Having problems with message search?
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, nothing else.
T.B.: No, see below.
Where is there even one actual experiment that connects de Broglie waves
to anything else?
There isn't.
T.B.: Yes there is, see below.
This is the problem, I see, where people are associating them with
gravity.
All effects of the electron can be shielded.
Neither gravity nor inertia can be shielded.
This is telling you that gravity is being caused by a far different
frequency than anything in the realm of the electron's frequency.
T.B.: Gravity is being caused by the first law of thermodynamics applied to the universal expansion from temperature gradients.
In simple terms, Newton's second law then causes a reaction to the expansion which is a contraction of sorts.
If now the expansion is constant in a higher-D sense, then this contra expansion must also be constant for equilibrium and steady state conditions.
This can be modelled as a massless universe, where gravity is electric permissive.
Then there is no inertia just gravitational mass equivalence.
Introducing the elementary phasechange hf=mc^2 by gauge transforms also introduces the de Broglie phasespeed as inversion of the de Broglie groupspeed and bounded in the Compton parameters for the c-limit.
So acceleration renders the electric universe inertial and the inertial parameters become mapped.
Instead of writing F=GmM/r^2 as the Newtonian form, one must write Lambda=F-A; where Lambda is the so called Cosmological Constant and A is an intrinsic acceleration parameter for the universe proportional to c.Hubble-Constant=c^2/Hubble-Radius. This is also given in the Milgrom acceleration of MOND theories.
So the Perlmutter acceleration is not required to become derived from the expansion parameter of General Relativity, but is intrinsic to the gravity law on the maximum scale of the de Broglie phases.
Yor individual frequencies do not come into this at all.
Light does bend slightly via the mass of a star so we know the
frequencies building the electron must be some HARMONIC of the main
gravitational frequency.
But is the electron at a lower or higher harmonic than the frequency
causing gravity?
Once you know the electron is also attracted to the nucleus and the
nucleus is built of quarks and they are more massive than the electron
then you get the answer to the gravitational frequency.
T.B.: No zeus, you are messed up here. You misidentify gravitational frequencies with the Compton frequencies say and so forth.
Consider a neutron star, collapsing into a Black Hole. Because the entire mass of the neutron plasma is converted into energy, a maximum gravitational frequency must crystallise.
Here the mass must exceed the Chandrasekhar (Ch) limit of 1.5 solar masses or 3x10^30 kg.
Now apply the Schwarzschild metric with the radius being wavelength/2Pi. This is your quantisation of the perimeter in the Bohr angular momentum, also used by Milo Wolff.
Gravitational Wavelength (g-lambda)/2Pi=2GMCh/c^2 or g-lambda=4Pi.GMCh/c^2 for a gravitational frequency:
fgrav=c/g-lambda=c^3/4Pi.GMCh.~10,740 Hz for G=6.7x10^-11 Nm^2/kg^2 and MCh=3x10^30 kg.
So a 10 kHz frequency represents a natural maximum gravitational frequency.
The gravitational wave detectors (LIGO, LISA) etc. measure PERTURBATIONS of say binary neutron star systems losin g angular momentum by radiating gravitational radiation or say masses m orbiting Black Holes of masses M.
You can study this in Black Hole perturbation theories and the like.
The frequencies here are very much smaller, than the Neutron star conversion frequency of 10 kHz and are in the region of milli Hz and nano Hz.
You can see this in using a galaxy mass as Black Hole equivalent.
Then in the formulation above, replacing MCh by say 10^11 MCh you get a gravitational frequency of 10.74 kHz/10^11~10^-7 Hz or 107 nano Hz.
The electron then must be at a lower frequency than the quark frequency
that attracts it to the nucleus because frequency, mass and energy,
while not the same, are equivalent.
T.B.: The electron is at an effective frequency given by its Radius=lambda/2Pi (Compton-Radius=h/2Pi.mc for vdB=c and classical Compton.alpha~2.8x10^-15 m as the quark confinement limit for the nuclear interactions.
So the electron's Compton frequency is c/lambda and so 1.2x10^20 Hz and its classical frequency is so 1.7x10^22 Hz, which is of course the energy value given in the pair-annihilation of the electron-positron coupling to produce a gamma ray of 2 electronmasses xc^2 (1.6x10^-13 Joules or 1.02 MeV and twice the electron mass of so 511 keV.
This is physics known for about 80 years.
A typical baryonic quark-triplet or mesonic quark-antiquark coupling has energies proportional to the basic nucleon triplet mass of so 10^-27 kg as a transform from the Planck-Mass {The gravitational finstructure is 2Pi.Gm^2/hc which is equal to alpha^18 and so computes the nucleonic finestructure in mass m).
So the basic up-down quark energies are all bounded in so 1 GeV, i.e. the proton restmass which again has a say proton frequency of mc^2/h~1.3x10^23 Hz as a gamma ray equivalence of proton+antiproton~2 GeV.
Since the quark is far more massive than the electron, it must be at a
higher frequency than the electron.
So now ask yourself this question: Is there really any difference
between the electron's attraction to the nucleus and light being bent by
the star?
The answer has to be NO.
Tony B.: The electron's attraction to the nucleus is a charge attraction, ultimately given in the magneto charges of the quantum geometry, which exhibits a ring core structure with like geometries (say rings at the same displacement) repelling and unlike geometries (say kernel and rings) attracting. One can then easily see that kernel and rings are oppositely charged, so resulting in the phenomenon of Coulombic charge quantisation.
The 'bending of light' in General Relativity is a metric distortion, where this metric is quantised in terms of the quantum geometry indicated above.
Gravity, therefore, is being caused by the quark's spin just the same as
magnetism is being caused by the electron's spin.
Tony B.:
The quark spin is ultimately derived from the conservation of the quantum relativity, which defines the causes for the Big Bang from first principles.
Here the Graviton is born from a symmetry breaking in a massless universe and this graviton gauge must have double spin to conserve the original spin bifurcations.
Then a universe defined as a pure bosonic selfstate introduces fermionic half-spin which 'creates' a quark-lepton hierarchy from superstring bosons.
A XL-Boson bifurcates into a muonic- and a nucleonic precursor and from there the particle families assume identity in certain unitary symmetries of the gauges.
The precursive energy for all this 'spinning' is colour-magnetic in that the gauges are cyclic and anticyclic that is they are distinct particle and antiparticle and this can be seen in the neutrino physics of today.
Then the quark spin is no more than a transfomed remnant of the original superstring spin of the primordial quantum relativity.
The mass association of all Coulombic charges results in the creation of electromagnetic radiation; is however a direct consequence of the nature of those electric charges as mappings of the magnetocharges from the massless superstring dimensions.
Magnetism is the result of magnetocurrents manifesting via the quantisation of the electric charge quantum and so lead to the electricity of mass associated current elements.
The crucial mapping from the superstring realm is the Planck-Length-Oscillation, which renders a Length as equal to e/c^2 or ChargexMass/Energy.
The equation is: (Planck-Length)Sqrt(Alpha)=e/c^2 with e*=2Re.c^2=1/E* .
So one can define the Hamiltonian as c^2 proportionality:
1/c^2=Planck-Length.Sqrt(Alpha)/e=2Re/e*.
This nicely illustrates, that the nuclear interaction confinement 2Re of modern physics accomodates the magnetocharge (as the gluon charge of the strong interaction) in a 'mapping' manner of the Planck-Length as limit for any displacement scale accomodating the electron's charge quantum e.
Perhaps you can see here how the phenomena of electricity, magnetism, gravity etc. are all derivatives from a massless superstring scenario based on quantum geometry and the encompassing quantum relativity preceding the Big bang cosmogenesis.
All I see that de Broglie's wavelength formula does is that it shows us
the equivalency of mass, energy and frequency (which is sort of the
inverse of wavelength or lambda).
Matter waves?
Specify their frequency.
Tony B.: See in the above.
I believe in scalar standing wave resonances that I can see as keys on a
piano even though we, as yet, do not know their exact frequencies.
The spins of these scalar resonances are also scalar from their same
frequency surroundings but they are not scalar to each other and herein
lies the secret of how this universe is built.
The phase differences of these spin frequencies being either in or out
of phase with each other is the keystone of space and attractive or
repulsive force.
The phase differences of the principal scalar frequencies themselves
gives us our concept of time.
Stephen Wolfram, who said this is a simple univers built on simple
rules, comes out as the great prophet of science.
This is a frequency universe built on simple phase rules.
When binary stars of the same mass are found to have opposite spins then
Milo Wolff, Stephen Wolfram and I will obtain an avalanche of our peers
thinking the same way that we presently do.
Fitz
Tony B.: In a manner of intuition you are quite correct Fitz, but your drawn conclusions lack the depth to actually crystallise the 'simple rules'.
Those 'simple rules' are:
1. Conservation of Symmetry: Geometric-Numerical-Quantum-Micro/Macro.
2. Conservation of Energy: Statistic-kT/Gravitational-hf/Inertial-mc^2.
3. Conservation of Momentum: Quantum/Angular/Linear.
Tony B.
"In order to calculate the wavelength of high-energy electrons, it is necessary to take into account the relativistic increase in electron mass and use equations derived from the Special Theory of Relativity. For example, 100keV electrons (accelerated through a potential difference of 10^5 volt) are travelling at a speed of v = 0.55c and have a relativistic mass which a factor of gamma = 1.20 higher than the rest mass. Their wavelength is 0.0037 nm (i.e. 3.7 pm) which is considerably less than a typical spacing between atomic planes, so that the deflection angles 2(theta) are only a few degrees.
Other particles (such as neutrons and alpha-particles) can be diffracted, showing that they also have a wavelike nature. So called thermal neutrons, produced with high energies in the core of a nuclear reactor but slowed down by multiple collisions in a graphite moderator, have a kinetic energy of approximately (3/2)kT = 0.0388 eV (for T=300K) corresponding to a speed of 2736 m/s. From Eq.(1), their wavelength is 0.146 nm, close to atomic dimensions, so thermal neutrons are used in diffraction experiments to investigate the structure of solids."
Tony B. comment:
So Zeus, take the kinetic energy of a slow neutron of 0.04 eV or 6.4x10^-21 Joules for a mass delta dE=c^2(dm) and a neutron mass of so 1.7x10^-27 kg.
de Broglie lambda=h/mv~(6.7x10^-34 Js)/{(1.7x10^-27 kg)(2736 m/s)}~1.4 Angstroems or the 0.14 nanometres from the above.
The FREQUENCY would then be f=(2736 m/s)/0.14 nm~1.9x10^13 Hz.
In fact, it is possible to assign a wavelength to any material object, such as a single atom or a whole assembly of atoms, provided it is travelling at a known speed relative to the observer. But according to Eq.(1) the wavelength becomes very small as the mass of the object becomes large; for example, a 74kg person running at a speed of 5 m/s would have a de Broglie wavelength of 1.8 x 10^-36 m, far below their physical dimensions. Therefore only objects of atomic or subatomic dimensions display observable wavelike properties such as diffraction; macroscopic objects exhibit particle-like behaviour and are well described by classical physics. This can be taken as a further example of the Correspondence Principle, the predictions of quantum physics approximating to those of classical physics under the original conditions of investigation.
dbroglie.htm(Ó R. Egerton)
Figure references are to the second edition of Modern Physics by Serway, Moses and Moyer (Saunders, 1989).
De Broglie's Matter Waves
The Rutherford and Bohr models are based on the concept that the ultimate components of matter are particles. An alternative picture began to emerge in the 1920's when Louis de Broglie suggested in his doctoral thesis (1923) that, just as electromagnetic radiation can have both wave and particle properties, the components of matter may have a wavelike as well as a particle-like character.
Louis de Broglie was born into an aristocratic family and began to study history (at the Sorbonne in Paris) as preparation for a career in diplomacy. But after serving as a radio operator in the first World War, he followed the lead of his brother Maurice and went into physics. He was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1929.
Thus, the formulae E = hf and p = h/lambda which apply to a photon might also apply to a material object, such as an electron. If so, the wavelength lambda associated with the electron is not a fixed quantity but will depend on the electron's speed v :
lambda = h / p = h / (mv) ....................... (1)
where m is the relativistic mass of the electron but will be essentially equal to the rest mass if v << c , where c is the speed of light in vacuum.
For the energy E of the electron, we might take the total relativistic energy E = m c^2 introduced by Einstein. If so, the frequency associated with the electron would be:
f = E / h = mc^2 / h ........................ (2)
Things start to look strange if we evaluate the product f (lambda) to form what is called the phase velocity of a wave Vp:
Vp = f lambda = mc^2 / mv = c^2 / v ................ (3)
Clearly, the phase velocity of the electron wave is different from the particle velocity v . Moreover, we know that v < c , in which case Eq.(3) requires that Vp > c , so the phase velocity cannot represent the motion of any signal or material object.
However, things start to make more sense when we reconsider the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom and apply Eq.(1). Bohr's postulate was that the angular momentum of the electron is in a stationary orbit is given by mvr = n(h/2(pi)), in which case Eq.(1) gives:
n lambda = h / (h/2 (pi)r) = 2 (pi)r ........................ (4)
A plausible interpretation of Eq.(4) is that the circumference 2 (pi)r of the electron orbit contains an integral number of wavelengths; in other words, the electron in a stationary state forms a standing wave, somewhat analagous to a wave on a vibrating string; see Fig. 4.2. (This is an example of a periodic boundary condition: the phase of the wave would not change after one complete revolution or or any integral number n of revolutions).
The real proof of de Broglie's concepts came from experimental data on electron diffraction. Louis de Broglie had suggested that a stream of electrons passing through a narrow aperture should exhibit measurable diffraction effects and Einstein predicted (in 1925) that a beam of atoms should behave similarly. However, the first diffraction evidence was obtained from observations of the interaction of electron beam with a crystal, which contains atoms arranged with regular spacings and can therefore act as a diffraction grating for an electron beam with suitable wavelength.
This experiment was first done in 1927 by L.A. Germer and C.J. Davisson, two employees of Bell Laboratories (in New York City) who were trying to get information about the arrangement of atoms at the surface of a nickel crystal. Their apparatus is shown schematically in Fig. 4.4.
Electrons emitted into a vacuum by thermionic emission from a heated filament were accelerated by applying a modest voltage V to an electrode containing a hole, from which emerged a beam of electrons of kinetic energy K = V e , where e is the magnitude of the electron charge. For example: if V = 54 volts, K = 54 eV = mv^2 / 2 , giving v = 4.36 x 10^6 m/s (since v<<c, our use of the non-relativistic expression for kinetic energy is justified at this low accelerating voltage). Use of Eq.(1) then gives lambda = 0.165 nm, which is comparable to the atomic spacing in many solids, so diffraction effects might be anticipated. The electron beam was allowed to strike the surface of a nickel crystal and the number of scattered electrons per second (the 'intensity') was recorded as a function of the angle (phi) between the incident and scattered beams, using a simple detector which could be moved around the point of impact. An example of Davisson and Germer's results is shown in Fig. 4.5, which shows that scattered intensity reached maximum value at a scattering angle of (phi)max = 50 deg. From the value of (phi)max, the electron wavelength can be calculated, using the following argument.
Because low-energy electrons are scattered strongly by atoms (because of electrostatic interaction with the atomic electrons and nuclei), the incident beam does not penetrate much beyond the first monolayer of atoms. Therefore the diffraction effect takes place at the surface and is similar to diffraction of visible photons from a diffraction grating, rather than the three-dimensional kind of diffraction which is responsible for Bragg-reflection of x-rays. Consequently, we are justified in considering only the scattering of incident electrons by surface atoms, as illustrated in Fig. 4.6. If the incident beam arrives perpendicular to the surface, the difference in path length for electrons scattered by two adjacent atoms (separation d , measured parallel to the surface) is AB = d sin(phi) , and must be equal to an integral number of wavelengths if the scattered waves are to arrive in phase. In other words, constructive interference occurs if:
n lambda = d sin (phi) ........................ (5)
Using (phi) = 50 deg, n = 1 and d = 0.215 nm (known from x-ray diffraction measurements), Eq.(5) gives lambda = 0.165 nm for 54eV electrons, which is
just the value we calculated earlier using Eq.(1). Therefore the Davisson and Germer experiment provides convincing proof of De Broglie's assertions.
Higher-order diffracted beams would correspond to higher values of the integer n in Eq.(5). For 54eV electrons, n = 2 implies sin(phi) = 1.53 which indicates that second-order diffraction is impossible, but with electrons of somewhat higher energy (travelling at higher speeds and having shorter wavelength) multiple orders of diffraction can occur.
It is possible to apply Eq.(5) in reverse and calculate the spacing of surface atoms, knowing the accelerating voltage of the incident electrons and therefore their wavelength, from Eq.(1). This is the basis of low-energy electron diffraction (LEED), an modern analytical technique used in surface-science and layer-growth experiments. In fact, the symmetry of arrangement of the surface atoms can be determined by examining the symmetry of the diffraction pattern, recorded on a two-dimensional detector such as a phosphor screen. usually the scattered electrons are further accelerated by a system of concentric grids in order to generate sufficient light at the screen. This technique works only in ultrahigh vacuum (UHV), since at higher pressures the surface of a solid is covered by a layer of condensed water or hydrocarbons, so the diffraction of low-energy electrons would take place mainly within this adsorbed layer.
If electrons are accelerated to much higher energies (typically 20 keV - 200 keV), they penetrate many atomic layers and may pass completely through a specimen, provided the latter is thin (< 1 micrometer) in the incident direction. In doing so, however, some of them will be diffracted away from the central (undeviated) beam. Such diffraction of electrons transmitted through a thin metal foil was first observed by G.P. Thomson (son of J.J. Thomson) in 1927, only a few months after the classic experiment of Davisson and Germer experiment and shared the 1937 Nobel prize with C.J. Davisson for experimental confirmation of the de Broglie theory.
The condition for diffraction of transmitted electrons is that they fulfill the Bragg condition for three-dimensional diffraction (Bragg reflection from atomic planes) as discussed for the case of x-rays, namely:
n lambda = 2 d sin (theta) .................. (6)
Note that d in Eq.(6) refers to the separation between atomic planes within the solid and (theta) is the angle between an atomic plane and the incident beam, so that the angle of deviation (after Bragg reflection) is 2(theta) , as in the x-ray case. Transmission diffraction is used for identifying the crystalline structure of a thin specimen and is usually carried out in an electron microscope, where the incident-electron beam can be focussed to a small (<1micrometer) diameter to achieve microdiffraction from small region of the specimen.
In order to calculate the wavelength of high-energy electrons, it is necessary to take into account the relativistic increase in electron mass and use equations derived from the Special Theory of Relativity. For example, 100keV electrons (accelerated through a potential difference of 10^5 volt) are travelling at a speed of v = 0.55c and have a relativistic mass which a factor of gamma = 1.20 higher than the rest mass. Their wavelength is 0.0037 nm (i.e. 3.7 pm) which is considerably less than a typical spacing between atomic planes, so that the deflection angles 2(theta) are only a few degrees.
Other particles (such as neutrons and alpha-particles) can be diffracted, showing that they also have a wavelike nature. So called thermal neutrons, produced with high energies in the core of a nuclear reactor but slowed down by multiple collisions in a graphite moderator, have a kinetic energy of approximately (3/2)kT = 0.0388 eV (for T=300K) corresponding to a speed of 2736 m/s. From Eq.(1), their wavelength is 0.146 nm, close to atomic dimensions, so thermal neutrons are used in diffraction experiments to investigate the structure of solids.
In fact, it is possible to assign a wavelength to any material object, such as a single atom or a whole assembly of atoms, provided it is travelling at a known speed relative to the observer. But according to Eq.(1) the wavelength becomes very small as the mass of the object becomes large; for example, a 74kg person running at a speed of 5 m/s would have a de Broglie wavelength of 1.8 x 10^-36 m, far below their physical dimensions. Therefore only objects of atomic or subatomic dimensions display observable wavelike properties such as diffraction; macroscopic objects exhibit particle-like behaviour and are well described by classical physics. This can be taken as a further example of the Correspondence Principle, the predictions of quantum physics approximating to those of classical physics under the original conditions of investigation.
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
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: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:05:18 -0000
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.
Where is there even one actual experiment that connects de Broglie waves
to anything else?
There isn't.
This is the problem, I see, where people are associating them with
gravity.
All effects of the electron can be shielded.
Neither gravity nor inertia can be shielded.
This is telling you that gravity is being caused by a far different
frequency than anything in the realm of the electron's frequency.
Light does bend slightly via the mass of a star so we know the
frequencies building the electron must be some HARMONIC of the main
gravitational frequency.
But is the electron at a lower or higher harmonic than the frequency
causing gravity?
Once you know the electron is also attracted to the nucleus and the
nucleus is built of quarks and they are more massive than the electron
then you get the answer to the gravitational frequency.
The electron then must be at a lower frequency than the quark frequency
that attracts it to the nucleus because frequency, mass and energy,
while not the same, are equivalent.
Since the quark is far more massive than the electron, it must be at a
higher frequency than the electron.
So now ask yourself this question: Is there really any difference
between the electron's attraction to the nucleus and light being bent by
the star?
The answer has to be NO.
Gravity, therefore, is being caused by the quark's spin just the same as
magnetism is being caused by the electron's spin.
All I see that de Broglie's wavelength formula does is that it shows us
the equivalency of mass, energy and frequency (which is sort of the
inverse of wavelength or lambda).
Matter waves?
Specify their frequency.
I believe in scalar standing wave resonances that I can see as keys on a
piano even though we, as yet, do not know their exact frequencies.
The spins of these scalar resonances are also scalar from their same
frequency surroundings but they are not scalar to each other and herein
lies the secret of how this universe is built.
The phase differences of these spin frequencies being either in or out
of phase with each other is the keystone of space and attractive or
repulsive force.
The phase differences of the principal scalar frequencies themselves
gives us our concept of time.
Stephen Wolfram, who said this is a simple univers built on simple
rules, comes out as the great prophet of science.
This is a frequency universe built on simple phase rules.
When binary stars of the same mass are found to have opposite spins then
Milo Wolff, Stephen Wolfram and I will obtain an avalanche of our peers
thinking the same way that we presently do.
Fitz
The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here. Get all the scoop.
Offline 
Send Email