1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Models of light

  1. Nov 24, 2011 #1
    Hi, I was wondering what you guys thought of these models. Is the model on plank's length correct? Have you seen these types of models before (especially model C + D)? If so, do you have a link to something like it online?

    Also I am wondering how I can include 'ENERGY' and 'C' (velocity?) into these models. Any ideas? Im trying to build something around model C.

    Thank you!

    http://www.theory-of-thought.com/light.png [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 24, 2011 #2
    "Model E" has well established equations from physical theories..."Model D" is wrong if you are trying to note the planck length, but the equation is correct as is the diagram. Planck's constant does not have dimensions of length. It has dimension "Joule*s" which is "N*m*s" which is "kg*(m^2)/s".

    I think you are trying to understand sinusoidal waves. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave
     
  4. Nov 24, 2011 #3
    You're right, i meant planck's constant, and not planck's length. It was late.

    The wavelength of a sinusoidal waveform is

    λ = v / f

    which is the same equation found in the energy of light. so light is sinusoidal. Also, all frequency is by definition cyclical, which is by definition the circle.

    Question - Do you think that planck's constant is not usually illustrated this way because it makes people think that it's a circle with a length, instead of a value of energy?

    Can time be understood as a value of energy? in Joules? What do you think of diagram G?

    Also, by definition, a 'period' is also cyclical, so that's why time is looped into a circle.

    thanks

    http://www.theory-of-thought.com/light2.png [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  5. Nov 24, 2011 #4
    Time is very different from energy. Energy has units involving mass, time and distance, in the form of (kg*m^2)/(s^2). Time is measured in seconds. It can be exciting to learn about theories involving things like Planck's constant, photons, etc, but before you learn all of that, it is more important to iron out the details of the fundamental ideas upon which these concepts are based, such as time and distance, and how they relate together. Classical physics is useful for understanding these concepts, and it applies more to daily life. Make sure you fully understand the ideas of distance, time, mass, momentum, force, and energy before you proceed to mess with Planck's constant!

    Here is a good website for understanding the ideas of classical mechanics:
    http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/lectures.html
     
  6. Nov 24, 2011 #5
    I'm just trying to build up my argument one step at a time.

    1) Time, distance, and mass = energy. Sure kinetic energy.

    2) Planck's constant is far from complex. Its a simple equation. Its the same equation as the circumference of a circle. But I wonder why it's never drawn as such?

    The idea is to translate equations into geometries, that can then be joined together, visually, perhaps producing a new view of physics.
     
  7. Nov 24, 2011 #6
    Here's the updated version. This one makes more sense. Every rotation (over one period of time) adds one unit of H.

    (maybe thats more like 2 rotations... image not to scale)

    http://www.theory-of-thought.com/light3.png [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  8. Nov 25, 2011 #7

    Claude Bile

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Hi nbj622,

    I applaud your inquisitive outlook; however in all honesty I don't understand what you are trying to say with your diagrams.

    Could you please elaborate? I feel you have substituted diagrams for some rather interesting arguments that are best worded.

    I've found its always best to assume the audience is a non-expert, that way you have the best chance that people understand what you are trying to get at.

    Claude.
     
  9. Nov 25, 2011 #8
    Well i believe the models above are conveying a sense of simplicity. Lines, circles, rotations - producing waves, distances, and time. The models are a way to simplify and visualize physics from a more abstract point of view. Physics has a defined set of mathematical equations that work well at explaining physical systems. Perhaps there is a more abstract set of models that would work better at explaining the merger between physics and mind, or perhaps physics and social interaction. Do you believe physics transcends everything, including behavior?

    I find Feynman's Auckland lectures on QED path integrals very interesting, because he appears adament that physics can be explained entirely using his diagrams involving lines and angles of reflection (rotating circles). If you watch it, you should notice that he really tries to boil it all down to these 2 behaviors.

    Perhaps there is another model, somewhat like feynman diagrams, that explain an even greater phenomenon, including thought. Surely a new expansion to physics is on the horizon and yet again it probably has everything to do with circles.

    I just want to add that I realize that my idea is whimsical, but my intention is to convert some of the simpler mathematical equations, into related geometries, that can then be merged together, just like an equation. So its not that crazy i think, right? Did the universe form as a set of equations, or systems of geometries that we extrapolate as equations?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Models of light
  1. 3D model of light (Replies: 11)

  2. Light intensity model (Replies: 5)

Loading...