Particle Gravitational Oscillator & Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, studiot said:

Like swansont I look forward to your maths about an electron moving at the speed of light.

Yes Photons move at the speed of light but I would like to see what mechanism you propose to apply an 'impulse' to a photon

8 hours ago, swansont said:

Electrons don’t move at c

I use energy rather than mass to be able to move the electron to c. But to start I give a simple approach.

The prediction is about the constant collapse of matter. The quantum gravity named z would then make the particle fall from the surface, to then reappear thanks to the energy. As much as the constant g has an acceleration on a classical object, then z would be an acceleration constant of the quantum particle to reach the speed of light.

First, we can determine the amount of energy it would take to move the electron to c

$$m = 9,11*10^-31$$
$$v = c-1$$

$$Ez={\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-({\frac{v^2}{c^2}})}}} \ mc^2$$

For an electron, the energy to develop is around 12,235,220 times its resting energy to reach speed c . From there inovation allows and depending on the height of the electron of its energy surface, to fall at the speed of light, to then reappear on the surface.

Gravitational potential energy of the electron:

$$Eu=mgh$$
$$z=\frac{Ez}{mh}$$

z is the constant it takes for the electron to reach the center of the earth at the speed of light.

h = 6370 km

10 hours ago, studiot said:

Yes Photons move at the speed of light but I would like to see what mechanism you propose to apply an 'impulse' to a photon

The generation of the EM field is done by the oscillation of the electron into the atom. This is where we understand that the EM field of the photon is indeed independent of the particle, and without being a particle, and as an argument that it is no mass.

I created a related thread Particle Gravitational Oscillator & Wave Function - Speculations - Science Forums

Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kartazion said:

I don't think it is a good idea to spread this discussion over two threads so I will ignore this new one.

If I can recap my understanding of what you are proposing,

You propose a classical charged particle (in particular an electron) jumping up and down in a graded gravitational field becausing it is somehow receiving upward kicks (impulses) every time it falls back to its lower point under gravity.

This up and down movement generates an EM field, oscillating in sympathy with the up and down movement of the particle.

Is my interpretation of your proposal correct ?

Share on other sites

2 hours ago, studiot said:

You propose a classical charged particle (in particular an electron) jumping up and down in a graded gravitational field becausing it is somehow receiving upward kicks (impulses) every time it falls back to its lower point under gravity.

This up and down movement generates an EM field, oscillating in sympathy with the up and down movement of the particle.

Is my interpretation of your proposal correct ?

Yes that's right. But when the particle falls it becomes neutrino. The generation of the photon is done with the oscillation of the electron naturally in atom. Or the goal is to be able to plot the wave function with the paricle.

The electric charge of the electron is used to generate EM field and becomes a neutrino.

Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kartazion said:

I use energy rather than mass to be able to move the electron to c.

IOW you're just making stuff up

7 hours ago, Kartazion said:

First, we can determine the amount of energy it would take to move the electron to c

m=9,111031

v=c1

Ez=11(v2c2) mc2

There is no solution for v=c. The equation diverges

13 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Yes that's right. But when the particle falls it becomes neutrino. The generation of the photon is done with the oscillation of the electron naturally in atom. Or the goal is to be able to plot the wave function with the paricle.

The electric charge of the electron is used to generate EM field and becomes a neutrino.

This isn't magic. You don't get to just claim stuff happens without regard to physics, and if you have new physics to propose you need to develop a testable model.

This one fails, because an electron does not become a neutrino, and the EM field of an electron does not cause the charge to disappear. This DOES. NOT. HAPPEN. Therefore you are wrong and your model is wrong. End of story.

!

Moderator Note

Speculations have to have models or be backed by evidence. It's not the WAG forum.

Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
• Create New...