Quantum Gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 15 May 2005 12:27 cjcountess wrote: > 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 in 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. Illucid. Bye, Bjoern
From: cjcountess on 18 May 2005 09:07 I would like to address your response of Bjoer said WRONG!!! When the frequency doubles, E doubles also! It does *not* get multiplied by 4! Do you fail to understand proportionality? I might be wrong about this and if I am I will have to rethink the whole thing although I still believe that the general idea is correct and just needs to be modified. I understood it to be multiplied by 4. If we use Planck's constant x frequency as a measure of energy you are correct the energy increase twice if the frequency increase twice in a sense. But I read several places including in Scientific America Sept. 2004 special Einstein issue page 28 paragraph 3 that the wavelength of a particle is inversely proportional to its mass. And according to this site, http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/waves/U10L2c.html for amplitude, energy increases 4x when amplitude doubles. Thus I assumed that sense doubleling the frequency could mean halving the wavelength either one of these would increase energy and mass 4x but maybe I was wrong. I will have to do more research and report back. I do believe though that the essence of the idea is correct because of too many coincidences and I am not giving up Thank you for your critical eye. Bjoern said 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??? You are technically correct but if energy and mass are interchangeable then mass and the amount of energy in mass could very well be measured in joules-could it not? And if you say Mc2=hf I would not disagree. > and sense gravity and inertia mass are equivalent Bjoern said Do you know what that statement actually means? Ø we can even say that G=hf to quantify mass and gravity also. /General/open_questions.html under cosmology and astrophysics question 6 where it states: "The simplest model is a cosmological constant, meaning that so-called "empty" space actually has a negative pressure and positive energy density, with the pressure exactly equal to minus the energy density in units where the speed of light is 1". > and that as electromagnetic > waves travel across this sea of dark energy that is already moving at > c, Bjoern said 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. See expiation above and I will try to explain even better as time goes on. Bjoern said 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!). I will give definitions in time. > and is the > common denominator of all the waves and rest mass particles that arise > from it. Bjoern said What exactly do you mean with "common denominator" here? Just as Planck's constant could be considered a common denominator of all particles whose energy is multiplied by it times the frequency, the dark energy of the background energy field that these particle emerge from that forms the basis of these particles are also the common denominator. > Therefore if we say E=cf or "energy =c x the frequency" we > should still be correct. Bjoern said 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. This is exactly what I think is correct. 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. Just because the math is not as accurate as it could be doesn't mean that the main idea is not correct only that it will take some work. But I do think that yes c = h = the basic ground state dark energy = cosmological constant but it will take time to prove. See this site http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/6929/h_kaku2.html Concerning Stephen Hawking's theory of "The Wave Function of the Universe", by Michio Kaku (Professor of Theoretical Physics). In it he indicates that the theory precedes the mathematics to prove it. Sometimes this is the order in which ideas come. In it he states: The goal facing quantum cosmologists is to verify this conjecture mathematically, to show that the wave function of the universe is large for our present universe and vanishing small for other universes. This would then prove that our familiar universe is in some sense unique and also stable. (At present, quantum cosmologists are unable to solve this important problem.) Bjoern said 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). Will take this into consideration. I really have to resolve this question of whether energy doubles or increases 4x and I will address the other questions also but very carefully. This has been a real lesson and I will be better for it. Cjcountess
From: cjcountess on 19 May 2005 07:11 Again in response to Bjoern statements: WRONG!!! When the frequency doubles, E doubles also! It does *not* get multiplied by 4! Do you fail to understand proportionality? I am really concerned about whether or not energy increases 4x or 2x each time frequency doubles and wavelength halfs. This is as crucial to my argument as the idea that the speed of light squared is analogous to the speed of light in uniform circular motion. I have been describing photons and waves as orbiting the light path because I think that is a good analogy and increasing in speed with frequency because I think that energy of photons and waves increase as if they are increasing in speed following the inverse square law in the same way that planets and bullets do. I have found collaborating evidence to support this. This site relates it to planetary motion: http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/orbit.htm It contains the text: "Kepler's Laws were used to explain the orbital motion of the planets around the Sun, as well as the various moons around the planets. You can use the laws to calculate the speed at any point, the time of rotation and distances for any objects in space. They can also be applied to the motion of electrons around the nucleus of an atom." And sense electron orbits correspond to wavelength and frequency these frequencies should have energies matching this inverse proportion This site proposes that wavelength is inversely proportional to the energy also giving the photon model below. http://users.owt.com/flesher/photonics/photon2.html It contains this text: "2. The second key concept is a model of a photon. It is proposed as an induction that a photon consists of two opposite charged "poles," one + and the other -, which rotate about one another such that the distance, d, between them is inversely proportional to the energy, E, of the photon, E= L/d where L = 3.443780 x 10-29 Joule meters (or 10-21 erg cm) (eq 1) This then implies the poles have a charge of 6.19004 x 10 -20 coulombs or roughly 1/3 that of the electron." This site also gives. "Albert Einstein in 1905 stated that mass and energy were inter-convertible: mC2 = E, (eq 6), so that we may deduce that all MASS is quantized, m = hf/C2 = h/lC and the quantum of MASS is the photon". It seems that photons can obey both laws and not be in conflict, here is my attempt to put it in a simple formula relating bullets and energy measured in foot pounds, found at this ballistics site, to photons and Planck's constant as it relates to energy. http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/php/energy.htm?bw=100&bv=4000 Energy of 222 foot-pounds for a 100 grain bullet at 1000 fps. Energy of 888 foot-pounds for a 100 grain bullet at 2000 fps. If we say that E or foot pounds = 100grains (a constant) x 1000 fps (a variable) And E or foot pounds = 100grains (a constant) x 2000 fps (a variable), If we change the quantities to notations it starts to resemble the Planck formula: (E=hf) if we make it ( E=gv), the first could be E=g1v and E=g2v and E = 222 and 888 foot pounds respectively. Will address the other issues latter, cjcountess
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 19 May 2005 07:19 cjcountess wrote: > I would like to address your response of > > Bjoer said >> WRONG!!! >> When the frequency doubles, E doubles also! It does *not* get >> multiplied by 4! >> Do you fail to understand proportionality? > > I might be wrong about this and if I am I will have to rethink the > whole thing although I still believe that the general idea is correct > and just needs to be modified. I understood it to be multiplied by 4. Then you understood wrong, plain and simple. > If we use Planck's constant x frequency as a measure of energy You *have* to use this, since that's what the formula says! And that formula was derived from experimental data, and tested hundreds of thousands of times since then. > you are correct the energy increase twice if the frequency increase twice > in a sense. But I read several places including in Scientific America > Sept. 2004 special Einstein issue page 28 paragraph 3 that the > wavelength of a particle is inversely proportional to its mass. That's right. But we were talking about photons here, and you have to be careful when talking about the mass of photons. > And according to this site, > http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/waves/U10L2c.html > for amplitude, energy increases 4x when amplitude doubles. Yes, the energy in a *wave* quadruples when the amplitude of the wave doubles. But what has that to do with the problem at hand? Amplitude wasn't involved anywhere! Do you maybe confuse amplitude with wavelength??? > Thus I assumed that sense doubleling the frequency could mean halving > the wavelength either one of these would increase energy and mass 4x Sorry, I don't understand your logic here. > but maybe I was wrong. I will have to do more research and report back. As I said: I would *heavily* recommend to you that you first learn some basic physics, and especially how equations in physics are derived from experimental data, how they are manipulated, and how they are used. > I do believe though that the essence of the idea is correct because of > too many coincidences I still have no clue what coincidences you are talking about. I have seen none so far from you. > and I am not giving up > Thank you for your critical eye. > >> 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??? >> You are technically correct but if energy and mass are interchangeable >> then mass and the amount of energy in mass could very well be measured >> in joules-could it not? And if you say Mc2=hf I would not disagree. >> >>> 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. > > /General/open_questions.html > under cosmology and astrophysics question 6 where it states: "The > simplest model is a cosmological constant, meaning that so-called > "empty" space actually has a negative pressure and positive energy > density, with the pressure exactly equal to minus the energy density in > units where the speed of light is 1". And what has that to do with the stuff above??? [snip] >> 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!). > > > I will give definitions in time. I'm waiting. >>>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? > > Just as Planck's constant could be considered a common denominator of > all particles whose energy is multiplied by it times the frequency, I don't see why Planck's constant could be considered a "common denominator" of all particles, sorry. > the dark energy of the background energy field that these particle emerge > from that forms the basis of these particles are also the common > denominator. That didn't make it any clearer. >>>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. > > This is exactly what I think is correct. You think that c=h is correct, or what??? >> 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. > > Just because the math is not as accurate as it could be Your math is not just "not as accurate as it could be". It is *plain wrong*. As wrong as 1+1=3. > doesn't mean > that the main idea is not correct only that it will take some work. Suggestion: before attempting to do that work, first learn how physics deals with equations. See above. > But I do think that yes c = h c = 300 000 000 m/s h = 6.626 * 10^(-34) J s. You think that 300 000 000 m/s = 6.626 * 10^(-34) J s??????????? Say, do you also think that 2 = 3? That makes equally much sense! > = the basic ground state dark energy Neither c nor h is an energy! c is a speed, h is essentially an action! BTW, "ground state energy" and "dark energy" does *not* mean the same thing! Could you *please* first learn what the terms you use actually mean before using them? > = cosmological constant The cosmological constant is not a speed, not an action, and not an energy! > but it will take time to prove. No, proving this is simply impossible. Just as proving 2=3 is impossible. Since it's simply wrong. > See this site > http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/6929/h_kaku2.html > > Concerning Stephen Hawking's theory of "The Wave Function of the > Universe", by > Michio Kaku (Professor of Theoretical Physics). In it he indicates > that the theory precedes the mathematics to prove it. Theories in science are not proven. And Kaku does *not* say that *no* mathematics is needed in order to bring up a new theory. He merely oints out that when a new theory is brought up (using math!), not every of its consequences is at once fully clear. These consequences still have to be examined using math. > Sometimes this is the order in which ideas come. I know of not one single example where someone who did not understand the most basic math (algebra) managed to come up with a good new idea in physics. > In it he states: The goal facing quantum > cosmologists is to verify this conjecture mathematically, I.e. to explore the mathematical consequences of the theory. This does in no way imply that math was not needed in order to come up with the theory! [snip] >> 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). > > Will take this into consideration. Thinking about this again, the Feynman lectures are probably too advanced for you. Try a highschool physics book. > I really have to resolve this question of whether energy doubles or > increases 4x The energy of a photon doubles when the frequency of the wave doubles. The energy of a wave quadruples when the amplitude of the wave doubles. The energy of a non-relativistic particle quadruples when its speed doubles. Ask *any* physicist on this. > and I will address the other questions also but very > carefully. This has been a real lesson and I will be better for it. I would *really* recommend to you to stop coming up with your own ideas for some time, to stop posting here even, and instead first reading some books on basic physics and math. Bye, Bjoern
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 19 May 2005 07:34
cjcountess wrote: [snip] > I am really concerned about whether or not energy increases 4x or 2x > each time frequency doubles and wavelength halfs. E=hf. > This is as crucial to > my argument as the idea that the speed of light squared is analogous to > the speed of light in uniform circular motion. c^2 is not a speed. Stop ignoring my arguments. > I have been describing > photons and waves as orbiting the light path With "light path", do you mean the direction of the light rays? > because I think that is a > good analogy and increasing in speed with frequency because I think > that energy of photons and waves increase as if they are increasing in > speed following the inverse square law in the same way that planets and > bullets do. Ouch. What on Earth has this to do with the inverse square law now? You *do* know what that law says, don't you? > I have found collaborating evidence to support this. This > site relates it to planetary motion: > http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/orbit.htm > It contains the text: > > "Kepler's Laws were used to explain the orbital motion of the planets > around the Sun, as well as the various moons around the planets. You > can use the laws to calculate the speed at any point, the time of > rotation and distances for any objects in space. They can also be > applied to the motion of electrons around the nucleus of an atom." The last sentence is wrong. That would be Rutherford's atomic model, which has been outdated for about 80 years now. > And sense electron orbits correspond to wavelength and frequency Huh??? What on Earth is this supposed to mean? > these > frequencies should have energies matching this inverse proportion Huh??? Why??? > This site proposes that wavelength is inversely proportional to the > energy also giving the photon model below. > http://users.owt.com/flesher/photonics/photon2.html This is the site of a crackpot, not of a physicist. It contains *lots* of errors. Ignore what it says. [snip] > It seems that photons can obey both laws and not be in conflict, You mean both E=mc^2 and E=hf? Yes, indeed they can. Why should there be a conflict? You just have to be careful what the "m" in the first equations actually means. > here > is my attempt to put it in a simple formula relating bullets and energy > measured in foot pounds, found at this ballistics site, to photons and > Planck's constant as it relates to energy. > http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/php/energy.htm?bw=100&bv=4000 > Energy of 222 foot-pounds for a 100 grain bullet at 1000 fps. > Energy of 888 foot-pounds for a 100 grain bullet at 2000 fps. Ouch. Could you please use SI units, like every sane human? > If we say that > E or foot pounds = 100grains (a constant) x 1000 fps (a variable) And > > E or foot pounds = 100grains (a constant) x 2000 fps (a variable), Err, the energy is *not* simply given by the product of the mass and the speed. Your own examples above clearly show that! > If we change the quantities to notations it starts to resemble the > Planck formula: (E=hf) What on earth has grains * fps to do with h * f? > if we make it ( E=gv), the first could be E=g1v and E=g2v and E = 222 > and 888 foot pounds respectively. Huh????? Bye, Bjoern |