Time-Dilation and Information Theory

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

So E = hf is wrong, according to you?

You're contradicting a whole lot of physics, with no actual experimental evidence in sight 

Well considering he redefines energy itself I would say he contradicts every physics model I can think of lol. Including any involving kinematics lmao I would even include Newtons laws on the list...

Edited May 12, 2018 by Mordred

[Feynmanfan85]

@swansont

No no, not at all. Planck's equation is the root of my model of light, and matter in general. Think about what the equation says: energy is equal to a frequency multiplied by a constant. In layman's terms, energy is equal to the number of times something happens per second, multiplied by a constant.

I take that concept and run with it, and say that what's actually happening in that equation is that the energy of a photon is literally the result of a frequency - the number of times a wavefront crashes into an atom per second, where each wavefront carries the same, discrete amount of energy,

Edited May 12, 2018 by Feynmanfan85
typo

[Mordred]

All right this is getting painful. why nott look at at constructive and destructive interference patterns under QFT via the creation and annihilation operators. Instead of reinventing  physics?

 

Hete is an older post, might help 

I am developing a list of fundamental formulas in QFT with a brief description of each to provide some stepping stones to a generalized understanding of QFT treatments and terminology. I invite others to assist in this project. This is an assist not a course. (please describe any new symbols and terms)

 

QFT can be described as a coupling of SR and QM in the non relativistic regime.

 

1) Field :A field is a collection of values assigned to geometric coordinates. Those values can be of any nature and does not count as a substance or medium.

2) As we are dealing with QM we need the simple quantum harmonic oscillator

3) Particle: A field excitation

 

Simple Harmonic Oscillator

[math]\hat{H}=\hbar w(\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a}+\frac{1}{2})[/math]

the [math]\hat{a}^\dagger[/math] is the creation operator with [math]\hat{a}[/math] being the destruction operator. [math]\hat{H}[/math] is the Hamiltonian operator. The hat accent over each symbol identifies an operator. This formula is of key note as it is applicable to particle creation and annihilation. [math]\hbar[/math] is the Planck constant (also referred to as a quanta of action) more detail later.

 

Heisenberg Uncertainty principle

[math]\Delta\hat{x}\Delta\hat{p}\ge\frac{\hbar}{2}[/math]

 

[math]\hat{x}[/math] is the position operator, [math]\hat{p}[/math] is the momentum operator. Their is also uncertainty between energy and time given by

 

[math]\Delta E\Delta t\ge\frac{\hbar}{2}[/math] please note in the non relativistic regime time is a parameter not an operator.

 

Physical observable's are operators. in order to be a physical observable you require a minima of a quanta of action defined by

 

[math] E=\hbar w[/math]

 

Another key detail from QM is the commutation relations

 

[math][\hat{x}\hat{p}]=\hat{x}\hat{p}-\hat{p}\hat{x}=i\hbar[/math]

 

Now in QM we are taught that the symbols [math]\varphi,\psi[/math] are wave-functions however in QFT we use these symbols to denote fields. Fields can create and destroy particles. As such we effectively upgrade these fields to the status of operators. Which must satisfy the commutation relations

 

[math][\hat{x}\hat{p}]\rightarrow[\hat{\psi}(x,t),\hat{\pi}(y,t)]=i\hbar\delta(x-y)[/math]

[math]\hat{\pi}(y,t)[/math] is another type of field that plays the role of momentum

 

where x and y are two points in space. The above introduces the notion of causality. If two fields are spatially separated they cannot affect one another.

 

Now with fields promoted to operators one wiill wonder what happen to the normal operators of QM. In QM position [math]\hat{x}[/math] is an operator with time as a parameter. However in QFT we demote position to a parameter. Momentum remains an operator.

 

In QFT we often use lessons from classical mechanics to deal with fields in particular the Langrangian

 

[math]L=T-V[/math]

 

The Langrangian is important as it leaves the symmetries such as rotation invariant (same for all observers). The classical path taken by a particle is one that minimizes the action

 

[math]S=\int Ldt[/math]

 

the range of a force is dictated by the mass of the guage boson (force mediator)

[math]\Delta E=mc^2[/math] along with the uncertainty principle to determine how long the particle can exist

[math]\Delta t=\frac{\hbar}{\Delta E}=\frac{\hbar}{m_oc^2}[/math] please note we are using the rest mass (invariant mass) with c being the speed limit

 

[math] velocity=\frac{distance}{time}\Rightarrow\Delta{x}=c\Delta t=\frac{c\hbar}{mc^2}=\frac{\hbar}{mc^2}[/math]

 

from this relation one can see that if the invariant mass (rest mass) m=0 the range of the particle is infinite. Prime example gauge photons for the electromagnetic force.

 

Lets return to [math]L=T-V[/math] where T is the kinetic energy of the particle moving though a potential V using just one dimension x. In the Euler-Langrange we get the following

 

[math]\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{x}}-\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}=0[/math] the dot is differentiating time.

 

Consider a particle of mass m with kinetic energy [math]T=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2[/math] traveling in one dimension x through potential [math]V(x)[/math]

 

Step 1) Begin by writing down the Langrangian

 

[math]L=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2-V{x}[/math]

 

next is a derivative of L with respect to [math]\dot{x}[/math] we treat this as an independent variable for example [math]\frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{x}}(\dot{x})^2=2\dot{x}[/math] and [math]\frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{x}}V{x}=0[/math] applying this we get

 

step 2)

[math]\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{x}}=\frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{x}}[\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2]=m\dot{x}[/math]

 

which is just mass times velocity. (momentum term)

 

step 3) derive the time derivative of this momentum term.

 

[math]\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{x}}=\frac{d}{dt}m\dot{x}=\dot{m}\dot{x}+m\ddot{x}=m\ddot{x}[/math] we have mass times acceleration

 

Step 4) Now differentiate L with respect to x

 

[math]\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}[\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2]-V(x)=-\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}[/math]

 

Step 5) write the equation to describe the dynamical behavior of our system.

 

[math]\frac{d}{dt}(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{x}}-\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}=0[/math][math]\Rightarrow\frac{d}{dt}[/math][math](\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{x}})[/math][math]=\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}\Rightarrow m\ddot{x}=-\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}[/math]

 

recall from classical physics [math]F=-\nabla V[/math] in 1 dimension this becomes [math]F=-\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}[/math] therefore [math]\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}=-\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}=F[/math] we have [math]m\ddot{x}-\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}=F[/math]

Edited May 12, 2018 by Mordred

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

@swansont

No no, not at all. Planck's equation is the root of my model of light, and matter in general. Think about what the equation says: energy is equal to a frequency multiplied by a constant. In layman's terms, energy is equal to the number of times something happens per second, multiplied by a constant.

I take that concept and run with it, and say that what's actually happening in that equation is that the energy of a photon is literally the result of a frequency - the number of times a wavefront crashes into an atom per second, where each wavefront carries the same, discrete amount of energy,

But you said that energy is not frame dependent but frequency is. If there is a fixed relationship between them, that cannot be true. 

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

@swansont

No no, not at all. Planck's equation is the root of my model of light, and matter in general. Think about what the equation says: energy is equal to a frequency multiplied by a constant. In layman's terms, energy is equal to the number of times something happens per second, multiplied by a constant.

I take that concept and run with it, and say that what's actually happening in that equation is that the energy of a photon is literally the result of a frequency - the number of times a wavefront crashes into an atom per second, where each wavefront carries the same, discrete amount of energy,

If each wavefront carries the same energy, and the number has not changed, then the energy is the same. It is not proportional to the frequency in your model, it is proportional to the number of wavefronts. If you say there are more wavefronts, then the question is how that happens, and you still haven't answered how energy is conserved.

 

[Feynmanfan85]

@swansont

 

As the frequency of a photon increases, the number of wavefronts within the photon increases. The energy of a photon is in my model NE_0 = hf, where N is the number of wavefronts within the photon, and E_0 is the minimum quantized energy. As f increases, N increases. It's that simple. 

As a general matter, I really suggest you simply read the paper. The idea that I'm going to write a 60 page paper that's inconsistent with something obvious like Planck's equation is just not realistic. And I'm guessing by now you realize I'm not some crank. I have a significant investment in my professional reputation, and this stuff is not written anonymously. 

My model is consistent with every single test of special relativity that I am aware of. It's consistent with (though sometimes differs slightly from) every equation within special relativity that I'm aware of. The areas that I do not address are electrostatic charge, magnetism, and QM. I'm not saying these aren't important, they're obviously incredibly important. And perhaps my model runs afoul of something in these areas. But everything else is covered.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Feynmanfan85

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

As the frequency of a photon increases, the number of wavefronts within the photon increases. The energy of a photon is in my model NE_0 = hf, where N is the number of wavefronts within the photon, and E_0 is the minimum quantized energy. As f increases, N increases. It's that simple. 

Therefore, energy is frame dependent.

2 minutes ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

And I'm guessing by now you realize I'm not some crank.

You just seem very confused.

[Mordred]

22 minutes ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

@swansont

 

As the frequency of a photon increases, the number of wavefronts within the photon increases. The energy of a photon is in my model NE_0 = hf, where N is the number of wavefronts within the photon, and E_0 is the minimum quantized energy. As f increases, N increases. It's that simple. 

As a general matter, I really suggest you simply read the paper. The idea that I'm going to write a 60 page paper that's inconsistent with something obvious like Planck's equation is just not realistic. And I'm guessing by now you realize I'm not some crank. I have a significant investment in my professional reputation, and this stuff is not written anonymously. 

My model is consistent with every single test of special relativity that I am aware of. It's consistent with (though sometimes differs slightly from) every equation within special relativity that I'm aware of. The areas that I do not address are electrostatic charge, magnetism, and QM. I'm not saying these aren't important, they're obviously incredibly important. And perhaps my model runs afoul of something in these areas. But everything else is covered.

 

 Then why don't you correct the points we have been making so your paper stands a better chance of getting attention. The points being raised here will be raised by others not just on this forum.

 In other words you should be addressing the valid arguments raised here so you can improve the accuracy and quality of your paper to have a better chance of passing a professional peer review.

 Physics is extremely stingent upon terminology usage and definitions particularly on mass and energy terms.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Mordred

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

 

As the frequency of a photon increases, the number of wavefronts within the photon increases. The energy of a photon is in my model NE_0 = hf, where N is the number of wavefronts within the photon, and E_0 is the minimum quantized energy. As f increases, N increases. It's that simple. 

Not simple at all. 

N is an integer. How does the frequency change continuously, per your equation, if the number of wavefronts is quantized?

And energy would not be conserved, which you continue to ignore.

Quote

As a general matter, I really suggest you simply read the paper. The idea that I'm going to write a 60 page paper that's inconsistent with something obvious like Planck's equation is just not realistic.

That's a pretty naive conclusion.

Quote

And I'm guessing by now you realize I'm not some crank. I have a significant investment in my professional reputation, and this stuff is not written anonymously. 

You have guessed...poorly.

Quote

My model is consistent with every single test of special relativity that I am aware of. It's consistent with (though sometimes differs slightly from) every equation within special relativity that I'm aware of. The areas that I do not address are electrostatic charge, magnetism, and QM. I'm not saying these aren't important, they're obviously incredibly important. And perhaps my model runs afoul of something in these areas. But everything else is covered.

The objections raised thus far call this assessment into question.

[YaDinghus]

public class Photon extends Particle{

     Photon(double Wavelength, double Polarization){

     super(0); //from Particle(double Mass)

     this.Wavelenght = Wavelength;

     this.Polarisation = Polarisation;

     }

    public double Wavelength;

    public double Polarisation;

   @Override

    public double Momentum(){

    return Physics.Constants.h/Wavelength;

    }

 @Override

   public double Energy(){

   return Momentum()*Physics.Constants.c;

    }

}

 

Bare bones class, doesn't contain interactions methods

Edited May 23, 2018 by YaDinghus