| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"JLeeCforRP" |
| Date: |
26 Jan 2005 11:36:42 AM |
| Object: |
The TOTAL disproof of Relativity and current QM |
GO TO: > www.realityphysics.com <
By introducing a completely new type of physics called "Reality Physics" we are
now able, for the first time in the history of Quantum Mechanics, to reveal how
the de Broglie Wavelength Equation for a moving particle, where: wavelength =
h/p (Plank's constant / momentum of moving particle), can now be used to
correctly calculate the observed wavelengths of the electron pilot waves that
concentrically structure the atom, plus exactly calculate the observed
wavelength of a photon emitted by an electron as it "jumps" orbits within the
atom. This ability of Reality Physics to exactly calculate these observed
wavelengths within the atom now reveals the direct interconnection between the
mathematical definitions of Reality Physics and the physical universe. This,
not only, exposes conclusive proof of the validity of Reality Physics, but it
also completely disproves both Relativity and current Quantum Mechanics. All
opinions and comments are welcome.
all the best,
Jeff Lee CENTER FOR REALITY PHYSICS
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The TOTAL disproof of Relativity and current QM |
26 Jan 2005 11:51:12 PM |
|
|
"JLeeCforRP" <jleecforrp@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050126123642.08575.00000230@mb-m06.aol.com...
. All opinions and comments are welcome.
OK then.
You are spewing wet pig dung from a position of total ignorance.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff" |
|
| Title: Re: The TOTAL disproof of Relativity and current QM |
03 Feb 2005 11:40:20 PM |
|
|
Nice try at an Uncle Al immitation, but I still think you are bluffing.
all the best,
Jeff Lee CENTER FOR REALITY PHYSICS
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The TOTAL disproof of Relativity and current QM |
26 Jan 2005 12:57:15 PM |
|
|
JLeeCforRP wrote:
GO TO: > www.realityphysics.com <
Empirical idiot.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
[snip crap]
This,
not only, exposes conclusive proof of the validity of Reality Physics, but it
also completely disproves both Relativity and current Quantum Mechanics. All
opinions and comments are welcome.
You are an ineducable fucking imbecile juggling high school math.
Badly.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The TOTAL disproof of Relativity and current QM |
26 Jan 2005 02:03:27 PM |
|
|
Cowards like Sam and Uncle AL hide from Gravityphysics .
YOU DONT KNOW ***** was the topic.
.......... As a mass is pushed up , it gains mass. Pushed up in an
energy slope .
=A0=A0As the universe expands a low forms around mass . A pit to less
energy.
=A0=A0less energy is less mass and atoms change mass at C. =A0 1/2 of
evry atom has more mass than the other half of evry atom in
the field of low.
=A0=A0=A0=A0More mass of evry atom is falling twards it"s own pit at the
center of the atom then the other.
=A0=A0Evry atom has the same energy diferance in the field. evry 1/2
atom pushes its other half as there is more mass on one side
than the other.
=A0=A0=A0=A0There is no pull. Its a push to LESS MASS =A0 How one atom
falls ..1/2 the atom has more mass and pushes it that
way.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 our turns SAM and AL.
tell all us dumbasses how gravity works..
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The TOTAL disproof of Relativity and current QM |
26 Jan 2005 12:19:32 PM |
|
|
JLeeCforRP wrote:
GO TO: > www.realityphysics.com <
To have a good laugh.
By introducing a completely new type of physics called "Reality Physics" we are
now able, for the first time in the history of Quantum Mechanics, to reveal how
the de Broglie Wavelength Equation for a moving particle, where: wavelength =
h/p (Plank's constant / momentum of moving particle), can now be used to
correctly calculate the observed wavelengths of the electron pilot waves that
concentrically structure the atom,
Please tell me where it was *ever* observed that there are "electron
pilot waves" in an atom, and when their wavelengths were observed.
plus exactly calculate the observed
wavelength of a photon emitted by an electron as it "jumps" orbits within the
atom.
BFD. QM has been able to do this for 90 years now.
This ability of Reality Physics to exactly calculate these observed
wavelengths
Replace "observed" with "imagined".
within the atom now reveals the direct interconnection between the
mathematical definitions of Reality Physics and the physical universe. This,
not only, exposes conclusive proof of the validity of Reality Physics,
Expose conclusive proof that you have no clue what you are
talking about, don't know most of QM and Relativity, and don't
understand science.
but it
also completely disproves both Relativity and current Quantum Mechanics.
ROTFL!
All opinions and comments are welcome.
Horse dung.
all the best,
Jeff Lee CENTER FOR REALITY PHYSICS
"Within the last several decades Theoretical Physicists have been
desperately trying to solve the problem of combining Relativity Theory
with Quantum Mechanics."
Wrong. This has been achieved already around 1930. Ever
heard of the Klein-Gordon equation and the Dirac equation?
You seem to be unaware of the differences between Special
and General Relativity, and the differences between Quantum
Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Theory in general.
"So far absolutely no progress has been made as new attempts utilizing
"Quantum Gravity" [1], "Super String Theory" [2], "Zero Point Energy"
[2], etc., are repeatedly re-worked, re-invented and re-applied
in the hopes of possibly finding that "TOE: Theory Of Everything"
explaining the totality of the fundamental nature of the universe as we
know it."
Zero-point energy has nothing to do with combining relativity
with QM, and it has in no way been re-worked, re-invented
or re-applied in the last decades.
Also Quantum Gravity and Super String theory were *not*
re-worked, re-invented or re-applied in the last decades.
"This, of course, is done under the assumption that both of these
theories are correct descriptions of the universe,..."
Wrong yet again. The search for a ToE includes *specifically*
that either Quantum Theory or General Relativity, or even
both, are *not* entirely correct, but merely approximations
of the *real* theory.
"However, to this date, we find we are no closer to accomplishing this
than we were near the turn of the last century, when both of these
theories first came into being."
General Relativity came into being in 1915, Quantum
Mechanics, in the mathematical formulation necessary to
proceed further, around 1928 (the work of Dirac). Both are
*not* "near the turn of the last century".
"Obviously, it then becomes necessary, if we are ever to reach the
truth, that we look further into this situation to see if we can
identify the real problem causing the total disagreement between these
two currently accepted theories..."
Physicists are well aware of the problems, thank you.
"...and to try to understand why neither of these theories has ever been
proven to be the correct description of reality."
So add "the meaning of 'theory' in science" to the things
you don't understand. Hint: *no* scientific theory is *ever*
proven.
"Possibly the best place to begin our search as we attempt to seek out
and expose this most persistent "road block" in Theoretical Physics is
to start with Einstein’s famous equation: "E=mc2" [3]."
That's an outdated way to write it; nowadays, one commonly
uses E = gamma m c^2.
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/mass.html>
"This relationship of energy to matter is very familiar to us since we
now have direct absolute proof of its validity from the many nuclear
devices we have built,..."
Try to understand the difference between "evidence" and
"proof".
"...along with the fact that we now know it is this same fundamental law
of the universe that continually powers the Sun and all of the other
stars throughout the cosmos."
We do not "know" that. We *assume* that.
"Several years after Einstein revealed his most famous equation to the
world, Louis de Broglie then combined this equation with Compton’s
equation mathematically defining energy as the Compton frequency times
Plank’s Constant [4]: E = fc h."
This equation does *not* mathematically define energy!
"...to obtain the "Einstein-de Broglie relation" for a particle of "rest
mass" mR:
fc h = mRc2 {2}"
Wrong. In general, this is an equation for the *relativistic* mass,
not for the rest mass. If you want to have an equation for
the rest mass, you have to write
fc h = gamma m c^2.
*OR* you have to specify in advance that you talk about
the frequency fc *for a particle at rest*.
"With further algebraic substitution (since lC[wavelength] = c/fC) we
can find the equation mathematically relating a particle’s Compton
wavelength to its "rest mass" [4] such that:
lc(COMPTON WAVELENGTH) = h / mR(PARTICLE REST MASS) x c(SPEED OF LIGHT) {3}"
BFD. This is the *definition* of the Compton wavelength!
"De Broglie also conjectured [4] that the wavelength of a moving
particle would be described by the equation:
lB = h / mR (PARTICLE REST MASS) x Vo (VECTOR VELOCITY OF PARTICLE) {4}"
Wrong. He said that the wavelength is
lB = h / p,
where p is the momentum, which is
p = m x Vo,
where m is the *relativistic* massm m = gamma x mR, *not*
the rest mass.
Hint: even the reference which you give here says that.
"This would also further mean that the de Broglie wavelength must now
decrease as the vector velocity (Vo) increases, in inverse proportion to
momentum [4]."
Hint: that's exactly what is observed in experiments, so
it would be a bad idea to argue against this.
"So, as projected by Quantum Physics today, the Compton wavelength of a
particle is a seen to be a totally different mathematical value as
compared to its de Broglie wavelength when the particle is located in
its own rest frame of reference."
Indeed. The Compton wavelength of a particle even has
no direct physical meaning as an actual wavelength of
the particle. It's mainly important in calculations about
the Compton effect.
"When we attempt to apply this current mathematical description of
wavelengths to the atom, as proposed here by present day Quantum
Mechanics, we find we obtain absolutely no relevant or applicable
observations whatsoever describing either its structure or interactive
properties."
Hogwash.
QM says a great deal about atomic structure and properties.
"This is directly due to the fact that most all Theoretical Physicists
today still make the incorrect assumption that matter (subatomic
particles) is defined as being characteristic of a "static"
configuration, in that subatomic particles are "billiard ball" like
entities."
Wrong. No physicist nor chemist working with QM makes such
an assumption. Where did you get this idea from?
"This means that the description of the atom today, as is visualized by
current Quantum Mechanics, resembles that of a miniature solar system
type of configuration, where the electrons are imagined to orbit the
nucleus like planets orbit the Sun."
Complete hogwash. That was Bohr's model. This was abandoned
in 1926, almost 80 years ago. You are a bit late with
complaining.
"This is why current Quantum Mechanics incorrectly uses: Vo (vector
velocity), and the electron’s mass, in the denominator of de Broglie
wavelength equation..."
But the wavelength equation you mentioned is not used in calculations in
QM. We use the Schroedinger equation (or the Dirac equation)
instead. Ever heard of them?
BTW, what's the problem with using the mass of the electron
in calculations?
"...which, when applied to the observed configuration of the electron
(orbit) pilot waves that concentrically structure the atom,..."
What pilot waves?
"...produces totally meaningless results."
For example?
"It is this total misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of atom’s
inner structure..."
So far, the "misunderstanding" seems to be only your straw man.
"...that has rendered present day Quantum Mechanics as being completely
ineffective as far as its ability to bring forth any valid mathematical
description of the atom."
ROTFL! QM is ineffective? Say, in which fantasy world
are you living?
Skipping a lot of boasting...
"Once we become aware of the fact that all subatomic particles are
actually made of light (in that they are physically constructed from the
"angular momentum of photon spin" [6])..."
Err, photons have spin 1, electrons have spin 1/2. So how
could electrons be made up of photons?
"the angular momentum of photon spin oscillating at the Compton frequency"
What do you mean with an "oscillating angular momentum"?
You *do* know that angular momentum is a *vector*, don't
you?
BTW, ever heard of Stern-Gerlach?
"...light always moves at "the speed of time"..."
Ouch. How silly can you get?
"...photon spin velocity (Vp)"
What's that?
Skipping a lot of strange stuff...
"Since Reality Physics defines "mass" as "photon spin"..."
Err, so photons have mass? Rest mass or relativistic mass?
"...by simultaneously causing a decrease in photon spin velocity within
the particle due to the direct relationship as exposed here by the
Mechanism Of Motion between "Vp" and "Vo", likewise immediately causes a
decrease in the mass of the particle."
So "Reality Physics" says that the mass of a particle *decreases*
with the velocity? Then it contradicts hundreds of thousands
of observations and hence is dead on arrival.
"This, of course, is obviously in direct contrast to the concept of Mass
Increase due to vector velocity of Relativity [4] currently used in
Theoretical Physics today where:
mass(INCREASE) = rest mass / (1 – Vo2/c2)1/2 {7}"
1) The thing on the left hand side is not called
"mass(INCREASE)" in physics, but "relativistic mass" or
"moving mass".
2) This is not merely a concept of theoretical physics
- this has actually been *observed* hundreds of thousands
of times.
"Combining the "Mass Increase" equation of Relativity {7} with the de
Broglie wavelength equation only makes things worse as we now obtain
totally meaningless results when we substitute in electron mass and
pilot wave orbital velocity into the equation of current Quantum
Mechanics and Relativity..."
Why do you think this "makes things worse"? What meaningless
results are you talking about?
Hint: the formula you give here is exactly the one proposed
by de Broglie originally - *not*, as you claimed previously,
the formula (4).
"...both of these theories are totally incorrect since they both
misassume the universe to be a "static" condition, simply existing
linearly from one moment to the next in time."
What on earth is this supposed to mean?
"Subsequently, from this perspective, matter can not be made of light
(since that would directly contradict Relativity)..."
And a lot of other facts.
Skipping some strange stuff again...
"As the particle’s vector velocity increases, the de Broglie wavelength
does not contract (as it is currently misassumed to do by present day
Quantum Mechanics),..."
Hint for you: this is not merely "assumed". This has been
*measured*. Bad for you, don't you think?
"...now enable us to calculate a de Broglie wavelength EXACTLY equal to
the observed wavelength of the [N1] orbit of the Bohr atom, shown below."
Unfortunately for you, Bohr's model is an outdated concept.
It has been known for about 80 years now that it can not
explain the experimental evidence.
"As previously stated, using present day Quantum Mechanics (which uses
vector velocity: Vo times mass in the denominator of the de Broglie
equation) and Relativity (which projects a "Mass Increase") there is
really no way to calculate this wavelength..."
The reason may be that present-day QM says that no orbits
exist in an atom, don't you think?
BTW: what do you think how Bohr originally calculated the
wavelength?
The remaining stuff becomes even worse. I have wasted already
too much time on this.
Suggestion: get an education.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff" |
|
| Title: Re: The TOTAL disproof of Relativity and current QM |
04 Feb 2005 12:01:14 AM |
|
|
Bjoem wrote:
"Err, so photons have mass?"
Jeff wrote:
No, the mass and physical configuration of a subatomic particle is
created by "the angular monemtum of photon spin". This is why, when you
split the nucleus of an atom, light (energy) comes out. If subatomic
particles were made of toothpaste, then obviously toothpaste would come
out, but it doesn't. Instead light (energy) comes out, proving that
matter is made of light (energy) just as the equation E = m c^2
illustrates.
all the best,
Jeff Lee CENTER FOR REALITY PHYSICS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The TOTAL disproof of Relativity and current QM |
07 Feb 2005 03:03:11 AM |
|
|
Jeff wrote:
Bjoem wrote:
"Err, so photons have mass?"
Jeff wrote:
No, the mass and physical configuration of a subatomic particle is
created by "the angular monemtum of photon spin".
I already presented counterarguments against this. You conveniently
ignore them.
This is why, when you
split the nucleus of an atom, light (energy) comes out.
Non sequitur.
BTW, there are *many* nuclear fission processes where *no*
photons are produced.
Another BTW: equivocating "light" with "energy" makes little
sense.
If subatomic
particles were made of toothpaste, then obviously toothpaste would come
out, but it doesn't. Instead light (energy) comes out, proving that
matter is made of light (energy) just as the equation E = m c^2
illustrates.
As I already told you: the *real* equation is
E = gamma m c^2.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff" |
|
| Title: Re: The TOTAL disproof of Relativity and current QM |
03 Feb 2005 11:36:08 PM |
|
|
Thanks for posting so much of my paper.
All the best,
Jeff Lee CENTER FOR REALITY PHYSICS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The TOTAL disproof of Relativity and current QM |
07 Feb 2005 03:01:14 AM |
|
|
Jeff wrote:
Thanks for posting so much of my paper.
And you conveniently ignore all the errors I pointed out?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
