reerer Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 Quantum mechanics is based on Planck's blackbody derivation of the energy element (hv) but Planck is equating the kinetic energies (e = 1/2 mv2) of the blackbody surface electrons that possess a mass with the energies of massless light particles emitted by the blackbody in the derivation of the energy element (e = hv) since Planck's constant h = 6.6 × 10-34 m2 kg/s contains the unit of the mass (kg) which conflicts with light that is composed of massless light particles. Also, the quantum mechanic wave packet is used to represent a particle structure of light but a wave packet is formed by the superpositioning of more than ten probability waves which is used to represent a quantized wave but doubling the lengths of the waves that are used to construct a single wave packet results in the formation of a second wave packet. Increasing the lengths of the original waves by 100 times produces 100 wave packets which proves the wave packet structure of light is a deception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvestru Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 I saw you posting this same gobbledygook on another forum. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GKFsH6lfaJ4J:https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/quantum-mechanics-xxx.929675/+&cd=1&hl=ro&ct=clnk&gl=nl What are your sources for this? What is your discovery exactly? That photons are mass-less? 4 hours ago, reerer said: energy element (e = hv) since Planck's constant h = 6.6 × 10-34 m2 kg/s contains the unit of the mass (kg) which conflicts with light that is composed of massless light particles "light is composed by light particles" and Pepsi is composed of Pepsi particles. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 6 hours ago, reerer said: Planck's constant h = 6.6 × 10-34 m2 kg/s contains the unit of the mass (kg) which conflicts with light that is composed of massless light particles. That's not how units work. A joule is a kg-m/s^2, which is why kg are involved. We also know that mass is a form of energy. But that doesn't mean that energy has mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 ! Moderator Note The difference between honest misunderstanding and trolling is acknowledging your mistakes, and those who help fix them. reerer, you need to start acknowledging where your ideas are based on mistakes others are pointing out in each of your threads. Trolling is against the rules you agreed to when you joined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reerer Posted October 30, 2017 Author Share Posted October 30, 2017 On 10/26/2017 at 3:45 AM, swansont said: That's not how units work. A joule is a kg-m/s^2, which is why kg are involved. We also know that mass is a form of energy. But that doesn't mean that energy has mass. Yes, I admit that I do not understand this statement "We also know that mass is a form of energy. But that doesn't mean that energy has mass." that appears to be a contradiction and I certainly acknowledge that if I am wrong that it is a mistakes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 22 minutes ago, reerer said: Yes, I admit that I do not understand this statement "We also know that mass is a form of energy. But that doesn't mean that energy has mass." That doesn't surprise me. It is simple logic. A bat is a mammal. That doesn't mean all mammals have wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reerer Posted October 30, 2017 Author Share Posted October 30, 2017 Davisson–Germer (1927) electron scattering experiment is used to justify electron wave interference but the destruction of electrons to form the non-electron fringes of the electron scattering pattern represents the arbitrary destruction of electrons. de Broglie's electron matter wave is used to represent the structure of a Bohr atom's electron (fig 12) but de Broglie's continuous electron matter wave conflicts with the particle structure of an electron. Furthermore, protons with like charges cannot existing in the confinement of a nuclei to form a multi-electron atom. Neutrons are used to neutralize protons' electric fields which would also results in the elimination of the proton-electron force that forms the structure of a multi-proton atom. Furthermore, the atomic electron matter wave cannot be represented in a Cartesian, cylindrical or spherical coordinate system; consequently, the atomic electron matter wave is transformed into a particle-in-a-box electron matter wave (fig 13) and represented with Schrödinger's wave equation, -(h2/2m)∇"Ψ(x,y,z) + V(x,y,z) + V(x,y,z)Ψ(x,y,z) = EΨ(x,y,z)...................................................58 Schrodinger's wave equation is used to derive a wave function Ψ = Σ c u exp[(2πEt/h + θ)i]............(Schrodinger, p. 1066)......................................................59 "The wave-function physical means and determines a continuous distribution of electricity in space, the fluctuations of which determine the radiation by laws of ordinary electrodynamics." (Schrödinger, Abstract). "The fluctuation of the charge will be governed by the Eq. 28, applied to the special case of the hydrogen atom. To find the radiation, that by electrodynamics will originate from these fluctuating charges, we have simply to calculate the rectangular components of the total electric moment by multiplying (28) by x, y, z respectively, then integrating over space, e.g." (Schrodinger, p. 1066). "1. The theory which is reported in the following pages is based on the very interesting and fundamental researches of L. de Broglie' on what he called "phase-waves" ("ondes de phase") and thought to be associated with the motion'of material points, especially with the motion of an electron or proton. The point of view taken here, which was first published in a series of German papers, is rather that material points consist of, or are nothing but, wave-systems. This extreme conception may be wrong, indeed it does not offer as yet the slightest explanation of why only such wave-systems seem to be realized in nature as correspond to mass-points of definite mass and charge. On the other hand the opposite point of view, which neglects altogether the waves discovered by L. de Broglie and treats only the motion of material points, has led to such grave difficulties in the theory of atomic mechanics —and this after century-long development and refinement— that it seems not only not dangerous but even desirable, for a time at least, to lay an exaggerated stress on its counterpart. In doing this we must of course realize that a thorough correlation of all features of physical phenomena can probably be afforded only by a harmonic union of these two extremes." (Schrödinger, p. 1049-50). "As an alternative, in 1926 German physicist Max Born sharply refined Schrodinger's interpretation of an electron wave, and it is his interpretation--amplified by Bohr and his colleagues--that is still with us today......He asserted that an electron wave must be interpreted from the standpoint of probability." (Greene, p. 105). "Just a few months after de Broglie's suggestion, Schrodinger took the decisive step toward this end by determining an equation that governs the shape and the evolution of probability waves, or as they came to be known, wave functions." (Greene, p. 107). "Schrodinger, de Broglie, and Born explained this phenomenon by associating a probability wave to each electron." (Greene, p. 109).how trimmed content Schrödinger is structurally representing an electron that has a particle structure and mass with a massless electric wave depicted with the wave function; consequently, Schrödinger's electric wave is transformed into an electron probability wave and represented in a spherical coordinate system but an electron position probability is not a wave structure since an electron position probability can only represent a positive value or zero and cannot depict a negative value that is required in representing destructive wave interference used to derive the equations of the atomic orbitals. Furthermore, the representation of a plane wave equation of the electric wave that has a constant maximum amplitude in a spherical coordinate system produces a mathematical catastrophe since the maximum amplitude of a spherical wave is not constant. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 41 minutes ago, reerer said: but the destruction of electrons to form the non-electron fringes of the electron scattering pattern represents the arbitrary destruction of electrons. No it doesn't. They are in the areas of constructive interference. 41 minutes ago, reerer said: de Broglie's electron matter wave is used to represent the structure of a Bohr atom's electron (fig 12) but de Broglie's continuous electron matter wave conflicts with the particle structure of an electron. The Bohr model is wrong. The electron is not (just) a particle. What is "fig 12"? Where have you copied this from? Why do keep posting your ridiculous opinions on things you don't understand? 42 minutes ago, reerer said: -(h2/2m)∇"Ψ(x,y,z) + V(x,y,z) + V(x,y,z)Ψ(x,y,z) = EΨ(x,y,z)...................................................58 Why is this equation 58? 43 minutes ago, reerer said: Furthermore, protons with like charges cannot existing in the confinement of a nuclei to form a multi-electron atom. And yet they do. It seems your ignorance, impressive though it is, is not enough to overcome the strong nuclear force. 44 minutes ago, reerer said: Neutrons are used to neutralize protons' electric fields How can something neutral neutralise an electric field? 45 minutes ago, reerer said: Furthermore, the atomic electron matter wave cannot be represented in a Cartesian, cylindrical or spherical coordinate system This is just nonsense. 45 minutes ago, reerer said: electron matter wave (fig 13) There is no fig 13. Where have you copied this from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 On 10/30/2017 at 4:21 PM, Strange said: This is just nonsense. ! Moderator Note QFT. Closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts