Quantum Gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: cjcountess on 25 May 2005 09:20 If there is a most basic energy, it must be at a frequency of 1 or below, and if E=hf then E=h*1 must be that most basic dark energy and also where energy, Planck's constant, and frequency are equivalent, and if c=Lambda*f then if c= Lambda*1 then c= or is equivalent to, Lambda, (which is sometimes reffered to as the cosmological constant), and frequency at that point. cjcountess
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 25 May 2005 09:53 cjcountess wrote: > A vector has both magnitude and direction. Right. c has not direction, hence c is not a vector. It's that simple. > I stated that the speed of light moving away from a center in a > straight line with frequency of 1 1 what? 1 Hertz? 1/min? 1/year? Don't you even know that physical quantities almost always have a *unit* and aren't simply a dimensionsless number? > is a vector because it has both > magnetude(the speed of light with frequency of 1), and direction But "the speed of light moving away from a center" makes no sense at all. You could talk about the *velocitiy* of the light. Don't you know the difference between "velocity" and "speed"? > (away from a center as an expansive centrifugal force). What on Earth is that supposed to mean? > I wanted to define it > as an expansive force directed away from a center You wanted to define *what* in this way? The speed of light??? A speed is not a force!!! > and with a magnetude of E=h*1 1) h*1 does not give E (an energy). It gives an action. For the 20th time: ****** UNITS ****** !!! 2) An energy is not a force. 3) An energy is not a speed. > because I want to equate it with the cosmological constant, > Planck's constant,and the most basic dark energy Bad idea. Why would one want to do something that nonsensical? You *still* haven't learned what all these terms actually *mean*, right? > at its lowest frequency. What makes you think there *is* a lowest frequency? > When I said that energy goes into frequency I meant that frequency > increases as energy increases. That's a very strange way to express that. > Contractive centripital force simply means that the force pulls inward > toward a center. And which force are you talking about? > Sometimes gravity is referred to as a contractive or cetripital force. As a centripetal force, yes, very often. But I've *never* seen it referred to as a "contractive" force. > When I refered to waves extending at a right angle, I meant that in the > case of a wave stream What's a "wave stream"? > traveling horrizontaly on a graph so to speak, > the frequency can be represented as extentions at a right angle No, it can't. What on Earth makes you think so? The extension at an right angle represents the *amplitude*, not the frequency! > or in > the vertical direction. I did not want to make it overly complex. You could at least try to make it *right*! Bye, Bjoern
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 25 May 2005 09:57 cjcountess wrote: > If there is a most basic energy, it must be at a frequency of 1 1 what? 1 Hertz? 1/min? 1/year? **************************************** *********** U N I T S ! ! ! ************ **************************************** > or below, Make up your mind. At 1 whatever, or below? > and if E=hf then E=h*1 must be that most basic dark energy h*1 gives simply h, not E. That's an action, not an energy. **************************************** *********** U N I T S ! ! ! ************ **************************************** > and also where energy, Planck's constant, and frequency are equivalent, What on Earth is that supposed to mean? > and if c=Lambda*f then if c= Lambda*1 Lambda*1 gives simply Lambda, not c. That's a wavelength, not a speed. > then c= or is equivalent to, Lambda, Non sequitur. > (which is sometimes reffered to as the cosmological constant), OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you *really* mean this sincerely????? Just because the letter "lambda" is used in physics both for the wavelength and for the cosmological constant does by no means imply that the two are the same or equivalent!!! BTW: didn't you notice that for the wavelength, one usually uses a small Greek letter lambda, whereas for the cosmological constant, one uses the capital Greek letter Lambda? > and frequency at that point. What means "frequency at a point"? Bye, Bjoern
From: Nick on 25 May 2005 19:35 If you believe that particles have continuous motion they then are moving faster through some areas than in others. So the probablity to find a particle is linked to how much time the particle spends in any particular place. Which is linked to how fast the particle is moving. This is my guess. But what I know for sure is that particles spend more time in certain places than in others. I know where particles spend their time!
From: cjcountess on 26 May 2005 06:43
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: > cjcountess wrote: > > A vector has both magnitude and direction. > > Right. c has not direction, hence c is not a vector. It's that simple. > > > > I stated that the speed of light moving away from a center in a > > straight line with frequency of 1 > > 1 what? 1 Hertz? 1/min? 1/year? > > Don't you even know that physical quantities almost always have a > *unit* and aren't simply a dimensionsless number? > > > > is a vector because it has both > > magnetude(the speed of light with frequency of 1), and direction > > But "the speed of light moving away from a center" makes no sense at all. > > You could talk about the *velocitiy* of the light. Don't you know the > difference between "velocity" and "speed"? > > > > (away from a center as an expansive centrifugal force). > > What on Earth is that supposed to mean? > > > > I wanted to define it > > as an expansive force directed away from a center > > You wanted to define *what* in this way? The speed of light??? A speed > is not a force!!! > > > > and with a magnetude of E=h*1 > > 1) h*1 does not give E (an energy). It gives an action. For the 20th > time: ****** UNITS ****** !!! > 2) An energy is not a force. > 3) An energy is not a speed. > > > > because I want to equate it with the cosmological constant, > > Planck's constant,and the most basic dark energy > > Bad idea. Why would one want to do something that nonsensical? > > You *still* haven't learned what all these terms actually *mean*, right? > > > > at its lowest frequency. > > What makes you think there *is* a lowest frequency? > > > > > When I said that energy goes into frequency I meant that frequency > > increases as energy increases. > > That's a very strange way to express that. > > > > Contractive centripital force simply means that the force pulls inward > > toward a center. > > And which force are you talking about? > > > > Sometimes gravity is referred to as a contractive or cetripital force. > > As a centripetal force, yes, very often. But I've *never* seen it > referred to as a "contractive" force. > > > > When I refered to waves extending at a right angle, I meant that in the > > case of a wave stream > > What's a "wave stream"? > > > > traveling horrizontaly on a graph so to speak, > > the frequency can be represented as extentions at a right angle > > No, it can't. What on Earth makes you think so? The extension at an > right angle represents the *amplitude*, not the frequency! > > > > or in > > the vertical direction. I did not want to make it overly complex. > > You could at least try to make it *right*! > > > Bye, > Bjoern By frequency of one I mean longest possible wavelength on a cosmic scale. As far as using velocity of light instead of speed of light I will use that if that is more correct. I refered to gravity as a contractive force because it is said to be attractive and when things attract the space between them contractes. Also it is said that gravity contracts or pulls energy and matter into smaller spaces: example black holes are said to be contracting matter. When I speak of force, if f=ma, than whatever the energy of E=h*1 equals in mass can be multiplied by acceleration to get the force as I am sure they have been translated into each other in events like the photo electric effect. As for the verticle lines representing frequency in the case of a wavestream traveling horrizontaly, I admitt that they would also represent amplitude by its verticle length but their very existence would indicate the presence of waves orherwise there will only be a straight line. You say that E=h*1 is just h and represents an action and not a wave with energy of h*1 as I see it. 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. 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. Do you think that frequency and therfore wavelength are infinite on both ends as some do? I can understand that but I do not because as you know I think that c^2 represents a frequency where a wave attains rest mass. 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. Shorter waves may be related to the nucleus, but would you still call them electromagnetic? And if they have a limit on the small end they may also have one on the large end, that of E=h*1. 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 . cjcountess |