Quantum Gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: cjcountess on 12 May 2005 09:11 Thank you for that critical analysis it will only make me better. I am not going to argue point for point with you now but everything in my theory may hinge on whether or not c2 is a speed and frequency. I say that it is both and has to have a geometric reality. After all it's called the speed of light squared. In classical physics uniform circular motion is measured by squaring it as in a=v2/r for example. The v2 could be c2 and represent energy in some sort of uniform circular motion giving the energy a rest mass because of a more equally distributed inertia and momentum around a center of rotation as opposed to being radiated along a more linier path instead. It is true that I am not proficient in basic physics math but I think that all I need are a few simple equations to make my point. This idea of mine started with a vision first not a math formula. Then I ask myself if it made logical sense and if I thought that I could find evidence in the scientific world to support it and to me the answer was yes. I also ask myself if I thought that I could make predictions with it and if it could possibly help explain some of the questions in physics. I will list some of those later. Last of all is when I ask myself if I might find some math to support it. And I do believe that E=mc2 and m=Ec2 does but it all hinges on whether or not c2 is a speed and frequency. Again I say yes to both. This would explain why there is not a matching anti matter particle for every matter particle in the universe, one more but not the only reason why there is no ultra violet catastrophe or infinite frequency speed for electromagnetic waves, and that rest mass particles including certain cosmic rays are the next step up in the energy spectrum because energy attains rest mass at high enough frequencies namely c2. I will now leave you to chew on that and chew me out if you like. I am confident that I will be able to prove what I am stating in the end. cjcountess
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 12 May 2005 10:37 cjcountess wrote: > Thank you for that critical analysis it will only make me better. Please answer my questions. Especially, please define all the terms for which I asked what they mean. > I am > not going to argue point for point with you now but everything in my > theory may hinge on whether or not c2 is a speed and frequency. It isn't. This is so *basic* physics, it's almost unbelievable that someone who does not understand that thinks he is qualified to propose a theory of quantum gravity! > I say that it is both Absolute utter nonsense. Speed is distance travelled per time. I.e. it has the dimensions of lenght divided by time. Frequency is number of oscillations per time. I.e. it has the dimensions of one over time. c^2 has the dimensions of length squared over time squared. So the three can't be the same. It's that simple. > and has to have a geometric reality. Why should it? > After all it's > called the speed of light squared. Indeed. Hint: that shows nicely that it's not a speed. "speed squared" and "speed" are *obviously* not the same thing! > In classical physics uniform > circular motion is measured by squaring it as in a=v2/r for example. Wrong. a = v^2/r is not a "measure" of uniform circular motion; it's a measure of the *acceleration* which is needed in order to maintain the circular motion. Uniform circular motion is usually "measured" by giving the angular frequency vector w (small greek "omega"). Its direction gives the axis around which the motion happens, and its magnitude gives the angular frequency. You *do* know what "vector" and "angular frequency" mean, don't you? > The v2 could be c2 and represent energy No, v^2 can't represent energy. Yet again, wrong dimensions (units). The energy of a circular motion is given by E = 0.5 m v^2 (for a point mass), or by E = 0.5 I w^2 (for an extended mass). m is the mass, I is the moment of inertia. > in some sort of uniform > circular motion giving the energy a rest mass I have no clue what this is supposed to mean. > because of a more equally > distributed inertia and momentum around a center of rotation Or that. > as opposed to being radiated along a more linier path instead. Or that. > It is true that I am not proficient in basic physics math Indeed. > but I think that all I need are > a few simple equations to make my point. You think wrong. And as we have seen, you can't even work with simple equations: m = E c^2 is *not* the reverse of E = m c^2! > This idea of mine started with a vision first not a math formula. A vision? In what sense? > Then I ask myself if it made logical sense And what makes you think you can judge if an idea anout physics makes logical sense without having a good knowledge of physics first? > and if I thought that I could find evidence in the scientific > world to support it and to me the answer was yes. How and where did you look for evidence "in the scientific world"? > I also ask myself if > I thought that I could make predictions with it and if it could > possibly help explain some of the questions in physics. I will list > some of those later. When one develops a new scientific theory, making *quantitative*, testable predictions is one of the most important steps. So please list them as soon as possible. > Last of all is when I ask myself if I might find > some math to support it. And I do believe that E=mc2 and m=Ec2 > does How on earth did you get from E=mc^2 to m=Ec^2??? > but it all hinges on whether or not c2 is a speed and frequency It isn't, see above. > Again I say yes to both. Again that shows utter ignorance of the most *basic* physics. > This would explain why there is not a matching anti > matter particle for every matter particle in the universe, As I already mentioned, this is already explained. What you presented as "explanation" was mostly incoherent and made no sense. > one more but > not the only reason why there is no ultra violet catastrophe Again, that has already been explained 105 years ago. What you presented as "explanation" was mostly incoherent and made no sense. > or infinite frequency speed for electromagnetic waves Again: What is "frequency speed"? > and that rest mass > particles including certain cosmic rays are the next step up in the > energy spectrum Step up from where? > because energy attains rest mass at high enough > frequencies namely c2. Again: c^2 is not a frequency! You could as well say that a length is the same as an area, or something like that! > I will now leave you to chew on that and chew me out if you like. See above. > I am confident that I will be able to prove what I am > stating in the end. <http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html> Think about that. Bye, Bjoern
From: cjcountess on 12 May 2005 19:42 Ok Bjoern, I will take the time and go over this point for point and I see that I am going to have to prepare a better argument and evidence to make my case. But I don't mind because it is just exercise that will make it better. You are a very precise person and that is going to make me be more precise and careful. Especially with things like a=c2/r and my description of it. I am not a mathematician but that's ok because the math does not tell it all. You need logic and imagination to tell some of it. For instance if I am right and c2 means "the speed of light in the right angle frequency direction times the speed of light in the forward direction", resulting in "the speed of light in uniform circular motion" or something corresponding to it on the quantum level, it takes imagination to think about and convey. Did not Einstein say that imagination is more important than knowledge? Math is fine, logic is fine, and we need to correspond these things to objective evidence also in order to stay grounded. But imagination is also necessary to see what I am talking about here and with that said I will prepare a better argument to illustrate that point. So let me leave everyone with this image. Imagine this, c2 could mean "the speed of light in uniform circular motion" or something corresponding to it on the quantum level? That's the picture that I want everyone to try to imagine. What if it is true? Wouldn't that be a beautiful picture? cjcountess
From: cjcountess on 13 May 2005 06:06 I found this: Uniform Circular Motion Acceleration a = v2 / r The Period of Revolution. T = {2 r) / v Centripetal Force F = ma = mv2 / r at this site http://www.slcc.edu/schools/hum_sci/physics/tutor/2210/pointmass_circular/ to help illustrate my point. I will prepare a point-by-point response to you but I do not want to clutter this space with that because it will not be interesting reading but I will bet all my marbles on this. If 50 mph squared or 1000 mph squared can mean those speeds in uniform circular motion than c squared can be interpreted in that way also if one uses imagination and is flexible with these equations. I am not a mathematician like you seem to be but. I'll bet I 'm right about this. cjcountess
From: cjcountess on 13 May 2005 15:29
The logic and evidence that led me to these conclusions. It is said that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and the highest possible speed in the physical universe. Yet evidence show that higher frequency photons have more energy, mass, and momentum than lower frequency photons. This implies that higher frequency photons travel faster than lower frequency photons. Also, the equation E=mc2 implies that the speed of light is not the highest possible speed in the universe because it can be squared. Is it a coincidence that if you treat a photon in a classical manner as a particle and factor in its frequency motion as it orbits the light path, one might conclude that as frequency increases, not only does energy, momentum, and relative mass increase, but so does speed, and that at c2 a photon attains rest mass? A photon traveling at c in the forward direction, times c in the right angle frequency direction, is energy traveling at the speed of light squared or Ec2 and should equal m as in m=Ec2, the reverse of E=mc2. m in this case refers to rest mass. There are two good reasons that photons should travel in a closed loop at c2 and attain rest mass, which are: 1. According to classical physics and New Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language 1995, "centrifugal force is - a force generally considered to act on a body moving along a curved path and to be equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the centripetal force. It is often invoked to show that an object moving under the influence of a constant centripetal force must be acted upon by a centrifugal force to keep it in orbit." If this is correct when the speed of light in the right angle frequency direction is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the constant speed of light along the light path, this should create the necessary balance between centripetal and centrifugal force to create a closed loop or orbit which should create rest mass. 2. When light reaches its speed limit of C in the forward direction; all added motion goes into its frequency. This is why an increase in a photons energy results in extra frequency speed but not in extra speed along the light path. And likewise, when the frequency speed reaches the limit of c that is c2. This should cause the photon to be rounded into a closed loop or orbit because at this point all excess motion should be channeled into the only direction left open, the backward direction because no more motion can go into the forward direction or the right angle direction if both have a speed limit of c. This should round the wave out against the background energy field or Higgs field and gives it "rest mass". In other words the speed limit and barrier of light may act as a matrix that shapes the energy that pushes up against it into a ball or loop of matter at high enough energies. This is analogous to a hollow point bullet being fired into water or sand and mushroomed by both the solidness and the fluidity or graininess of the medium that it encounters. This may be evidence of the fluidity, graininess or quantum nature of space - time also as well as a background energy or Higgs field that producese mass by causing drag on the energy waves. Important Questions 1. If the speed of light does not increase with frequency, where is the increase in energy, relativistic mass, and momentum coming from? 2. If c is the speed limit of light in the direction along the light path, than why is it not the speed limit of light in the right angle frequency direction also, which together would equal c2? 3. And at c2 why shouldn't the wave be rounded into a closed loop to cause rest mass because of the centrifugal force equaling the centripetal force and the rounding of the wave as it is squeezed up against the light barrier in the forward direction into the frequency and right angle frequency direction into a closed loop orbit? 4. Why does c2 seem to be the transition point between energy and matter when one factors in the frequency motion in agreement with E=mc2's revelation that energy and matter are equivalence? Is all of this just a string of coincidences, or is it true that Ec2 does =m or rest mass? Because you know what they say; too many coincidences may mean that they are not coincidences but a pattern of real supporting relationships. Also, just as doubling the frequency of an electromagnetic wave increases the energy and mass 4x, doubling the speed of an object such as a bullet, increases the kinetic energy and mass 4x also indicating that higher frequency has the same effect as higher speed. Is that a coincidence also? If this theory is correct, it may help explain that gravity and mass as well as energy and momentum is generated by the accelerated motion of photons orbiting the light path, that the strength of this gravity, mass, energy, and momentum is proportional to the frequency, and that rest mass is just the result of the frequency motion balancing out the forward motion of the energy to form a closed loop as it encounters the speed limit of light in both the forward and right angle frequency directions and that it is by no means invariable. This would reveal a more direct relationship between energy and matter, electromagnetism and gravity, relativistic and rest mass. Of course if this assumption is correct then some we will have to change some of our most cherished beliefs like, the speed of light is constant and the highest possible speed and that rest mass is invariable also. And that I am sure will be met with a lot of resistance. I have stated that c2 is analogous to and corresponds to "the speed of light in uniform circular motion" but this is just an approximation and attempt to draw a picture of c2. It could very well lead to an expanding and contracting point particle or rotating vortex or something else. Whatever the case may be I am convenced that it will be some sort of rotating energy with a rest mass. "the 'rest mass' of an object is the inertial mass that an object has when it is at rest. Mass measures the amount of inertia an object has, with inertia defined as the resistance the object offers to a change in its state of motion." Definition from: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae161.cfm Equivalence principal - inertia mass = gravitational mass If inertia and gravity are generated by accelerated motion, than the "rest mass" of particles must also be generated by internal accelerated motion of orbiting energy within these particles. cjcountess |