "velocity" is? > > > > I refered to gravity as a contractive force because it is said to be > > attractive > > Right. > > > > and when things attract the space between them contractes. > > Huh??? > > > > Also it is said that gravity contracts or pulls energy and matter into > > smaller spaces: > > Pulls, yes. Contracts? > > > > example black holes are said to be contracting matter. > > No. Where did you get that from? > > > > When I speak of force, if f=ma, than whatever the energy of E=h*1 > > Could you *please* write this as something like E=h*f_0, where f_0 is > the (hypothetical!!!) frequency corresponding to this "longest > possible wavelength"? E=h*1 makes no sense, as I already explained. > > > > equals in mass > > m = h*f_0/c^2. > > That would be the *relativistic* mass of a photon of a wave with the > hypothetical "longest possible wavelength". > > > > can be multiplied by acceleration > > By which acceleration? > > > > to get the force > > Which force? > > > > as I am sure they have been translated into each other in events like the > > photo electric effect. > > I have no clue what this is supposed to mean. > > > > As for the verticle lines representing frequency in the case of a > > wavestream traveling horrizontaly, I admitt that they would also > > represent amplitude > > Not "also". *Only*. > > > > by its verticle length but their very existence > > would indicate the presence of waves orherwise there will only be a > > straight line. > > Right. So what??? "they indicate the presence of waves" does in no way > imply "they represent frequency"! > > > > You say that E=h*1 is just h > > Indeed. h multiplied by 1 *obviously* is just h. > > > > and represents an action and not a wave > > with energy of h*1 as I see it. > > Indeed. > > > > You also ask what makes me thimk that > > there is a lowest possible energy. It just seems logical > > and mathmaticle that if E=h*f at some point E=h*1. > > For the 5th time, at least: E=h*1 makes no sense. 1 what? 1 Hz? > 1 /min? 1/year? > > ************************************ > ********** U N I T S ! ! ! ********* > ************************************ > > > > Also if one can imagine > > the tracing of the expanding universe back in time to a point that > > might indicate a Big Bang or other major event, why can't one imagine > > tracing energy levels concerning wavelength and Plamck energy backward > > to a point. > > Err, because energy levels are not something spatial??? > > Because energy levels and the Planck energy have precisely nothing to > do with the expansion of the universe??? > > > > Do you think that frequency and therfore wavelength are > > infinite on both ends as some do? > > There is nothing known so far that would indicate otherwise, so that > looks like a sensible assumption. > > > > I can understand that but I do not > > because as you know I think that c^2 represents a frequency > > *sigh* > > ************************************ > ********** U N I T S ! ! ! ********* > ************************************ > > > > where a wave attains rest mass. > > Frequencies are measured in Hertz. Please express c^2 in Hertz. Give > a number. > > > > And also if electromagnetic waves are created > > by ocsillating massive particles while these particles cannot ocsillate > > at ifinite speeds, that limits their size on the small end unless we > > are talking about frequencies inside the atom and don't they also > > correspond to motion of osillating massive particles. > > But electromagnetic waves are not created only by oscillating massive > particles. They are created by any accelerated charge. The energy of > the created photons can be up to the energy of the moving charge. Read > up on "bremsstrahlung". > > > > Shorter waves may > > be related to the nucleus, but would you still call them > > electromagnetic? > > Yes! Gamma rays are still electromagnetic radiation! > > > > And if they have a limit on the small end they may > > also have one on the large end, that of E=h*1. > > *sigh* > > > > To prove that the cosmological constant, Planck's constant, and lowest > > frequency wave are equivalent will not be easy but I think it can be > > done in time. > > You can't prove something that makes no sense. > > What you are attempting to do is equivalent to trying to prove 2=3. > > > Bye, > Bjoern Are you saying that E=h*f_1 is better to use than E=h*1? I have no problem using that if it will make things more clear. You ask: "one cycle per what unite?" and I say whatever will still allow it to maintain an energy of E=h*f_1 or 1 Planck unite. I still say that E=hf = E=cf because h and c are both constants that give waves energy. Planck's constant and the speed of light in its forward direction---> are both multiplied by the frequency to give it energy strength. They are equivalent. So are c and the lowest frequency before it is multiplied by anything above 1 as long as it has a Planct energy of 1. And on a graph with 1 horizontal line representing the speed and direction of light, that line could also represent Planck's constant. And verticle lines could represent the number of waves and or frequency. And their intersection could represent divisions of c^2. And so to bring things back into perspective of quantum gravity in 3 steps: The horizontal and verticle lines representing steps 1 and 2, and when the vertical energy equals the horizontal energy that is c^2, Planck's constant x Planck's constant or c x c, and can be represented by a circle or something analogous to the speed of light in uniform circular motion and is step 3. c-|--|--|--|--|->c^2 Rest mass=0=c^2 cjcountess
From: cjcountess on 29 May 2005 07:04 Provide me a link it sounds interesting Cjcountess
From: cjcountess on 29 May 2005 07:33 Suppose that the only true invarient or constant mass is that equivelent to Planck's constant. That all mass is realy relativistic mass. And that rest mass is also relativistic mass that is balenced around a center of rotation. And its inner accelerated motion of rotation resist outer attempts to accelerate its outer motion. Like hitting a high velocity rotating object will cause it to resist you all around and just like a helicopter aquires a relative stillness or hover effect by this same principle, particles may obtain rest mass and resistence from high velocity rotary motion. cjcountess
From: carlip-nospam on 29 May 2005 15:56
cjcountess <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > If there is a most basic energy, it must be at a frequency of 1 or > below, [...] Others have already made this point, but perhaps it will help to hear it explained slightly differently. Suppose I told you, "The shortest distance in the universe must be 1." You would ask -- quite rightly -- "One what? One mile? One inch? One nanometer?" If I were to reply, say, "One nanometer," you could ask -- again quite rightly -- "Why should the fundamental physics of the universe care about a French survey of the size of the Earth or the fact that humans have ten fingers?" (The meter was based on a late 18th century survey to determine the length of one degree of latitude. The fact that we use powers of ten -- a nanometer is 1/1000000000 meters -- comes from the fact that we have ten fingers.) The same is true of frequency. Frequency has units -- cycles per second, or per day, or per femtosecond, or ... So when you say "a frequency of 1 or below," it's my turn to ask, "One what?" And if you say, for instance, "One femtosecond," it's my turn to ask, "Why should the fundamental physics of the universe care about the fact that the Babylonians used a number system based on 60 [that's why sixty seconds to a minute, etc.], or about the rotation of the Earth, or about, again, the fact that humans have ten fingers?" Steve Carlip |