Quantum Gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: cjcountess on 15 May 2005 04:39 In response to Bjoern's asking if I mean the formula E=hf concerning increase in energy with frequency. Yes in this case I do. And sense energy and mass increase at the same rate, 4x each time the frequency doubles, we might even say that M=hf and sense gravity and inertia mass are equivalent we can even say that G=hf to quantify mass and gravity also. It seems to me that Planck's constant, dark energy, and the cosmological constant are the same thing and that as electromagnetic waves travel across this sea of dark energy that is already moving at c, they inherit that energy plus their frequency. The strength of this ground state energy, which moves at c, is the Planck energy and is the common denominator of all the waves and rest mass particles that arise from it. Therefore if we say E=cf or "energy =c x the frequency" we should still be correct. Because if you factor in the right angle or vertical frequency speed of a wave as it travels in the horizontal direction at the constant speed of c, then that wave should increase in energy, mass, and gravity 4x each time the vertical speed, which is the frequency, doubles on top of the constant energy of h which can only come from it's constant speed of c. And so c must be the basic constant speed and energy and is multiplied by the frequency that gives a wave or particle its strength of energy, mass, and Gravity. Thank you Bjoern. Let me add that at the point where E, M, and G = c x c or c2 that energy is in something analogous to "the speed of light in uniform circular motion" and should have rest mass as it now generates gravity in a way that the centripetal force balances out the centrifugal force. But before an electromagnetic wave acquires that balance the centrifugal force keeps it moving at a constant speed of c along the light path but the centripetal force of the cycles per sec or the right angle vertical frequency speed if we look at it in two dimensions, adds mass, energy, and gravity in a way that gives the wave striking powering the direction of its motion demonstrated by the photo electric effect but not rest mass or equally distributed energy, mass, and gravity around a center of rotation. We can even say that G=E/c2 or G=m/c2 and it will amount to the same thing. cjcountess
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 15 May 2005 11:38 cjcountess wrote: > I found this: > Uniform Circular Motion Acceleration a = v2 / r If you mean "v squared", please write "v^2", "v**2", "v x v" or something like that. "v2" is very misleading - it looks like "v times 2". > 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 know all these formulas very well, thanks. [snip] > If 50 mph squared or 1000 mph > squared can mean those speeds in uniform circular motion Sorry, what on earth do you mean here? > 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 I'm a physicist. [snip] Bye, Bjoern
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 15 May 2005 11:35 cjcountess wrote: > 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. A much better idea would be if you first learned what physics actually says, and even more important, *why* it says that. > But I don't mind because it is just exercise that > will make it better. You are a very precise person You *need* to be precise in physics! If you want fuzziness, try philosophy. > 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 Hint: interpreting and describing an equation has little to do with being a mathemacian. Scientists and even engineers of all professions can do that. > but that's ok because the math does not tell it all. Clear. Equations without explaining text are worthless. > 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. What you apparently fail to realize is that what physics *really* says 1) requires also a lot of imagination, probably much more than all you dreamt up so far 2) contrary to your assertions, is supported by actual experimental data from the real world, and is coherent and logically consistent. > Did not Einstein say that imagination is more important than knowledge? Perhaps. So what? He didn't say that knowledge isn't necessary at all. > 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. Sorry, I can't imagine something that makes no sense. Speed is *defined* as "length traveled divided by time it took to travel". It follows then logically that speed has the dimensions length per time. c^2 does not have these dimensions, hence it is not a speed. It's that simple. Saying that c^2 is a speed is equally wrong as saying that charge is a length. Or that an apple is an orange. etc. > What if it is true? Wouldn't that be a beautiful picture? No. What's beautiful about that, in your opinion??? Bye, Bjoern
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 15 May 2005 12:27 cjcountess wrote: > In response to Bjoern's asking if I mean the formula E=hf concerning > waves of frequency. Yes in this case I do. And sense energy and mass > increase at the same rate, 4x each time the frequency doubles, WRONG!!! When the frequency doubles, E doubles also! It does *not* get multiplied by 4! Do you fail to understand proportionality? > we might > even say that M=hf No!!! Why on earth do you think so??? Yet again: 1) The units are not even right! hf has units of Joule, M has units of kilogram! 2) This formula does *not* follow from E=Mc^2 and E=hf! In fact, what follows from these two formulas is Mc^2=hf! Can't you do even the *most* *simple* algebra??? > and sense gravity and inertia mass are equivalent Do you know what that statement actually means? > we can even say that G=hf to quantify mass and gravity also. Ouch!!!!! This becomes worse and worse! You write utter complete nonsense here! 1) What exactly do you *mean* with gravity? The gravitational force? The gravitational potential? The gravitational constant? Or what??? Do you even know what there three terms actually mean? 2) How is this quantity "G" defined? 3) What units does this quantity "G" have? 4) How is it related to energy and/or mass? Please give a formula that follows from its definition. etc. etc. etc. > It seems to me that Planck's constant, dark energy, and the > cosmological constant are the same thing Dark energy is a form of energy, a phenomenon. Planck's constant and the cosmological constant are constants of nature, essentially *numbers*. A phenomenon is not a number! What you do here is *worse* than comparing apples with oranges! Additionally, Planck's constant and the cosmological constant have different *units*! Additionally, they have different numerical values! > and that as electromagnetic > waves travel across this sea of dark energy that is already moving at > c, What on earth makes you think that dark energy is moving at c????? > they inherit that energy How??? > plus their frequency. Huh??? > The strength of this ground state energy, What ground state energy? Dark energy is not ground state energy! And what is "strength of energy" supposed to mean? > which moves at c, is the Planck energy Dark energy is not the Planck energy. The Planck energy is not a ground state energy. Do you know what these three types of energy are? Please give definitions, in your own words (quoting from dictionaries does not show if you really understood the terms!). > and is the > common denominator of all the waves and rest mass particles that arise > from it. What exactly do you mean with "common denominator" here? > Therefore if we say E=cf or "energy =c x the frequency" we > should still be correct. No, we wouldn't! 1) This formula does not follow in *any way* from what you said above. 2) Wrong units. 3) Contradicts E = hf, since E=hf and E=cf together would imply c=h, which is obvious nonsense. You seem no have no idea 1) how formulas are derived in physics 2) how they are manipulated (algebra) 3) how one interprets them, i.e. how they relate to reality. As long as you don't understand such basic things, you shouldn't try to come up with physical theories. Try reading "The Feynman lectures on physics". The first of the three volumes should be enough to make you learn the three points above; but maybe you first need a book on *basic* math, in order to teach you how one deals with variables (algebra). [snip more of the same] Bye, Bjoern
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 15 May 2005 12:15
cjcountess wrote: > The logic and evidence that led me to these conclusions. > > It is said that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant Do you know what the "constant" here means? I.e. do you know constant *with respect to what* is meant? <http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html> > and the highest possible speed in the physical universe. Not perfectly true: it's the highest possible speed for information or energy transfer. <http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html> > Yet evidence show that > higher frequency photons have more energy, Right. > mass, Wrong. <http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html> <http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html> <http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/mass.html> > and momentum than lower frequency photons. Right. > This implies that higher frequency photons > travel faster than lower frequency photons. No. Why do you think that this is implied??? > 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. So what????? Why on earth should the fact that is can be squared imply that it is not the highest possible speed????? c^2 is numerically higher than c, right - but c^2 is not a speed! > 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, Huh? Photons don't orbit the light path. What are you talking about? > 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? I already told you that "at c^2" makes no sense at all. Please try to understand the *very* *basic* fact that c^2 is not a speed!!! > 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 NO!!!!! Speeds in different directions are *not* *multiplied* in order to get the total speed!!! If the speed in one direction is v and in a direction perpendicular to that is v, the *total* speed is given by sqrt(v^2 + V^2)! ("sqrt" means taking the square root). Read up on "velocity addition", "vector addition", "magnitude of a vector", the difference between velocity and speed, and Pythogoras' theorem (you probably learnt the latter in school). > or Ec2 and should equal m as in m=Ec2, the reverse of E=mc2. m=Ec^2 is in no way the "reverse" of E=mc^2!!! The reverse of E=mc^2 is m = E/c^2!!! This is the *most* *basic* algebra! > 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." Ouch. Don't rely on dictionary of common language to get explanations of the meaning of physical terms. > If this is correct It is quite garbled. > when the speed of light in the right angle frequency > direction You have still not told me what "right angle frequency direction" means. > is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the > constant speed of light along the light path, Huh? If the speed is at an right angle, it can't simultaneously be in the opposite direction! Come on, this is *basic* geometry! > this should create the > necessary balance between centripetal and centrifugal force HOW ON EARTH DOES THAT FOLLOW? > to create a closed loop or orbit which should create rest mass. How on earth should that loop create rest mass? BTW, photons don't have rest mass. See the links above. > 2. When light reaches its speed limit of C Light does not "reach" that limit; it *always* travels at C (in a vacuum). > in the forward direction; Which direction is "forward"? > all added motion What "added motion"? Do you mean "added energy"? > goes into its frequency. This is why an increase in a > photons energy results in extra frequency speed What is a "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. Huh??? This sentence does not even make sense grammatically. > 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, How does "channeling" motion work? Ever heard of F = m a, and that F and a are *vectors*? Do you even know what a vector actually is? > 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. The speed limit is not c in different directions separately. The speed limit is c for the *total* speed. I.e. if the speed in one direction is v and in another direction, perpendicular to the first, the speed is V, then sqrt(v^2 + V^2) has to be equal to c. > This should round the wave out What does "rounding a wave out" mean? > against the background energy field or Higgs field I already told you that the two are not the same. > and gives it "rest mass". How? What has "rounding out a wave", whatever that is supposed to mean, have to do with rest mass? And why has no one ever observed that adding energy to a photon creates rest mass? > In other words the speed limit and barrier of light may act as a matrix What exactly do you mean with "matrix" here? Something like a pattern? > that shapes the energy How does one "shape" energy? Do you know what "energy" actually means in physics? > that pushes up against it Huh? What pushes up against what? The matrix pushes up against the energy, or what??? > into a ball or loop of matter Since when does matter consist of balls of loops? > at high enough energies. How high, specifically? (Sorry that I broke up your sentence above into so many pieces, but there so many things in it which all needed a comment.) > 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. Sorry, I fail to see an analogy here. Photons do not act like bullets, and there is no medium through which they travel. Also, the speed limit of c is not a medium, and not in any way analogous to one. > 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. Yet again a sentence that is filled with strange stuff and inconsistencies. Could you please first learn what all those fancy terms actually mean before using them? > 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? Sorry, I don't understand the question. Why on earth do you think an increase in speed is needed for an increase in energy, relativistic mass and momentum? > 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? I addressed that above. > 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? I addressed that above. > 4. Why does c2 seem to be the transition point between energy and > matter c^2 is simply a number, a conversion factor in an equation. It's not a "transition point". > when one factors in the frequency motion What is "frequency motion"? > in agreement with > E=mc2's revelation that energy and matter are equivalence? Do you know what one actually means when one says that energy and matter are equivalent? > Is all of this just a string of coincidences, Huh? Where exactly do you see even one coincidence here? > or is it true that Ec2 does =m or rest mass? No, it isn't. m = E/c^2. Learn basic algebra. > Because you know what they say; too many > coincidences may mean that they are not coincidences but a pattern of > real supporting relationships. What coincidences are you talking about????? > Also, just as doubling the frequency of an electromagnetic wave > increases the energy and mass 4x, Wrong. It doubles the energy and (relativistic) mass. The formula is E = h f (f: frequency, h: Planck's constant). Energy is *proportional* to frequency. Hey, you wrote that yourself lower down! Don't you know what "proportional" means? > doubling the speed of an object such > as a bullet, increases the kinetic energy and mass 4x Right only for slow velocities. You probably think that the kinetic energy of an object with rest mass m and speed v is *always* E = 0.5 m v^2, right? Hint: that's wrong. That formula is only valid as long as v is much smaller than c. The *general* formula is E = m c^2 (gamma - 1). "gamma" is here the usual Lorentz factor. > also indicating > that higher frequency has the same effect as higher speed. Is that a > coincidence also? There is no coincidence here, since your original assertion that the energy of a photon is multiplied by 4 when its frequency is double is simply wrong. > If this theory is correct, Haven't you understood what I told you about the meaning of the word "theory" in science? > 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, What force causes that acceleration? And what has that to do with gravity? > 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 All commented on above. > and that it is by no means invariable. *What* is not invariable? > This would reveal a > more direct relationship between energy and matter, What relationship could be more direct than E=mc^2 and the fact that matter can be created from energy? Ever heard of LEP, for example? > electromagnetism and gravity, So far, I don't see a relationship between electromagnetism and gravity in what you wrote. > relativistic and rest mass. What could be more direct than m_rel = gamma m_rest? > 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. Why should we change these "beliefs" as long as all experimental tests tell us that they are right? Actually, the fact that all experimental tests tell us that these "beliefs" are right is strong evidence that your assumption is *not* correct, don't you think? > And that I am sure will be met with a lot of resistance. Hint: the best way to overcome resistance to new ideas in science is to come up with supporting experimental evidence. > 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. In fact, this is simply wrong. > It could very well lead to an > expanding and contracting point particle Points can't expand and contract (by definition!). You make no sense. > 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. Someone who fails to understand that c^2 is not a speed should not be convinced of his ideas. > "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 I agree with that definition. > Equivalence principal - inertia mass = gravitational mass Right. > If inertia and gravity are generated by accelerated motion, "generated" in what way? > than the > "rest mass" of particles must also be generated by internal accelerated > motion of orbiting energy within these particles. How on earth does that follow? Bye, Bjoern |