wavelength, energy and photons.


by John15
Tags: energy, photons, wavelength
sophiecentaur
sophiecentaur is online now
#19
Feb28-12, 08:10 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,363
@ John
Just what do you mean by that first sentence? Classical wave theory has nothing at all to do with relativity. It pre-dates it by a hundred years or more.
You write as if you have brought something New into the subject. I can see nothing more than a few misconceptions on your part. You cannot seriously believe that you are the first to try and see things from your particular perspective. Science has not recently hit any wall in this area. That wall was cleared up about a hundred years ago.
Your problem is that you have not really accepted what a good fit these 'bricks' make for this particular structure. You are needlessly bringing mass and energy together at this stage and, unless you can go along with what others have already sorted out then you are 'on your own'. There can be no 'constructive argument' if you are not starting with some common ground.
It is not uncommon for people to think they have stumbled on something really 'significant' but I can't think of a single example of a truly significant bit of Science coming from someone who made it up all by themselves. It was only when they could appreciate fully what was already established that they made significant 'next steps'.
I don't think you are aware enough of the true complexity of all this. If you don't get the simple maths then you are onto a loser, I think.

[Edit: Sock it to him Drakkith!]
John15
John15 is offline
#20
Feb29-12, 05:41 AM
P: 94
The bit about science hitting a wall or need new ideas is not my own, it came from a book by lee smolin and a science prog on tv recently, said by someone in the scientific world.
As far as right and wrong go you cannot know or find out what is right without knowing what is wrong its a process of elimination.
My view on wavelength has still not been answered. If energy doubles as wavelength halves then eventually you will reach a point where the wavelength is so short it will have the energy equivalent if not of the universe then a supermassive black hole, energy cannot be created or destroyed so how can it be doubled just by shrinking a wave.
While I accept time and length dilation I have always wondered why they should exist, there is absolutely no logical reason why time should change because you are simply going faster.
You have seen my line of thinking all I ask is that you show me where I have gone wrong.
Please take E=hf apart and explain it step by step, we are talking about single wave not a line of them which is what frequency infers ie waves (plural) per second.
sophiecentaur
sophiecentaur is online now
#21
Feb29-12, 06:01 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,363
It is no surprise that, if you apply a simple mathematical formula without thinking about the reality involved, then you will get weird answers.

The energy of a photon is hf. I use frequency because that is what counts. Wavelength will depend on the medium of propagation so it is not suitable to use wavelength for this purpose. The 'wave equation' applies'.

It is quite obvious that there will be a limit to the frequency obtainable for an EM wave and you haven't uncovered anything new, in this respect. Why do you think there was all this hooha about the CERN experiments, which produce energies equivalent to extreme conditions that existed soon after the big bang?
You say "just by shrinking a wave" as if the word "just" has no significance. You cannot "just" shrink a wave. You can produce a wave with a given energy and that involves more and more energy as the frequency increases (and the wavelength decreases).

Before you quote Lee Smolin's view as supporting your ramblings I think you should realise that what he says is way beyond your comprehension and, in no way, impinges on the sort of stuff you are talking about.

Don't confuse something that you don't understand with the Edifice of Physics beginning to crumble. You are getting a little ahead of yourself and way out of your depth. Angels fear to tread here.
Drakkith
Drakkith is offline
#22
Feb29-12, 06:32 AM
PF Gold
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,044
Quote Quote by John15 View Post
As far as right and wrong go you cannot know or find out what is right without knowing what is wrong its a process of elimination.
I prefer to think in terms of accuracy. Even the most incorrect answer may be at least a little accurate in the vaguest sense possible. And the most correct answer is most likely still wrong in some way since we don't know everything.

My view on wavelength has still not been answered. If energy doubles as wavelength halves then eventually you will reach a point where the wavelength is so short it will have the energy equivalent if not of the universe then a supermassive black hole, energy cannot be created or destroyed so how can it be doubled just by shrinking a wave.
As Sophiecentaur said, you can't simply double a wave on a whim. You have to create it somehow. There is no known event that could possibly create such a wave at this point in time.

While I accept time and length dilation I have always wondered why they should exist, there is absolutely no logical reason why time should change because you are simply going faster.
It makes perfectly logical sense when you account for the fact that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference and do the math.

You have seen my line of thinking all I ask is that you show me where I have gone wrong.
Please take E=hf apart and explain it step by step, we are talking about single wave not a line of them which is what frequency infers ie waves (plural) per second.
How can we explain it if you don't understand the basics? Your statement here about single and lines of waves and frequency inferring multiple waves is exactly what we are talking about. Every wave has a frequency, no matter what.
sophiecentaur
sophiecentaur is online now
#23
Feb29-12, 12:56 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,363
Quote Quote by John15 View Post
Please take E=hf apart and explain it step by step, we are talking about single wave not a line of them which is what frequency infers ie waves (plural) per second.
There is very little to "take apart" here, except to say that E stands for the energy of one Photon / Quantum and NOT OF A WAVE.
h is the planck constant and f is the frequency.

If you want waves to be the same as photons then you are in a different Universe and have never read the most Noddy textbook we could imaging about Quantum Mechanics. A wave of just one frequency actually goes on and on for ever.
You speak nonsense and Physics is intact.
John15
John15 is offline
#24
Mar1-12, 04:41 AM
P: 94
Hi sophiecentaur and drakkith if you are still there. You both have my sincerest thanks for staying with me as guides over the last few days. I wonder do either of you believe in God? I would be interested to know.
I now believe I know how the universe was made, a single sentence as key and no maths just add E = hf and time and length dilation together and you need no big bang, maybe a little whimper, no string theory, no inflationary theory, no higgs particle or field in fact you need absolutely nothing, except movement, which is what the universe is made of.
The universe is expanding outwards at the speed of light into infinity, the edge will always be the age of the universe in light years away, it is self perpetuating, creating as it expands into infinite time and space.
I will post the key, I am just wondering where is the most appropriate place as it covers general physics, relativity and quantum, here or a new thread, I expect the reply to be the wastebin though, I also think I am going to find out how Galileo felt as people now are basically the same as they were then.
Physics is intact it is the interpretations that should lie in tatters.
sophiecentaur
sophiecentaur is online now
#25
Mar1-12, 04:50 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,363
More than a little of cloud cuckoo land here, I'm afraid.
Science is a lot more involved than you suggest and there are no useful answers from such a superficial approach. If it were do-able without Maths, don't you think someone would have done it already? You have a personal interpretation, as we all have, but you do not seem to understand the accepted interpretation.
You are in the realms of 'faith' and not Science here - which is not to the spirit or letter of PF rules.

btw, 'God' has no place in my model of the world. Any version of a god that I have heard of always looks too much like a human artefact to me.
Drakkith
Drakkith is offline
#26
Mar1-12, 06:54 AM
PF Gold
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,044
Quote Quote by John15 View Post
I wonder do either of you believe in God? I would be interested to know.
Not at all.
I now believe I know how the universe was made, a single sentence as key and no maths just add E = hf and time and length dilation together and you need no big bang, maybe a little whimper, no string theory, no inflationary theory, no higgs particle or field in fact you need absolutely nothing, except movement, which is what the universe is made of.
You can believe what you want. Since science does not yet attempt to say how the universe began you can join the other religions with your explanation.

The universe is expanding outwards at the speed of light into infinity, the edge will always be the age of the universe in light years away, it is self perpetuating, creating as it expands into infinite time and space.
Expansion is a rate, not a speed. The velocity of receding objects changes, it increases from 0 to infinity as your distance from us goes from 0 to infinity.

I will post the key, I am just wondering where is the most appropriate place as it covers general physics, relativity and quantum, here or a new thread, I expect the reply to be the wastebin though, I also think I am going to find out how Galileo felt as people now are basically the same as they were then.
No you won't, as there is no key to post. You know absolutely nothing about science, why it exists, or how it works. However you can learn if you want to. But holding on to the notion that science is wrong in its "interpretations" is definitely not the way to learn it.
John15
John15 is offline
#27
Mar2-12, 10:10 AM
P: 94
Sorry you both seem to have the same attitude I was hoping you might be a bit more open minded, the fact is relativity is 100 years old, quantum maybe 50 scince then nothing, string theory is going nowhere fast, does this not tell you a new approach is needed. Remember what is now said about those that wouldn't believe Galileo. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I have decided to start a new thread, The key to the universe, perhaps I will see you there.
sophiecentaur
sophiecentaur is online now
#28
Mar2-12, 11:01 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,363
This is true. The problem is that you have shown no understanding of either. Come back when you are better informed. Then you will be in a position to make valid comments.
jtbell
jtbell is offline
#29
Mar2-12, 12:24 PM
Mentor
jtbell's Avatar
P: 11,239
Quote Quote by John15 View Post
Sorry you both seem to have the same attitude I was hoping you might be a bit more open minded, the fact is relativity is 100 years old, quantum maybe 50 scince then nothing, string theory is going nowhere fast, does this not tell you a new approach is needed. Remember what is now said about those that wouldn't believe Galileo. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
It is not part of the mission of PF to help people work out new theories that are not already being discussed in the professional scientific community. Click the "Rules" link at the top of any page here and note the section Overly Speculative Posts.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Number of Photons and wavelength? Quantum Physics 3
Relationship between light wavelength, intensity and photons energy Introductory Physics Homework 3
The Atom: wavelength, energy, kinetic energy, etc. of photons Introductory Physics Homework 1
Photons - Wavelength and Wavepackets Quantum Physics 1
help with light, wavelength, and photons Biology, Chemistry & Other Homework 3