Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
TheoryOfEverything
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
The Speed of Gravity derived from the de Broglie matter waves   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #25935 of 29446 |
RE: The Speed of Gravity derived from the de Broglie matter waves

Tony B,

I've written this before in many places.

I believe physicists are making a big mistake in taking the deBroglie
wavelength formula out of the microcosm and using it here.

You can't use Newton's laws in the microcosm and you can't take the
microcosm laws out of the microcosm and use them here.

The deBroglie wavelenth formula is a microcosm law and should only be
used therin.

Mass and acceleration only get blue shifted in the microcosm.

It actually reverses out here where higher frequencies have more mass
hence a red shift.

Fitz


Dear Fitz!

You apparently do not understand the concept of a matter wave.

A matter wave is applicable to the micro realm and the macro realm.

The micro realm is bounded in the Planck-Mass of so 16 micrograms, say a grain of sand.

So up to this natural mas limit you will have explicit atomic phenomena like the Bose Einstein Condensates behaving like bosonic systems without Pauli Exclusion ion the wave-particle duality.

Note here, that I do NOT support the Copenhagen Quantum School, but am in favour of Cramer's Transactional proposal much in league with Milo Wolff's inflow-outflow waves.

 

The frequencies and wavelengths can be measured as Compton parameters, as the speeds are appreciable fractions of c, ergo they are relativistic.

For larger systems exceeding the Planck-Mass the parameters are de Brogliean with your formulas momentum p=h/lambda and lambda=h/mVdB.

Here the velocities are generally very much smaller than c and the masses are generally much greater than the Planck mass.

So a 20 gram ping pong ball moving at 400 cm/second is certainly a macrosystem; yet it obeys the de Broglie matter wave formalisms.

lambda=h/mv=6.7x10^-34 Js/(0.02kg.4m/s)=8.3x10^-33  metres.

But this wavelength is just marginally bigger than the Planck-Length and unbmeasurable with technology restricted in the classical electron radius and so the electron's wavelength of interference in the Heisenbergian Uncertainty Principle and thus the action scale for the  Planck Constant h.

Furthermore mass and acceleration do not get blueshifted, the lambdas do and that as a consequence of the c-invariance which requires longer wavelengths for smaller frequencies.

So 'stretching space' as a metric, will stretch the lambdas proportional to that stretching.

Tony B.

 

Love from the DragonHeart!

As a mathematical physicist, I also study ancient scrolls and the signature can be evaluated on a number of levels; from childishly naive to profoundly esoteric---Tony Whynot, Unicorn of SophiaGnosis !

ARMAGEDDON=DRAGONMADE=ANDROMEDAG=MARRY7=GODNAMEDRA=82 =666+1=1+2+3+...34+35+36+1=1+2.2+3.3+5.5+7.7+11.11+13.13+17.17

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity


From: "Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr" <zeusrdx@...>
Reply-To: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com
To: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [TheoryOfEverything] Re: The Speed of Gravity derived from the de Broglie matter waves
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:59:51 -0000


Tony B,

I've written this before in manny places.

I believe physicists are making a big mistake in taking the deBroglie
wavelength formula out of the microcosm and using it here.

You can't use Newton's laws in the microcosm and you can't take the
microcosm laws out of the microcosm and use them here.

The deBroglie wavelenth formula is a microcosm law and should only be
used therin.

Mass and acceleration only get blue shifted in the microcosm.

It actually reverses out here where higher frequencies have more mass
hence a red shift.

Fitz




Advertisement: It's simple! Sell your car for just $20 at carsales.com.au

Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:27 am

sirebard
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #25935 of 29446 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

Fitz wrote: Yes, No one person is 100% right. But what I see is that I have had problems getting some people, who are experts in their field, from discussing...
Tony Bermanseder
sirebard
Offline Send Email
Jan 13, 2007
3:11 am

Tony B, I've written this before in many places. I believe physicists are making a big mistake in taking the deBroglie wavelength formula out of the microcosm...
Tony Bermanseder
sirebard
Offline Send Email
Jan 16, 2007
4:28 am

Yes, but you are missing the important fact. The reason that I'm saying all this is because the de Broglie waves have only to do with electrons, nothing else. ...
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick...
zeusrdx
Offline Send Email
Jan 16, 2007
6:09 pm

Zeus wrote: Yes, but you are missing the important fact. The reason that I'm saying all this is because the de Broglie waves have only to do with electrons,...
Tony Bermanseder
sirebard
Offline Send Email
Jan 17, 2007
7:19 am

Tony B., I totally agree with you on the following simple rules: Tony B.: In a manner of intuition you are quite correct Fitz, but your drawn conclusions lack...
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick...
zeusrdx
Offline Send Email
Jan 17, 2007
4:34 pm

.... But when you say: Tony B.: The electron's attraction to the nucleus is a charge attraction. Here's where the problem starts. The way I see it, it is all...
Tony Bermanseder
sirebard
Offline Send Email
Jan 17, 2007
5:22 pm

... Uh, yeah it certainly can be Tony (imho ) but hey you rarely listen to me. Go figure? Rybo...
rybo6
os_jbug
Offline Send Email
Jan 18, 2007
2:03 am

Tony Bermanseder said: The four fundamental forces are a result of symmetry breaking Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Do you know WHY we...
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick...
zeusrdx
Offline Send Email
Jan 18, 2007
4:03 pm

Tony doesn't appear to be able to make a clear decision if gravity is a contraction or expansion force. Maybe he believes its both. Hard to say as I've seen...
rybo6
os_jbug
Offline Send Email
Jan 18, 2007
2:12 am
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help