5 ms·

I've mentioned this in a couple different HN posts regarding QM recently and I'd like to mention this again. I'd greatly appreciate it if we could do some back

by rpz 7y ago

I've mentioned this in a couple different HN posts regarding QM recently and I'd like to mention this again. I'd greatly appreciate it if we could do some back and forth. I think the "current crisis in physics" has much to do with the foundations of QM. If what I present below is just false, then fine, I'd appreciate an explanation of why instead of a downvote. In short, I believe what Planck found was not an action constant, but rather it was an energy constant. Planck's constant has the wrong units. The constant should be in Joules/oscillation as opposed to Joule*sec. Planck inadvertently "hard coded" a one second measurement into his constant. His equation should be E=htf where h is in Joules/oscillation t in seconds and f in oscillations/second. I think there is a reason why the units for frequency aren't explicitly listed as oscillations/sec. the units of E=hf don't balance if f has the units oscillations/second. But you don't need to believe me... please read the following paper by Juliana H.J. Mortenson (Formerly Juliana H.J. Brooks). https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/e266e5e7-739c-437c-89c3-eed60d3a9f3f/downloads/1cfqec4a8_58871.pdf https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/e266e5e7-739c-437c-89c3-eed... Can you find an error in her paper? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Thanks! Upshot: Every oscillation of light has the same energy, and what we regard as a photon today is actually a one second measurement of oscillations of light at some frequency f.

rpz 7y ago
also see https://forgottenphysics.com/ https://forgottenphysics.com/
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
rpz 7y ago
The paper linked above is a quick and very easy read.
qayxc 7y ago
> Can you find an error in her paper? Sure, just one you say? In Ch. 2 §1 Mortenson, MD tries to derive the "mean energy per oscillation". She refers to the dimensionless scalar "N" as the number of "waves" the photon is comprised of. Not only doesn't that make any sense whatsoever, since a photon can only have a single frequency, and is hence described by a single wave. She also introduces a "unit" that doesn't exist - namely the "osc" (=oscillation), which is DIMENSIONLESS, i.e. it's doesn't have a physical representation and therefore cannot be unit... She then continues to fail to apply the most basic dimensional analysis and I basically stopped right there. It's a bunch of hogwash and esoteric pseudo-science, sorry.
- rpz 7y ago
  > since a photon can only have a single frequency The current interpretation of E=hf is what suggests that a photon is the elementary particle of light, and that a photon can only have a single frequency so I dont think that is a fair critique. She is trying to point out that E=hf and the current interpretation is wrong and is not assuming it's true in her analysis. > DIMENSIONLESS Although this is an aside to your point, can I hear your thoughts on using the dimensionless fine structure constant in equations? Following your reasoning are we not allowed to use radians (an SI unit) in equations either?
  - qayxc 7y ago
    > She is trying to point out that E=hf and the current interpretation is wrong and is not assuming it's true in her analysis. If you want to prove an equation wrong, you cannot use it as a starting point. Let me show you the fundamental error she makes in detail: E=hf Dimensional analysis: J=J * s * s^-1=J * s / s=J * 1=J So the original checks out ok. The paper tries to argue that Js is the wrong unit for h and replaces the "1" from above with bogus "oscillations", which are never defined. The proper inverse of frequency is not "oscillations", however, it's period (singular!), which is measured in seconds. Dividing by "oscillations" gives you the same unit you started with and changes nothing. This is independent of your interpretation of what a photon is. Since she also never specifies the relationship between "oscillations" and wavelength, I wonder how E=hc/λ follows, let alone the de Broglie wavelength... > can I hear your thoughts on using the dimensionless fine structure constant in equations? Using the fine structure constant in equations is equivalent to using pi in equations. Proportionality factors exist in nature.
  - dodobirdlord 7y ago
    > Following your reasoning are we not allowed to use radians (an SI unit) in equations either? Not for dimensional analysis.
Ono-Sendai 7y ago
Planck's constant does have units of energy per oscillation. Or to be exact, it has units of energy per frequency of oscillation, e.g. Joules per Hertz (J / s^-1) = J s.

by rpz 7y ago

rpz 7y ago

also see https://forgottenphysics.com/ https://forgottenphysics.com/

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

rpz 7y ago

The paper linked above is a quick and very easy read.

qayxc 7y ago

> Can you find an error in her paper? Sure, just one you say? In Ch. 2 §1 Mortenson, MD tries to derive the "mean energy per oscillation". She refers to the dimensionless scalar "N" as the number of "waves" the photon is comprised of. Not only doesn't that make any sense whatsoever, since a photon can only have a single frequency, and is hence described by a single wave. She also introduces a "unit" that doesn't exist - namely the "osc" (=oscillation), which is DIMENSIONLESS, i.e. it's doesn't have a physical representation and therefore cannot be unit... She then continues to fail to apply the most basic dimensional analysis and I basically stopped right there. It's a bunch of hogwash and esoteric pseudo-science, sorry.

rpz 7y ago
> since a photon can only have a single frequency The current interpretation of E=hf is what suggests that a photon is the elementary particle of light, and that a photon can only have a single frequency so I dont think that is a fair critique. She is trying to point out that E=hf and the current interpretation is wrong and is not assuming it's true in her analysis. > DIMENSIONLESS Although this is an aside to your point, can I hear your thoughts on using the dimensionless fine structure constant in equations? Following your reasoning are we not allowed to use radians (an SI unit) in equations either?
- qayxc 7y ago
  > She is trying to point out that E=hf and the current interpretation is wrong and is not assuming it's true in her analysis. If you want to prove an equation wrong, you cannot use it as a starting point. Let me show you the fundamental error she makes in detail: E=hf Dimensional analysis: J=J * s * s^-1=J * s / s=J * 1=J So the original checks out ok. The paper tries to argue that Js is the wrong unit for h and replaces the "1" from above with bogus "oscillations", which are never defined. The proper inverse of frequency is not "oscillations", however, it's period (singular!), which is measured in seconds. Dividing by "oscillations" gives you the same unit you started with and changes nothing. This is independent of your interpretation of what a photon is. Since she also never specifies the relationship between "oscillations" and wavelength, I wonder how E=hc/λ follows, let alone the de Broglie wavelength... > can I hear your thoughts on using the dimensionless fine structure constant in equations? Using the fine structure constant in equations is equivalent to using pi in equations. Proportionality factors exist in nature.
- dodobirdlord 7y ago
  > Following your reasoning are we not allowed to use radians (an SI unit) in equations either? Not for dimensional analysis.

Ono-Sendai 7y ago

Planck's constant does have units of energy per oscillation. Or to be exact, it has units of energy per frequency of oscillation, e.g. Joules per Hertz (J / s^-1) = J s.