Temporal Dilemma

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Okay, we'll probably benefit from another look at the basics. Time~Master, you've presented two pieces of info:

1) h = 6.626*10^-34 J

2) E = hv

You also added some stuff about the photoelectric effect, but that's not directly relevant to the discussion of photon energies.

So, show me using this stuff why 1 Hz is a lowest barrier for photon frequency. You still haven't done this. I think it's impossible; mathematically, neither of these data show anything but infinitely variable v and E .

You seem to have been distracted by thinking that a 1 Hz wave is the only one which describes one whole wavelength; this is patently false. Like I said before, the Hz is an arbitrary unit. If I chose to measure frequency in, say, the Raz, with units (km*hr)/(cm*s^2), would you make the same argument for 1 Raz ? The Raz still measures frequency. Fundamentally, there's no difference between the Raz and the Hz, except magnitude, which is unimportant.

So, please try to explain what you're trying to get at.
 
Razmatazz:
First h = 6.626*10^-34 js, I think we agree on this.

Based on your statement that a 1/2cps(cycle per second) wave is a 1cp2s wave. We can show that a EM wave has a minimum energy of 6.63*10^-34 j.

Because 1/2 cps is a fractional part of a whole wave, when we use 1/2 cps in the equation E=hv (We can not use any other units for frequency in this equation.) the value of E will be a fractional part of the total energy of the wave. We can find the total energy by dividing the fractional energy by the fractional part of the wave.

We can show this by useing 1/2 cps in the equation E=hv.

E = (6.626*10^-34 js)
mad.gif
1/2/s)
E = 3.313*10^-34 j

E is the energy of 1/2 the total wave. Therefore, by dividing 3.313*10^-34j by 1/2 we get the total energy (6.626*10^-34j) for the complete wave.

It can be shown that for all values of v less then or equal to 1 the total energy of a complete wave will always = (6.626*10^-34j).

What I have shown is that 6.626*10^-34j is the minimum energy of a complete EM wave that can be emitted, transmitted, and absorbed. We can calculate the energy of half a wave, but we can not emit, transmit, are absorb anything less then a complete wave.
It is important to understand that the energy of 1/2Hz is the energy of 1/2 a complete wave, not the energy of the complete wave. This holds true for all values of f less then 1.

What part of this can I make clear.
 
Okay, so I see where the problem comes in.

You've said "It is important to understand that the energy of 1/2Hz is the energy of 1/2 a complete wave, not the energy of the complete wave." Aha! No, a 1/2 Hz wave is not half a wave! It is a whole wave, in which the length of one full cycle is L=c/f=(3*10^8 m/s)/(.5 Hz)= 6*10^8 m (where L is wavelength, c is the speed of light in a vacuum, and f is the frequency of the light.) So your step of dividing the energy of a 1/2 Hz wave by 1/2 is invalid. This is where you've made your mistake. A 1/2 Hz wave is a whole wave, the equations never say otherwise.

Also, it wouldn't make sense for this rule to apply to only frequencies below 1 Hz, you'd have to apply it to values above that, and then it makes even less sense.

Sorry about the typo in that last post - of course h is in J*s .

One other thing - something about the units of frequency in E=hv has been nagging me for a while. As I recall, there are 2 types of units you could use for this - angular frequency, and 'inverse seconds' type frequency. As far as I remember from my physics classes, nu (what I used v for) is the symbol they use for angular frequency - I just can't remember if the Hz was an angular frequency unit or not. If it was, it'd be something like 1 Hz = 2Pi radians per second or something. Whatever. This doesn't really matter to the issue at hand, it's just been simmering on my back burner for a while, I thought I'd get it out there.
 
Razmatazz:
1 Hz = 1 cycle per second
1/2Hz = 1/2 cycle per second

How do you define the term cycle, is it not a complete wave? If I eat 1/2 apple per second does this mean that I am eating a whole apple in 1 second?

I do not divide the energy by 1/2Hz, the energy is divided by the fractional part of the EM wave that arrives at a per second rate.
 
When you say that 1/2 Hz is 1/2 cycle per second, that's not the same as saying that a 1/2 Hz wave is only part of a wave. What a 1/2 Hz wave is, is one whole cycle spread out over two seconds. Just as a 5 Hz wave is one cycle spread over 1/5 of a second, and so on. The equation E=hv does not give the energy of a one-second window on a wave, it gives the energy of the complete wave. Which, in the case of v=1/2 Hz , happens to occur over 2 seconds. But so be it. Nothing in the equation says how long a time you have to look at the wave for - just look at the complete wave, and find its total energy.

Which is why I said the step of dividing by 1/2 (I never said you divided by 1/2 Hz) is invalid. You're simply doubling the energy of what is already a complete wave.
 
Razmatazz:

If one whole cycle is spread out over two seconds. Then 1/2 of that cycle is spread over one second this gives 1/2 cycle per second or 1/2Hz.
The equation E=hv can not give the energy of the full wave unless v represents the full wave, and in this case it does not.

The full wave is 1 cycle per 2 seconds. If, as you say, nothing in the equation says how long a time you have to look at the wave for - just look at the complete wave, and find its total energy. Then we can use 1 2s^-1 in the equation and calculate the total energy of the wave.
E = hv
E = (6.626x10^-34js) x (1 2s^1)
E = 6.626x10^-34 j/s

It is clear that E is not an energy value and that E=hv can only calculate the energy of a one second window.

<This message has been edited by TimeMaster 1a (edited 22 September 2000).>
 
Well, you made a math/unit error:
"E = (6.626x10^-34js) x (1 2s^1)
E = 6.626x10^-34 j/s"

Somehow you multiplied by .5 and got the same number. It should read E = 3.313*10^-34 J .

Again, I don't see where you're getting the idea that E=hv only looks at a one second window. You said: "The equation E=hv can not give the energy of the full wave unless v represents the full wave, and in this case it does not." The point I'm getting at is, yes it does represent a full wave. A 1/2 Hz wave is not, NOT, half a wave. It's a whole wave, spread over two seconds. And E=hv gives the energy of the whole wave. I sound like a broken record, I know, but you don't seem to get it.

Oh, and E is an energy. where did you get any idea otherwise?
 
Dear Dave, One problem I see with bringing one object to the future in order to to replace the former object going into the past is the emiment collision between the two masses in transition each containing an infinite mass energy producing arcing within the transitioning space which will result in the emission of energy in at least on of the two ports of exit in either times. This is assuming that the equil matter moved is within one light instant of the other or is the same mass in a different time. As for creating energy or destroying it neither is accurring when compressing a mass to a singularity or expanding the space time at a point to expose a singularity. The current thermal dynamics laws is relative to four dimensional mass. There are sources of energy outside nuetral space. These energy sources exist beyond the center mass of all particles and waves. To tap this energy is not to create energy but to extract it from the hyper dimensional point. As for the minimum increment a mass can exist in the past according to the uncertainty principle it is correct for the expanding forces of the universe will cause the mass to sling shot back into this universe in a single action as soon as the critical energy is reached there for one must seperate from the current space time upon entering the subpoint space this can be done by spinnning the object to counteract the torque produced by the exponentially increasing singularities to stall the production of singularities which will in turn accelerate the mass into the past by causing the flux lines of time force to change poles to a previous time. thus to travel into the past requires one to overshoot there destination time in the past and then allow the new time connections to slingshot the mass into the new present universe that is in the past.
 
http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/constants

Do physical constants fluctuate?
"The 'physical constants' are numbers used by scientists in their calculations. Unlike the constants of mathematics, such as ¼, the values of the constants of nature cannot be calculated from first principles; they depend on laboratory measurements.

As the name implies, the so-called physical constants are supposed to be changeless. They are believed to reflect an underlying constancy of nature. In this chapter I discuss how the values of the fundamental physical constants have in fact changed over the last few decades, and suggest how the nature of these changes can be investigated further.

There are many constants listed in handbooks of physics and chemistry, such as melting points and boiling points of thousands of chemicals, going on for hundreds of pages: for instance the boiling point of ethyl alcohol is 78.5°C at standard temperature and pressure; its freezing point is -117.3°C. But some constants are more fundamental than others. The following list gives the seven most generally regarded as truly fundamental.


The Fundamental Constants Fundamental quantity Symbol
Velocity of light c
Elementary charge e
Mass of the electron me
Mass of the proton mp
Avogadro constant NA
Planck's constant h
Universal gravitational constant G
Boltzmann's constant k

All these constants are expressed in terms of units; for example, the velocity of light is expressed in terms of meters per second. If the units change, so will the constants. And units are <arbitrary>, dependent on definitions that may change from time to time: the meter, for instance, was originally defined in 1790 by a decree of the French National Assembly as one ten-millionth of the quadrant of the earth's meridian passing through Paris. The entire metric system was based upon the meter and imposed by law. But the original measurements of the earth's circumference were found to be in error. The meter was then defined, in 1799, in terms of a standard bar kept in France under official supervision. In 1960 the meter was redefined in terms of the wavelength of light emitted by krypton atoms; and in 1983 it was redefined again in terms of the speed of light itself, as the length of the path traveled by light in 1/299,792,458 of a second.
As well as any changes due to changing units, the official values of the fundamental constants vary from time to time as new measurements are made. They are continually adjusted by experts and international commissions. Old values are replaced by new ones, based on the latest 'best values' obtained in laboratories around the world. Below, I consider four examples: the gravitational constant (G); the speed of light; Planck's constant; and also the fine structure constant a, which is derived from the charge on the electron, the velocity of light, and Planck's constant.

The ' best' values are already the result of considerable selection. First, experimenters tend to reject unexpected data on the grounds that they must be errors. Second, after the most deviant measurements have been weeded out, variations within a given laboratory are smoothed out by averaging the values obtained at different times, and the final value is then subjected to a series of somewhat arbitrary corrections. Finally, the results from different laboratories around the world are selected, adjusted, and averaged to arrive at the latest official value. . . .
 
Back
Top