Notices
Results 1 to 48 of 48

Thread: De Broglie against Relativity

  1. #1 De Broglie against Relativity 
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    I would like to discuss the arguments against Relativity that are presented in: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin...Relativity.htm

    De Broglie formula is a very important law in the diffraction of basic particles but is not invariant under a change of referentials. Relativity does not support it.

    Also is suggested that the Davisson-Germer experiment can be proof against Relativity since it uses a constant mass ("rest mass") for the electrons. Of course it can be argued that the velocities involved are too small but for science velocities about 10% of C are considerable enough to detect mass variations. Also the electrons are accelerated with a voltage of 50 volts so it would be easy to achieve greater velocities and see any relativistic effects. For Relativity defenders it could be great proof but nothing is said about.
    Then the same experiment but at high velocities is presented as a possible proof that mass really doesn't vary with velocities.
    Please see: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightin...velocities.htm


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    The article you cite is complete nonsense.

    "Another problem we have with formulas like the De Broglie that are velocity dependent. The formula is not invariant under a change of referential!"

    And that's a problem because...?


    "Does this means that the De Broglie law is not a “general” law of nature?"

    Of course that's what it means! First of all, the de Broglie wavelength is not a "law of nature" at all, much less a "general" one. And second, it is well-known that the de Broglie wavelength cannot be an invariant even in Galilean relativity. This is not surprising, and it is not profound.

    "It must be considered that there are many other laws in Physics that are also not invariant and will not be supported by Relativity."

    This is already well-known, and again, it is neither surprising nor profound. Nonrelativistic mechanics and field theory (both classical and quantum) are straightforwardly recognized as approximations to more general, relativistic counterparts.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Of course that's what it means! First of all, the de Broglie wavelength is not a "law of nature" at all, much less a "general" one.
    For me every formula of Physics, Chemistry, Mechanics, Biology, etc, etc (I mean any formula) that express a description of a phenomenon of nature is a law of nature.
    Restricting to Physics any law of Physics is a law of nature.

    I have modified the article a little to present better my point.


    What are the privileged "general laws of nature" for you?

    Do you mean that Relativity must be applied to a specific set of laws only?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    For me every formula of Physics, Chemistry, Mechanics, Biology, etc, etc (I mean any formula) that express a description of a phenomenon of nature is a law of nature.
    Then your conception of what a law of nature is differs from that of scientists. A law of nature in a scientist's conception is a statement that makes a prediction on the outcome of an experiment. The de Broglie relation does no such thing. It is a definition.

    What are the privileged "general laws of nature" for you?
    To me (and to any scientist) the laws of nature that best conform to experiment enjoy the highest privilege.

    Do you mean that Relativity must be applied to a specific set of laws only?
    No. I mean that a necessary condition to be considered a law of nature is that said law be relativistic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    quantumdude wrote:
    Then your conception of what a law of nature is differs from that of scientists. A law of nature in a scientist's conception is a statement that makes a prediction on the outcome of an experiment. The de Broglie relation does no such thing. It is a definition.
    It is not clear the your difference between "definition" and "law".
    Anycase not invariant "definition" when applied to some experiment to make a prediction will give non invariant results!
    For example the De Broglie relation when applied to the Davisson_Germer experiment gives a non invariant formula of the diffraction of the electrons.
    Every "definition" in Physics should be invariant to sustain invariant "laws"!


    To me (and to any scientist) the laws of nature that best conform to experiment enjoy the highest privilege.
    The Davisson-Germer experiment is very exact in the results and then it is a "general law of nature" under your interpretation. But is not invariant...

    No. I mean that a necessary condition to be considered a law of nature is that said law be relativistic.
    Relativity basic principle demands that every law of nature must be invariant. Looking in all Science a great part is probably not invariant. I conclude that something is wrong.
    And what is wrong? The principle is wrong. There are formulas that demands an Absolute Referential. De Broglie formula is one of them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    quantumdude wrote:
    It is not clear the your difference between "definition" and "law".
    As I said, a law of physics is a statement that makes a prediction about the outcome of an experiment.

    Anycase not invariant "definition" when applied to some experiment to make a prediction will give non invariant results!
    I already commented on this: It is neither surprising nor profound.

    I also already noted to you that the deBroglie relation is not invariant under Galilean relativity, either.

    So what?

    For example the De Broglie relation when applied to the Davisson_Germer experiment gives a non invariant formula of the diffraction of the electrons.
    Again: So what?

    Every "definition" in Physics should be invariant to sustain invariant "laws"!
    If you mean that every quantity in physics should be invariant under coordinate changes, then you are wrong. The deBroglie relation is momentum-dependent, which is frame-dependent, no matter which relativity (Galilean or Einsteinian) you use.

    The Davisson-Germer experiment is very exact in the results and then it is a "general law of nature" under your interpretation. But is not invariant...
    An experiment is not a "law of nature".

    Relativity basic principle demands that every law of nature must be invariant. Looking in all Science a great part is probably not invariant. I conclude that something is wrong.
    And what is wrong? The principle is wrong.
    If a particular equation is not Lorentz covariant, then any scientist would conclude that something is wrong with the equation, not that something is wrong with the relativity postulate. This is based on experimental evidence, not personal preference.

    There are formulas that demands an Absolute Referential.
    If that is the case, then those formulas should be discarded.

    De Broglie formula is one of them.
    No, it is not. As I keep telling you, the DeBroglie wavelength of a particle changes under both Galilean and Lorentz boosts. Period.

    Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: De Broglie against Relativity 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Another thing. The following statement...

    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    De Broglie formula is a very important law in the diffraction of basic particles but is not invariant under a change of referentials. Relativity does not support it.
    ...is false.

    It is not the case that relativity "does not support" quantities that are not invariant under Lorentz transformations. There are other quantities besides invariants in SR. In fact an invariant is just a special case of a much larger class of objects in SR: Tensors.

    An invariant is a Lorentz scalar, which is a rank-0 tensor. The deBroglie relation is not a rank-0 tensor, but rather part of a rank-1 tensor (aka a 4-vector). Taking the vector form of deBroglie: p=(hbar)k, and noting that the wave 4-vector is (w,k), it is seen that deBroglie is the spacelike components of this 4-vector.

    Thus, it is "supported" by SR 100%, inasmuch as it is a well-defined quantity in SR.

    Martillo's entire argument rests on the false premise that, if there are any quantities in SR that are not rank-0 tensors, then SR must be wrong. This is, of course, complete bunkum and well deserves to be called pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    quantumdude,

    I take seriously your objections. May be I'm not using apprpiately the term "invariant".

    For me a formula is invariant under a change of referentials if it has the same form in both referentials and all the magnitudes verify the Coordinate Transform between the referentials.

    Let see what happens with De Broglie formula and a relativistic change of referential.

    Suppose there's a particle travelling at velocity v respect to a referential R0. R1 is a referential fixed to the particle.
    In R0 De Broglie formula is lambda=h/mv where m and v are the velocity and the mass of the particle as seen from R0.
    Now we consider a change to R1. Lambda as a wavelength is a distance. If we apply the Lorentz transforms to lambda it should be contracted by the factor s=root(1-v2/C2).
    We will have in R1: lambda' = lambda*s which give us some finite value.
    But what happens if we apply De Broglie equation in the same form in R1? The particle is at rest in R1, this means v' = 0 and we would have lambda' = infinite!

    It is clear that the formula is not consistent with the change of referentials. That's what I mean by "not invariant".

    I will appreciate any mathematical objection.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    For me a formula is invariant under a change of referentials if it has the same form in both referentials
    That's more or less what I mean.

    and all the magnitudes verify the Coordinate Transform between the referentials.
    I don't understand this part.

    But what happens if we apply De Broglie equation in the same form in R1? The particle is at rest in R1, this means v' = 0 and we would have lambda' = infinite!
    Again: This is neither surprising nor profound. Everyone knows that the wavelength of a matter wave at rest is infinite.

    And guess what? As I've explained more than once: The exact same thing happens if you switch to the rest frame in Galilean relativity.

    It is clear that the formula is not consistent with the change of referentials. That's what I mean by "not invariant".
    And I've explained at length why we would not expect it to be invariant. The (vector) deBroglie relation is the spacelike part of a wave 4-vector. It shouldn't be invariant.

    I will appreciate any mathematical objection.
    I have no objection to your thought experiment. What I object to is that you somehow think that this implies that there is something wrong with relativity, and that you somehow think that the deBroglie wavelength of a particle should be invariant under boosts, when both statements are obviously false.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    quantumdude,

    First of all I must remark that I don't defend Galilean invariance. I do not defend any invariance. I wrote:
    There are formulas that demands an Absolute Referential.

    Quote:
    Quote:

    and all the magnitudes verify the Coordinate Transform between the referentials.



    I don't understand this part.
    I wrote:
    It is clear that the formula is not consistent with the change of referentials. That's what I mean by "not invariant".
    It is evident we don't agree what "invariant law under a change of referential" means for Relativity Theory.

    First, this do not mean that the quantities involved must be invariant. The formulas must be invariant!
    And what that this mean? Means what I wrote:
    a formula is invariant under a change of referentials if it has the same form in both referentials and all the magnitudes verify the Coordinate Transform between the referentials.
    Let me expalin more.
    Suppose there's a formula. z=f(u,v,w)
    The Lorentz Transforms determines a specific equation for each of the variables independently. For example if v means velocity it is known the equation that will give the correspondent velocity v' in the other frame.
    Now we must apply the respective equations for all the variables to find the correspondent relations of z, u, v, w as functions of the variables z', u', v', w'.
    Then we substitute in the original formula above: z=f(u,v,w) and we must look which formula we obtain: z'=g(u',v',w')
    If g is literally equal to f (the formulas have the same "form") then the equation is invariant. If g is different from f then the formulas are not invariant.

    In a post above I applicated this indirectly:
    I wrote that lambda' in R1 can be calculated from the Lorentz transforms and it will give a finite result while if I apply the formula invariantly in R1 with the velocity v' that I already know it willbe zero it will give the result lambda=infinite. What is important here is the difference between the two calculated values that are different. This implies that the formula is not invariant under the change of referentials.


    Finally it seems we will never agree in what the Relativity basic principle means for the entire Physics.
    If there is a formula that is not invariant you discard it as a law of nature while I think that the formula is right, that it is a law of nature and there is no necessity for it to be invariant at all.

    I see that there are formulas that need an Absolute Referential and I believe it exists. Fixed absolute directions can be determined in space by gyroscopes and pendulums (Foucault). May be the center of a fixed referential seems impossible to determine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    First of all I must remark that I don't defend Galilean invariance. I do not defend any invariance. I wrote:
    There are formulas that demands an Absolute Referential.
    In that case I am confused. In the thread entitled Speed of light you said:

    With Classical Physics the velocity of one beam relative to the other will be 2C.
    With Relativity Theory the velocity of light must be ever C whatever the referential is choused (one of the two basic principles of Relativity!)even that of another beam of light.

    Which is the right one?

    I believe in the classic prediction.
    This seems to me to be a clear endorsement of Galilean relativity.

    Am I misunderstanding you?

    It is evident we don't agree what "invariant law under a change of referential" means for Relativity Theory.

    First, this do not mean that the quantities involved must be invariant. The formulas must be invariant!
    No, we do agree on that.

    And what that this mean? Means what I wrote:
    a formula is invariant under a change of referentials if it has the same form in both referentials and all the magnitudes verify the Coordinate Transform between the referentials.
    OK, and it is the part in red that I said I didn't understand. But I think I'm getting there.

    In a post above I applicated this indirectly:
    I wrote that lambda' in R1 can be calculated from the Lorentz transforms and it will give a finite result while if I apply the formula invariantly in R1 with the velocity v' that I already know it willbe zero it will give the result lambda=infinite. What is important here is the difference between the two calculated values that are different. This implies that the formula is not invariant under the change of referentials.
    Right. And as I pointed out, it is not supposed to be invariant under Lorentz boosts. It is not a Lorentz scalar. That does not mean that it has no place in relativistic physics.

    Besides, the magnitude of the deBroglie wavelength cannot be the same in every frame because it is the ratio of Planck's constant (an invariant) and the magnitude of the 3-momentum (which is not an invariant). That ration cannot be invariant.

    Finally it seems we will never agree in what the Relativity basic principle means for the entire Physics.
    If there is a formula that is not invariant you discard it as a law of nature while I think that the formula is right, that it is a law of nature and there is no necessity for it to be invariant at all.
    No, I did not say that we should discard formulas that are not invariant. In fact I wrote at length to the contrary. What I said is that if there is a formula that demands a preferred frame, then it is to be discarded, at least until *some* evidence for a preferred frame is turned up. But no, I did not say that non-Lorentz invariants are to be discarded. If that were the case, we wouldn't have 4-vectors!

    I see that there are formulas that need an Absolute Referential and I believe it exists. Fixed absolute directions can be determined in space by gyroscopes and pendulums (Foucault). May be the center of a fixed referential seems impossible to determine.
    How can any absolute direction be determined? What one observer says is 30 degrees, another can say is 110 degrees. Who's to say which observer is preferred?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    quantumdude,

    You wrote:
    This seems to me to be a clear endorsement of Galilean relativity.
    In the post you mention I defend the classical addition of velocities for photons but here we are talking about the invariance of De Broglie formula that is not invariant even in Galileo referentials. Galilean invariance applies to Mechanics laws (F=ma). For me it is simply a characteristic of mechanics laws to be invariant under Galilean transforms. There are laws that are invariant and others not and that is right. I don't understand why to stablish a requisite for the invariance of laws. I admit that there is an absolute referential. Objects at rest relative to it are said to have no movement, objects that are not at rest have movement. I think that for this concept all the referentials deslocated at some fixed distance from it or referentials with a fixed angle to it are equivalent.
    How can any absolute direction be determined? What one observer says is 30 degrees, another can say is 110 degrees. Who's to say which observer is preferred?
    Probably most of the laws will be invariant on that conjunct of referentials but may be there will be some that are not. I don't see a problem with this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    In the post you mention I defend the classical addition of velocities for photons but here we are talking about the invariance of De Broglie formula that is not invariant even in Galileo referentials. Galilean invariance applies to Mechanics laws (F=ma). For me it is simply a characteristic of mechanics laws to be invariant under Galilean transforms.
    But experiments in mechanics and experiments in electron diffraction are done in one and the same universe! How is the universe supposed to "know" when you are doing mechanics and when you are doing electron diffraction, so that it may impose the appropriate relativity?

    Furthermore, at its most fundamental level, electron diffraction is mechanics! So if you believe that Galilean relativity is applicable in mechanics, then there is no reason whatsoever to believe that it should not also apply in electron diffraction.

    There are laws that are invariant and others not and that is right. I don't understand why to stablish a requisite for the invariance of laws.
    Invariance of physical laws in different reference frames is required because that is what is observed in practice. No one has ever been able to demonstrate any experiment done in two different inertial frames that could determine an absolute state of motion.

    I admit that there is an absolute referential. Objects at rest relative to it are said to have no movement, objects that are not at rest have movement. I think that for this concept all the referentials deslocated at some fixed distance from it or referentials with a fixed angle to it are equivalent.
    But with a complete lack of any actual evidence, your belief is floating in a vacuum.

    How can any absolute direction be determined? What one observer says is 30 degrees, another can say is 110 degrees. Who's to say which observer is preferred?
    Probably most of the laws will be invariant on that conjunct of referentials but may be there will be some that are not. I don't see a problem with this.
    I don't see how this constitutes evidence of absolute directions. In fact, I don't even see where you defined "absolute direction".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    quantumdude,

    Furthermore, at its most fundamental level, electron diffraction is mechanics! So if you believe that Galilean relativity is applicable in mechanics, then there is no reason whatsoever to believe that it should not also apply in electron diffraction.
    Is mechanics but don't forget that "special" forces act.
    Anyway I was wrong and I must then realize that General Mechanics" is also not invariant under a change of referential. Not under Relativistic neither Galilean change of referentials.
    And this answer the other observation:
    Invariance of physical laws in different reference frames is required because that is what is observed in practice.
    That is then wrong, in practice it is observed that physical laws are not invariant.

    This is also an answer to the fundamental question of our discussion.
    I have no objection to your thought experiment. What I object to is that you somehow think that this implies that there is something wrong with relativity, and that you somehow think that the deBroglie wavelength of a particle should be invariant under boosts, when both statements are obviously false.
    If many laws of Physics are not invariant then the basic postulate of Relativity is wrong.


    I must clarify something:
    I don't see how this constitutes evidence of absolute directions. In fact, I don't even see where you defined "absolute direction".
    I cannot determine absolute directions in the Universe but I can determine fixed directions: a direction of any giroscope is fixed relative to the mentioned Absolute Referential.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Is mechanics but don't forget that "special" forces act.
    What "special" forces? The phenomenon can be completely accounted for by quantum mechanics.

    It sounds to me like you're making all this up as you go along.

    Anyway I was wrong and I must then realize that General Mechanics" is also not invariant under a change of referential. Not under Relativistic neither Galilean change of referentials.
    What is "general mechanics"?

    Again, it seems like you are making this up.

    And this answer the other observation:
    Invariance of physical laws in different reference frames is required because that is what is observed in practice.
    That is then wrong, in practice it is observed that physical laws are not invariant.
    Which physical law is not invariant?

    This is also an answer to the fundamental question of our discussion.
    I have no objection to your thought experiment. What I object to is that you somehow think that this implies that there is something wrong with relativity, and that you somehow think that the deBroglie wavelength of a particle should be invariant under boosts, when both statements are obviously false.
    If many laws of Physics are not invariant then the basic postulate of Relativity is wrong.
    OK, so name one that is not invariant.

    I must clarify something:
    I don't see how this constitutes evidence of absolute directions. In fact, I don't even see where you defined "absolute direction".
    I cannot determine absolute directions in the Universe but I can determine fixed directions: a direction of any giroscope is fixed relative to the mentioned Absolute Referential.
    But as I have already noted, you have no evidence of an absolute referential, so these so-called "fixed" directions don't mean anything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    We are really not going to reach any agreement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    quantumdude wrote:

    Which physical law is not invariant?
    I was thinking another example than the De Broglie law because you call it a "definition". I disagree but anyway there is another important one.

    Let analyze the rotational movements under Relativity. If no absolute referentials exist how the centripetal force is determined?
    Suppose an observer in a referential R0 that sees an sphere with somebody inside it rotating over an edge fixed to R0 with a tangential velocity v. The sphere is linked to the edge by an arm. Then a centripetal force can be calculated F=mv2/r and the one inside feels it!
    But now we consider a referential R1 rotating with the object. The velocity of the object relative to R1 is zero, then F=0 and exists no force?
    But the one inside still feels a strange force! We only changed the referential of observation not the phenomenon.

    The rotational movement is then not invariant (even in Galileo referentials ofcourse)!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    I was thinking another example than the De Broglie law because you call it a "definition". I disagree
    It really doesn't matter that you disagree. The deBroglie relation is not a law under the assumptions of relativity. That means that an argument against relativity for not keeping deBroglie invariant is just a strawman.

    The velocity of the object relative to R1 is zero, then F=0 and exists no force?
    No, there is a force. What you've just done is taken the Lorentz transformation for linear motion, and applied it to rotational motion. You have to use the more general Lorentz transformation that applies to accelerated motion to get the centripetal force in the other frame.


    Seriously martillo, did you really think that no one had ever thought of this before? Why don't you try to learn some real physics? You're obviously interested, so I don't understand why you don't do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    quantumdude,
    You have to use the more general Lorentz transformation that applies to accelerated motion to get the centripetal force in the other frame.
    You may be right. That was a bad example.
    I will not enter in General Relativity. For me Special Relativity is already wrong. I just wanted to find a good example for our discussion.
    I must stay with the De Broglie one.

    The deBroglie relation is not a law under the assumptions of relativity.
    Not a law, you say it is a "definition". Can you explain more what are definitons in Relativity?
    This is new for me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    I will not enter in General Relativity.
    See, this is what I am talking about. You don't understand physics well enough to critique it.

    You do not need General Relativity to solve this problem. Special Relativity is perfectly capable of handling acclerated motion.

    For me Special Relativity is already wrong.
    It's a shame that you believe that, given that it is a belief based not on knowledge but on ignorance. Hopefully you will keep your mind open enough to entertain the possibility that you might not understand what you are talking about.

    I just wanted to find a good example for our discussion.
    I must stay with the De Broglie one.
    But as I said, your argument of "deBroglie vs. Relativity" is a strawman. SR never claims that the deBroglie wavelength should be invariant.


    Not a law, you say it is a "definition". Can you explain more what are definitons in Relativity?
    This is new for me.
    They are the same as any other definition in physics. They are mathematical statements that do not predict the outcome of experiments.

    Examples of definitions:

    Work=Integral(ForcexDistance)
    Lambda=h/p
    v=dv/dt

    Examples of laws:

    Schrodinger equation
    Newton's laws
    Maxwell's equations
    Field equations of GR
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Sorry but I disagree with your statement:

    The definition of wave-lenght is something like: lambda=distance of two repetitive points in the periodic shape of a wave.

    lambda=h/mv is a law that determines how the wave-lenght varies with mass and velocity.

    You say that a law predicts an outcome of an experiment.
    Well, De Broglie formula predicts the results of alll the diffraction experiments specially that historic Davisson-Germer experiment!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    The definition of wave-lenght is something like: lambda=distance of two repetitive points in the periodic shape of a wave.
    Right.

    lambda=h/mv is a law that determines how the wave-lenght varies with mass and velocity.
    Again, that's a definition. You can call it a "law" but that is not using the term in the same way as it is used by physicists, including Einstein in his papers on relativity.

    You say that a law predicts an outcome of an experiment.
    Well, De Broglie formula predicts the results of alll the diffraction experiments specially that historic Davisson-Germer experiment!
    No, it doesn't predict the results of the experiment. The equation that predicts the results of the experiment is n(lambda)=d*sin(theta). Sure enough, that law holds true in every inertial frame in relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    I believe the aim of the experiment was to demonstrate that De Broglie formula is valid. If it is a definition it does not need an experimental demonstration!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    I believe the aim of the experiment was to demonstrate that De Broglie formula is valid.
    The aim of the experiment was to demonstrate the wave nature of matter, via diffraction. The prediction is that there should be maxima whenever dsin(theta)=m(lambda) is satisfied. Right there is the "law" that is tested in the experiment.


    If it is a definition it does not need an experimental demonstration!
    Well I don't know what to tell you, because it is a definition for the wavelength of a particle. What's more, it's not the only one. There is also the Compton wavelength, which has a different defintion, and which is used in different circumstances.

    But all this is beside your main point, which is that there is a case to be made for deBroglie, against SR. This of course is not the case. As I said, SR predicts that all observers will agree that dsin(theta)=m(lambda).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    The problem is that even definitions or any kind of mathematical relation in Physics should be invariant for Relativity Theory to be true.

    We must realize that in general several relations (laws and definitions!) are used in an experiment (for example in Davisson.Germer experiment Blatt's law and De Broglie relation are used) to give an expression (or formula) that is validated experimentally.

    This expressions are laws of nature within your definition of law of nature (it "predicts an outcome of an experiment") and should be invariant if Relativity Theory is right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Then demonstrate that it isn't, with data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    In the end, just remember....Nobody will ever need more then 640k of RAM.

    Someone has to be wrong, someone has to be right until later proven wrong by another theory that explains things more accurately. Got to love Science

    Sorry, I just had to toss in this little bit. Ok, now everyone back to theorizing. Just remember, my theory says your all going to end up wrong in the end. That's not to say that I won't either, or am I already. Yes I'm allowed to post such dribble.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Silas,

    I cannot make it all!
    I already had a very hard work. Still much work remains to be done. Many things wait for a definetly proof. Many things wait to be developed further. Many new theories and experiments must be done.

    My work is a guide to new theories. If they are right a totally new Physics can rise.
    For example a new model of the nuclear particles must be inevitable derived. (Now there are positrins and negatrins and no quarks).
    A new interpretation for the atomic quantum numbers must surge(now exist the special value gamma).
    Computational methods can verify the behavior of the particles. (With the new definitions of the forces).
    The new definition of the Electric and Magnetic Fields can have very interesting mathematical consequences.

    Aren't you interested in participate or you will stay just viewing what happen.
    I believe there are a lot of very interesting things to be done.

    Of course to begin you have to think first in the possibility that the new theories can be right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    quantumdude,

    Due to our debate I have modified the page. I have maintained my point of view, I tried to explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    The problem is that even definitions or any kind of mathematical relation in Physics should be invariant for Relativity Theory to be true.
    The definition of the deBroglie wavelength is the same in every frame in relativity. All observers calculate it the same way: lambda=h/p. But the value of the wavelength is different in every frame, and as you note, it is infinite in the rest frame of the particle in question.

    This does not indicate a problem with either deBroglie or Einstein.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    quantumdude,

    The definition of the deBroglie wavelength is the same in every frame in relativity. All observers calculate it the same way: lambda=h/p
    If so we must consider the following:

    lambda is a lenght (distance) and I believe the wave is the same (doesn't change if we only change the referential of observation). Then it should verify Lorentz transform for distance. But the value calculated with the transform is different from that calculated directly with the De Broglie formula applicated in the same form in both referentials.
    Don't you see a problem here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Martillo, I have got to admit you stumped me on this one. I had to start a thread at another forum to confer with some friends online and sort it out.

    Since the other Forum is LaTeX-enabled I am just going to post a link to that thread, so you can see all the pretty equations.

    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=76060
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    I have to tell you that I tried to participate in that physicforum.com but when I cited my page my messages were deleted.
    This happened in other good forums too.
    I believe the aim is to avoid silly discussions about very bad theories but this behavior is against the development of science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    I have to tell you that I tried to participate in that physicforum.com but when I cited my page my messages were deleted.
    This happened in other good forums too.
    Yeah, we do that with unsubstantiated homegrown theories. Especially when the author shows that he has not grasped the theories he is attempting to critique.

    I believe the aim is to avoid silly discussions about very bad theories but this behavior is against the development of science.
    Not really. Science doesn't develop in internet forums, it develops in peer-reviewed journals, refereed by professionals. We (the staff at Physics Forums) do not accept much in the way of new theories because we have no desire to be referees. Our policy is: Send it to a journal, and let the experts have at it. If it survives that, then we'll talk about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    I have thought about sending an article to a journal but the first problem I have is that I find difficult to present my theories in about 4 pages. There's too many of inter-related features. I had to make a book while trying to explain them. The second is that I really never red a journal and I don't know how an article is presented.

    Any suggestion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Well since you're asking me, my suggestion would be for you to go to a good university and study physics. No journal is going to publish your work, and it wouldn't be for lack of understanding on their part. It would be for lack of understanding on yours.

    Like I said before, you seem very interested in doing research in physics. But you clearly need the training required to do it properly. Hopefully you'll obtain it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    quantumdude,

    No journal is going to publish your work
    You are right. I must not waste my time on this way.

    About half of today's Modern Physics is wrong and I don't need to go to one of today's Physics University. Go For what? To discuss with the professors?

    I solved the mysterys I wanted to solve. and I did it with the Internet Community.

    Science doesn't develop in internet forums, it develops in peer-reviewed journals, refereed by professionals.
    This way Physics is as it is. Everybody believing in unexisting waves of matter, believing in space-time distortions, that time is not absolute, braking their minds in unsolvable paradoxes, thinking in totally absurd parallel Universes, etc, etc.

    I already did what I wanted: to find the truth.

    I did the dirty job: finding the errors and correcting them, now I will look for people that really likes Physics, that feel something is wrong and that they would like Physics to be in a very much coherent and precise state and that will work for that. They will take my work and construct a Real Physics.

    And do you know where I will find them? In that forums that allows me to cite my page. There is where I will find those who have the mind open.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    Best of luck to you.

    --Tom
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    I will not depend on luck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40 De Broglie against Relativity 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Perhaps this thread might be more appropriately titled:

    DeBroglie against Einstein.

    That's allowable, even though it doesn't fly.
    It is true that especially in the early days of getting airborne it was benefical to move against the wind in order to enhance the achievement of projecting and sustaining a flying machine in the air.

    On the other hand, until further notice, that (acknowledged) general principle of getting off the ground does not hold true for moving against SR and GR - not to disregard the relatively new school of Einstein bashers by any other name... Unfortunately, De Broglie isn't in this realm to correct you. (And somebody's gotta do it?)

    Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's (exhaustive, 'dirty working') GRAVITATION, only humanly being at or near the apex of this relatively new, historically spiked pinnacle of duplicity(ies). A monumental assemblage of labors of futility, featuring, Misner, Thorne & Wheeler, vs Einstein.

    With the former troika of wannabe's (and no small number of stowaway passengers) beguiling themselves and their readers into perhaps 50,000 feet of altitude at Mach 3; while never actually getting off the ground - were they to actually be towed into the above altitude and speed, only to spin out, auger-in and pull the churning turf over their flaming fuselage...

    Fortunately this scenario is only a sketch and 3-D sculpture having no real (4-D) counterpart, because - with no intended offense, sir, in my qualified opinion as well as that of several others, you have yet to get your winged bicycle off the ground. You do demonstrate a very keen - if inadequately informed; impatient - mind, Sir.

    Then, the perspicacious observer finds the survivors of these airborne sleepwalking sorties, dauntlessly moving away from the conflagration of wreckage, proclaiming defiantly that any landing you - and your suited up associates - can walk away from, is a good (not a lucky) landing. Bitterly spouting captians such as:

    "This way Physics is as it is. Everybody believing in unexisting waves of matter, believing in space-time distortions, that time is not absolute, braking their minds in unsolvable paradoxes, thinking in totally absurd parallel Universes, etc, etc."

    I, like quantumdude, do sincerely wish you the best of luck, relative to getting off the ground, Senor Martillo. Whether you'll need any luck or not may be debateable, though chances are you won't have any. I respectfully suggest that you study Einstein's relativity more thoroughly, in order to avoid any more of what you maintain as necessary 'dirty work' (and/or a bigger hammer?).

    Personally, I don't do mathematics.

    I'm not much on predictions either.

    On accounta that work has already been done for me - and you, and others like us, Mr. Martillo.

    The most pragmatic help I can hope to offer you as a real contribution to your needs, is a work in progress condensation of my life's work, at

    http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
    TOTAL FIELD THEORY.


    Properly channeled, a tenacity such as yours, may one day blaze a proper trail, where no thought problem or thinker has ever gone before.
    In the interim, with regard to Pt. 2 of this - so far - 3 Pt thread, I may only refer you to the advise offered by Forum Professor (In)sanity, on 17 May 2005, at 1:50am.

    Moreover and summarily:

    LEER ES PODER
    ('To read is to be able')
    I would be honored, martillo, if you would visit the provided URL extensively enough to critique it in a new thread, here on Science Debate Forum. You may categorize it as PsuedoScience, Cosmology, Relativity and/or Physics - whatever you deem most appropriate.

    Then we may continue this conversation where you and quantumdude (more or less?) left off... If you do in fact accept this invitation, remember: a minimum of math, please.

    Should you - or anyone else - accept this proposed mission, be advised that fairly large portions of the entire forumite populated internet and web, may oversee whatever constructive criticisms you or I may grace - or spoil - this Science Forum Debate location with.

    Kindly wire me notice of any action in these regards, via kraziequus@yahoo.com.

    Thank you for reading this missive.

    I remain, respectfully
    (thanking you and quantumdude for what I have learned in this thread),
    That Rascal Puff (K.B.Robertson, aka, etceteras)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    Wow, martillo, i fell very very sorry for you. This is one of the saddest attempts to disprove relativity i have seen thus far. The fact of the matter is that all laws of physics are NOT invariant to all observers. ONLY laws concerning the observarion of forceare invariant under the lorentz transforms. Your theory is disproved by the following idea:

    If all observers are to observe the particle to have the same wavelength, then by gamma = h/mv, all observers must see the particle move at the same velocity. But if somebody is moving at the same velocity as the particle, then how is it possible for them to observe the particle to have a velocity? It simply does not happen.

    Nice try dude, but Relativity wont be that easy to disprove.[/i]
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Vroomfondel,
    If all observers are to observe the particle to have the same wavelength, then by gamma = h/mv, all observers must see the particle move at the same velocity. But if somebody is moving at the same velocity as the particle, then how is it possible for them to observe the particle to have a velocity? It simply does not happen.
    In that case is predicted by the current theories that the wave seen by the observer moving with the particle have an infinite wave-lenght.
    This is the current prediction.

    In the new theories the "wave-lenght" (actually a lenght) associated to the particles does not vary with the referential of observation choosed, they are determined by De Broglie formula but in a referential at rest in the Universe only and there are no "matter waves"!
    λ=h/mv have another physical meaning.

    This is one of the saddest attempts to disprove relativity i have seen thus far. The fact of the matter is that all laws of physics are NOT invariant to all observers. ONLY laws concerning the observarion of forceare invariant under the lorentz transforms.
    This is not what the First Principle of Relativity Theory says.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Vroomfondel, he is kinda pathetic. He is acctualy so nuts, or so empty in the skull, that he acctualy think he can come up with a theory that worx with either thinking or knowing advanced physics
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    This is not what the First Principle of Relativity Theory says.
    Im sorry you feel this way. Your ideas may be a new light in physics, but im very sorry to say that this light is too dim for anybody to see.

    Martillo, you obviously think you can disprove Relativity. If this is true, then you should be able to tell us what the principle of relativity is. If you think you can do this, then do it. If you tell me, in your own words, what relativity is, and you are correct, i will endorse your ideas of physics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Vroomfondel, he is kinda pathetic. He is acctualy so nuts, or so empty in the skull, that he acctualy think he can come up with a theory that worx with either thinking or knowing advanced physics
    Agreed.
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    just for fun, martillo are you saying that the formula y=h/mv contradicts relativit?
    look here then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_hypothesis
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    Then that means that a body at rest does not exhibit wave-like properties?
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    So what?
    De Broglie deserves the Nobel pryze because he discovered a wonderful formula that works.
    You may ask if I state that De Broglie Theory about "matter waves" is wrong, and I say YES, the formula is right while the theory he gave to it is wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Then that means that a body at rest does not exhibit wave-like properties?
    Of course! Even in the current theories at rest there is no De Broglie's "wave-like" behaviour!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •