sunspot Posted April 13, 2006 Posted April 13, 2006 I would like to look at energy from a slightly different angle. If we look at a quanta of energy it defines a specific wavelength and frequency, the product of which equals the speed of light. The specific wavelength defines a very specific measure of distance and the specific frequency defines a very specfic measure of time. This implies that both distance and time are quantitized within any quanta of energy. Most people assume that distance and time are nothing but reference variables. The fact of the matter is that these reference are based on the units we asign to these two quantitized variables and not the variables themsleves. For example, distance can be measured in feet, meters, nautical mile or light years, but if we take the ratio of the wavelength or frequency of any two different energy quanta, it will be the same no matter what system of distance measurement we are using. In other words, the wavelength of a particular quanta of energy is an absolute measure of distance. The same can be said for the frequency, which is an absolute meaure of time. (putting aside the affect of relativity) These two coordinated quanta, i.e., distance and time, working together add up to the energy value of the energy quanta. The logic is that one packet or quanta of energy is composed of two coordinated packets, one called distance potential and the other called time potential, each with a specfiic quantitized value. If we take a quanta of energy and use it to excite an electron in an atom, the distance potential aspect does not seem to coordinate with what the electron will do physically. A large wavelength energy quanta will not cause the electron to go the long length. It is usually small wavelength energy that creates a long distance affect. Based on this observation, the primary punch of an energy quanta is connected to its time potential quanta aspect. It sort of makes sense, the electron absorbs the time and distance potential of the energy in the blink of an eye and then takes a finite reference time to reach the original steady state. In other words, matter has to process the time potential quanta before equilibrium can be restored. The distance potential is also processed but differently. If we look at energy it travels at the speed of light yet its time and distance aspects stay finite. It is sort of strange, although energy is traveling at C, it does not show the expected outward signs of the distance contraction or time dilation. It is strange to think of something with both light speed and finite speed at the same time, but this is exactly what energy does since many quanta exist, all traveling at C, that do not have infinite wavelength or infinite period. In fact, all but one quanta behave this way. If we take a partiuclar quanta of energy its wavelength and frequency will equal the speed of light. If we could alter either the wavelength or the frequency or both such the product becomes less that C, we would no longer have energy. Less than C is the realm of matter. Under these conditions the loss of distance and/or time potential will increase the mass potential to define finite mass which now will travel less than C. This is sort of what an electron is. A small converted mass potential with time and distance potential, traveling less than C. The time and distance potential are reflected within the continued wave motion of the electron. If we were to convert the electron's mass back to distance and/or time potential we would have energy. But neither the distance or the time quanta travel at C, since they do not contract or dilate. The implication is that energy contains a third quanta, which is massless. Without mass this particle is can travels at C. It appears to be the building block from which mass or mass potential stem. In energy, it has zero mass potential. As part of any particle containing mass, it has quantitized amounts of mass potential (stemming from distance and time potential). Since mass and energy are related and can change phase into each other or energy can add heat or motion to matter, one can define any particle of matter or energy and any particle state of matter in terms of its just ratio of mass, distance and time potential.
Royston Posted April 13, 2006 Posted April 13, 2006 I would like to look at energy from a slightly different angle. If we look at a quanta of energy it defines a specific wavelength and frequency, the product of which equals the speed of light. The specific wavelength defines a very specific measure of distance and the specific frequency defines a very specfic measure of time. This implies that both distance and time are quantitized within any quanta of energy. sunspot, you're confusing rate of energy with a measurement of distance. Photons have no mass, they are a constant. Most people assume that distance and time are nothing but reference variables. The fact of the matter is that these reference are based on the units we asign to these two quantitized variables and not the variables themsleves. For example, distance can be measured in feet, meters, nautical mile or light years, but if we take the ratio of the wavelength or frequency of any two different energy quanta, it will be the same no matter what system of distance measurement we are using. In other words, the wavelength of a particular quanta of energy is an absolute measure of distance. The same can be said for the frequency, which is an absolute meaure of time. (putting aside the affect of relativity) There is no such thing as a 'preferred' frame of reference. These two coordinated quanta, i.e., distance and time, working together add up to the energy value of the energy quanta. The logic is that one packet or quanta of energy is composed of two coordinated packets, one called distance potential and the other called time potential, each with a specfiic quantitized value. You really need a 'solid' equation to back this up. I've only just started studying QM, so anyone can correct if I'm wrong with my responses...plus it's the Easter break, and I've had a couple.
sunspot Posted April 14, 2006 Author Posted April 14, 2006 Planck's constant (times) frequency equals energy. Or as I called it, Planck's constant (times) time potential equals energy.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now