Quantum Gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: cjcountess on 20 May 2005 09:39 Let me address some of your questions in this section concerning the relationship of dark energy, the cosmological constant, and the Planck constant as well as what I have called the right angle frequency motion contributing to speed as well as increase in mass. To begin with let's start with dark energy, Planck's constant, which might also be considered the Planck energy, and the cosmological constant, which I think are related in this way. Assuming that energy is more basic than matter and that the expansion of the population of material bodies in the Universe can be traced back to energy, if we begin with a field of energy in its ground state, in principal it should be moving at c because energy moves at c. Furthermore if the Universe including space itself is expanding and or rotating like a universal wave or just because everything seems to be orbiting something on ever larger scales suggesting that this rotation is universal, we can say that this field moves. I am referring to the dark energy in its most basic ground state, not all dark energy. Any energy that is below detectable frequency might be considered dark energy but I am referring to the most basic energy. If we trace the electromagnetic spectrum back in energy intensity to the lowest possible energy it should be h without frequency or c without frequency in principal. In other words if one could measure the energy of a photon that did not have frequency but still moved at c, it should have an energy of only h because it is the extra momentum, relative mass, and energy that is generated by frequency that increases the energy to h x f. I also say that the energy of c and h without frequency are the same because if all energy quanta have a constant energy level of h x the frequency and a constant speed of c regardless of frequency then if there is no frequency this basic constant foundation energy upon which all other energy and rest mass particles are built must be just h and move at the velocity of c without frequency. Furthermore it must also be the background basic dark energy upon which all other energy waves and rest mass particles emerge from and are formed from. Thus they inherit this basic foundation energy that they are composed of, and is the common denominator of them all as indeed all of them are composed of and measured as (h the common denominator) x (f the variable) and furthermore all of them inherit the speed of light as a part of their makeup as in E=mc2 or m =E/c2. I consider an increase in frequency to be an increase in speed because as the photon or wave moves up and down or round and round, which I have been referring to as the right angle frequency motion, or whatever form of oscillation it takes to move it more cycles per second, it is only logical to conclude that something is moving faster if it is making more cycles per second and acquiring more energy as a result of it. And this is true regardless if energy increase 2x or 4x each time frequency doubles. I think that the most basic dark energy is the cosmological constant because it is the background energy and the foundation of waves and rest mass particles, and because this background energy field is always there providing a constant expansive energy as well as the foundation for the contracting energy of waves and rest mass particles that are built on it. It is the source of these waves and rest mass particles and should not be out weighed or have less expansive energy than all the waves and rest mass particles have contracting energy. They should balance out as c in the centrifugal expansive direction by c in the right angle frequency centripetal direction as c2. The energy or centrifugal force should equal and balance out the mass or centripetal force as in E = mc2 and although they go back and forth, neither one should ultimately win the tug of war between them. And so the ultimate cosmological constant may be a universal pattern of expansion/contraction itself instead of an expansive or contractive force alone. Or maybe the expansive force should out weight the contracting force sense energy is more fundamental then matter. I do not know, but I think it is very interesting. The only point that I can confidently make here is that the cosmological constant, dark energy, and Planck's constant are related in the way I mentioned. This site equates cosmological constant and dark energy also. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/open_questions.html#cosmology See question-6 Is the Universe really full of dark energy? 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. P.S. I know that Kepler's law of planetary motion is outdated concerning accurate measurement of orbiting electrons but does it not still form the foundation upon which the newer theories are built? According to principle of correspondences this can be used with the addition of the probability, uncertainty principle to make it more up to date. Also when I mentioned that my idea had no room for the ultra violet catastrophe I did not mean to suggest that it had not been addressed successfully already, only that it never even would have come up. And interestingly I found this on the web concerning the ultraviolet catastrophe http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node3.html It says that frequency diverges to v2 at high frequencies and I understand that this was interpreted to mean that it would become infinite. But could it mean that frequency would round out as centripetal force is balanced by centrifugal force and the energy diverges into uniform circular motion or something analogous and corresponding to that? Findings like this are an example of the coincidences that keep turning up. I will address more questions later, after I consider them very carefully. The quantification of gravity can be stated in the same terms as the quantification of energy sense they are interchangeable. E=hf as G=hf or E=mc2 and M=E/c2 as G=E/c2 or G=m/c2, but in order for this to be made clear I think that the foundation must be laid that gravity is inverted electromagnetism and begins as soon as the speed of light surpasses c, if we include frequency as part of the speed. Therefore gravity begins with frequency and frequency begins when energy is added to c, thereby causing energy to contract because when the expansive centrifugal speed limit of electromagnetism reaches its limit of c all added energy causes contractive centripetal motion in the form of frequency, just as when energy is added to electromagnetic waves moving at c this energy results in an increase frequency and inertia mass but no increase of speed along the light path. Gravity is inverted electromagnetism. cjcountess
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 20 May 2005 11:49 cjcountess wrote: > Let me address some of your questions in this section concerning the > relationship of dark energy, the cosmological constant, and the Planck > constant as well as what I have called the right angle frequency motion > contributing to speed as well as increase in mass. > To begin with let's start with dark energy, Planck's constant, > which might also be considered the Planck energy, No, Planck's constant might *not* be considered the Planck energy. Where on Earth did you get this idea from? As usual: wrong units, wrong numerical values etc. > and the cosmological > constant, which I think are related in this way. > Assuming that energy is more basic than matter And what exactly is "more basic" supposed to mean? > and that the expansion > of the population of material bodies in the Universe can be traced back > to energy, And what is this supposed to mean? > if we begin with a field of energy in its ground state, Do you know what "energy" means in physics? Do you know what "field" means in physics? Do you know what "ground state" means in physics? I bet you don't - otherwise you would know that your sentence above makes no sense. > in principal it should be moving at c because energy moves at c. No, energy does not always move at c. Where on Earth did you get that idea from??? Additionally, fields don't move *ever*. > Furthermore if the Universe including space itself is expanding It is. > and or rotating It isn't. > like a universal wave What on Earth has rotating to do with a wave? > or just because everything seems to be > orbiting something on ever larger scales Wrong. E.g. galaxy clusters don't orbit each other (AFAIK). > suggesting that this rotation is universal, Make up your mind. Are you talking about orbiting or about rotation? > we can say that this field moves. No, we can't, since that would make no sense. Fields *never* move. *Please* learn what the physical terms you keep using *actually* *mean*! > I am referring to the dark energy in its most basic ground state, This sentence again makes no sense. Energy has no ground state! > not all dark energy. Any energy that is below detectable frequency Energy has in general no frequency. > might be considered dark energy but I am referring to the most basic energy. And what do you mean with "most basic energy"? > If we trace the electromagnetic spectrum back in energy intensity Make up your mind. Do you mean energy or intensity? You don't know what the difference between those two terms is, right? > to the lowest possible energy As far as we know, there *is* no lowest possible energy in the electromagnetic spectrum. > it should be h without frequency or c without frequency And what on Earth is that supposed to mean? > in principal. In other words if one could measure the > energy of a photon that did not have frequency Not possible. If there is no frequency, there is no wave, and therefore there are no photons. > but still moved at c, it should have an energy of only h h is not an energy. Wrong units. > because it is the extra momentum, h is also not a momentum. Wrong units. > relative mass, h is also not a mass. Wrong units. > and energy that is generated by frequency Energy is not "generated" by frequency. > that increases the energy to h x f. You make no sense at all. > I also say that the energy of c and h without frequency And what on Earth is that supposed to mean? c and h are constants of nature. They have neither a frequency not an energy! > are the same because if all energy quanta have a constant > energy level of h x the frequency Not "energy level". Simply energy. > and a constant speed of c regardless > of frequency then if there is no frequency this basic constant > foundation energy What do you mean with "basic constant foundation energy"? > upon which all other energy and rest mass particles are built Huh??? > must be just h Huh??? Again, h is not an energy! > and move at the velocity of c without frequency. How on Earth does that follow, in your opinion?????? > Furthermore it must also be the background basic dark energy Do you have *any* clue what "dark energy" *actually* *means* in physics? > upon which all other energy waves What is an "energy wave"? > and rest mass particles emerge from and are formed from. > Thus they inherit this basic foundation energy > that they are composed of, What exactly is "inherit" supposed to mean here? > and is the common denominator of them all as > indeed all of them are composed of and measured as (h the common > denominator) x (f the variable) What on Earth is this supposed to mean? > and furthermore all of them inherit the > speed of light as a part of their makeup as in E=mc2 What has E=mc^2 to do with "the speed of light as a part of their makeup"? > or m =E/c2. Congratulations, you got that finally right. > I consider an increase in frequency to be an increase in speed because > as the photon or wave moves up and down or round and round, Neither the photon nor the wave move up and down or round and round. > which I > have been referring to as the right angle frequency motion, Why? What has that to do with frequency? > or whatever > form of oscillation it takes to move it more cycles per second, it is > only logical to conclude that something is moving faster if it is > making more cycles per second Yes, there is something "moving" faster: in the case of electromagnetic waves, the electric and magnetic fields are changing faster. But that has *precisely* *nil* to do with the speed of the wave!!!!! This is a "speed" in the direction *perpendicular* to the direction in which the wave travels and hence has *nothing* to do with the speed of the wave!!!!! > and acquiring more energy as a result of it. Wrong. That the electric and magnetic fields change faster in a wave with higher frequency has precisely nil to do with the fact that the photons associated with that wave have a higher energy. > And this is true regardless if energy increase 2x or 4x each time > frequency doubles. No, this is false. > I think that the most basic dark energy is the cosmological constant Do you know what "cosmological constant" actually means in physics? > because it is the background energy What exactly do you mean with "background energy"? > and the foundation of waves and > rest mass particles, and because this background energy field is always > there providing a constant expansive energy What is "expansive energy"? > as well as the foundation > for the contracting energy of waves and rest mass particles What is "contracting energy"? > that are > built on it. It is the source of these waves and rest mass particles > and should not be out weighed or have less expansive energy than all > the waves and rest mass particles have contracting energy. They should > balance out as c in the centrifugal expansive direction What is the "centrifugal expansive direction"? > by c in the right angle frequency centripetal direction as c2. What on Earth is this supposed to mean? > The energy or centrifugal force Make up your mind. Energy or centrifugal force? > should equal and balance out the mass or centripetal > force as in E = mc2 Why? > and although they go back and forth, neither one > should ultimately win the tug of war between them. And so the ultimate > cosmological constant may be a universal pattern of > expansion/contraction itself instead of an expansive or contractive > force alone. What on Earth is that supposed to mean? > Or maybe the expansive force should out weight the > contracting force sense energy is more fundamental then matter. So what??? What has that to do with the first half of the sentence? > I do > not know, but I think it is very interesting. The only point that I can > confidently make here is that the cosmological constant, dark energy, > and Planck's constant are related in the way I mentioned. Your confidence is misplaced. > This site > equates cosmological constant and dark energy also. > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/open_questions.html#cosmology This site does not "equate" them. It only points out that they are related. In fact, it says that the cosmological constant is the *density* of dark energy. Do you know what "energy density" means in physics? > See question-6 Is the Universe really full of dark energy? 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. Notice the term *density* in what you quoted. > P.S. I know that Kepler's law of planetary motion is outdated > concerning accurate measurement of orbiting electrons Electrons do not orbit! > but does it not > still form the foundation upon which the newer theories are built? No. > According to principle of correspondences this can be used with the > addition of the probability, uncertainty principle to make it more up > to date. I have no clue what this is supposed to mean. > Also when I mentioned that my idea had no room for the ultra violet > catastrophe I did not mean to suggest that it had not been addressed > successfully already, only that it never even would have come up. And > interestingly I found this on the web concerning the ultraviolet > catastrophe > http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node3.html > It says that frequency diverges to v2 at high frequencies No, it does *not* say that. Could you please try to improve your reading comprehension skills? It says that the *intensity of blackbody radiation* diverges *as* nu^2; *not* that the *frequency* diverges *to* *v2*! > and I > understand that this was interpreted to mean that it would become > infinite. It would follow mathematically from this that the *total* energy radiated away is infinite. > But could it mean that frequency would round out as > centripetal force is balanced by centrifugal force and the energy > diverges into uniform circular motion or something analogous and > corresponding to that? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS PLAIN UTTER NONSENSE!!!!!!!!! You could as well say that "the sky is blue" means "the grass is green"; the two statements have about as much to do with each other as what the page says with your idea! Could you *please* 1) try to learn a bit about equations, how to use them in physics, etc.? 2) improve your reading comprehension skills? > Findings like this are an example of the > coincidences that keep turning up. What coincidences????????? > I will address more questions later, > after I consider them very carefully. > The quantification of gravity can be stated in the same terms as the > quantification of energy sense they are interchangeable. No, energy and gravity are *not* interchangeable! Gravity is a *force*! A force is not an energy!!! > E=hf as G=hf or E=mc2 and M=E/c2 as G=E/c2 or G=m/c2, These equations contradict each other. Could you *please* learn how to deal with equations? > but in order for this to be > made clear I think that the foundation must be laid that gravity is > inverted electromagnetism And what on Earth does "inverted" mean here? > and begins as soon as the speed of light surpasses c, Plain utter nonsense. Gravity occurs for all speeds. > if we include frequency as part of the speed. And what on Earth is that supposed to mean? > Therefore gravity begins with frequency And what on Earth is that supposed to mean? > and frequency begins when energy is added to c, And what on Earth is that supposed to mean? > thereby causing energy to contract And what on Earth is that supposed to mean? > because when the expansive centrifugal speed limit What's that? > of electromagnetism reaches its limit of c And what on Earth is that supposed to mean? > all added energy causes contractive centripetal motion in the form of > frequency, And what on Earth is that supposed to mean? > just as when energy is added to electromagnetic waves moving > at c this energy results in an increase frequency and inertia mass but > no increase of speed along the light path. Your "just as" makes absolutely no sense. > Gravity is inverted electromagnetism. And what on Earth is that supposed to mean? Bye, Bjoern
From: cjcountess on 22 May 2005 14:30 I am conceding to your claim that energy only increases 2x each time frequency doubles. Could not find collaborating evidence and it did begin to make sense if I considered that mass tends toward infinity as it approached light speed for objects with rest mass but not for photons, and so maybe that is the difference. I think that I confused inverse proportion with inverse square. This is a learning experience for me. I still think that photons can be considered to increase in speed with increase in frequency but I will not argue that now. I did though in my attempt to be precise and mathematical put together a geometrical description of what I am trying to say. http://emcsquare.net/c_as_a_vector_represented_by_one.htm cjcountess
From: Nick on 22 May 2005 17:20 If particles do not have continuous motion and they are popping up along the wave this would shift there mass around. These jumps of mass would ultimately effect gravity. I think this is quantum gravity.
From: cjcountess on 23 May 2005 10:18
This makes sense because gravity is accelerated motion - tell me more? cjcountess |