Classical Physics is coming back, RELOADED!!!

My knowledge is actually quite limited - another reason I don't want to just up and abandon these theories. I want to give them a chance before rejecting them.

At the moment, my understanding in physics extends to classical physics (Newton's laws, etc.), some very basic electromagnetism, and some relativity (and basically no QM). I've nearly completed my first year in university level physics, and I can promise you one thing: a good physics course will change your perspectives on many things. I already don't think about things the way I did as little as a year ago. Try it yourself, and you can judge whether you want to call it brainwashing or not.

What you're saying here is that it isn't enough for you that there are formulae that describe what's going on - you want a reason for the laws to be the way they are. This is one of the things that studying some advanced physics and logic changes, and there are good reasons for this.

First of all, any theory can be traced back to it's own set of axioms or base assumptions. The rest of the theory can be built on top of these, but the axioms are unexplained - they're just observations about the way the universe works. Since all theories require axioms, it's not really possible to come up with a theory that's fully "explained." You'll always be able to ask why the basic laws are the way they are.

Second of all, you might say that what you're looking for is an intuitive or common sense description of nature. The interesting question is what this means. Usually, it just means familiarity, meaning you'd like a new phenomenon to have an explanation that resembles something you already understand. Just like with the particle-wave nature of subatomic particles - they don't behave like anything we see in everyday life, and comparing them to particles and waves is the best anyone's been able to do in terms of coming up with a "common sense" description.

The point here is this: can you be sure the universe follows familiar rules on unfamiliar scales?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

przyk,

If the "axioms" are "observations about the the way the Universe works" then they can be checked and a theory is valid only when its basic principles are valid.

In mathematics you can construct any theory based in any set of mathematically consistent set of axioms. Not in Physics where the "axioms" or "principles" need also to be valid. As you said above "they need to verify the observations about the way the Universe works".

Relativity first postulate is shown to not be valid in Section 1.1 - B.
The second postulate that states that the velocity of light is measured the same in any possible referential of observation has never been proven true since we never placed a measuring "lab" at "relativistic velocity" from Earth.


The main problem I have found, while analizing different theories, is that it is possible to give different interpretations to the same experiment and when there is another interpretation possible that experiment is no more a proof, not anymore.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

martillo

This was one of my points on the other thread. It is always possible to construct another theory that predicts the same result. In your words it is always "possible to give different interpretations to the same experiment". Since it is always possible to construct an alternative theory there is never scientific "proof" of anything.

I think it is funny that you use my argument here while you ran away and hid from it there.

-Dale

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your 1.1B does not show that the first postulate is wrong. You posed the question "Does this means that those non-invariant laws are not 'general laws' of nature?". The answer to your rhetorical question is "yes".

In any case, the way you wrote the deBroglie hypothesis is simply wrong. The correct way to write it is λ = h/p, not the form you wrote. It is particularly important to write it in the correct form for light since h/mv is infinite for light which would indicate that all light has an infinite wavelength, which is clearly wrong (whereas h/p is not infinite for light and gives the observed relationship between momentum and wavelength).

Simply wrong. The speed of gamma rays emitted by decaying pi0 particles was measured to be c within 400 parts per million (Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260: 1964). The pi0 particles were traveling at .99975c which is clearly at "relativistic velocity" wrt the earth.

-Dale

 

So? They're still unexplained axioms; this has nothing to do with them being valid or observed. The fact that an axiom works does not mean you can't ask why it is the way it is. Why does F = ma and not m/a or ma²? Because of this, all valid axioms are taken for granted, and the entire explanation for any theory can only amount to "that's the way it is."

You assumed that the de Broglie wavelength should transform according to the Lorentz transform. I'm not convinced this is a requirement - this isn't a physical wave that can be measured with a ruler, it's a mathematical tool used for predicting where particles are going to end up. Have you tried asking a physicist why de Broglie wavelengths don't transform according to Lorentz?

Maybe not, but it's consequences have been tested in particle accelerators at relativistic speeds, and been shown to hold. This is not an impressive criticism of relativity.

Experiments aren't meant to prove anything correct. They're performed to either collect supporting evidence for or disprove a theory.

 

przyk,

How do you verify if a particular law is invariant under a change of coordinates?

 

You apply the law in different frames to see if the kinematic predictions vary only according to the Lorentz transforms. I'm not sure what the story is with the de Broglie wavelength, but I don't think it has any physical significance on its own. You'd have to check that quantum mechanical predictions using this wavelength were incompatible with SR. Given that quantum electrodynamics is already based on special relativity, I don't think you'll get very far with this approach.

 

przyk,

Not exactly. That way you are checking if the resulting value is the same while what must be checked is if the law, this means the formula, is invariant.
As I say at that Section 1.1 - B is:

Once you have a formula applied in one frame you must apply it in other frame and verify if the original transformation of coordinates is verified for the variables. If they are, you can say the formula is invariant, if some variable does not verify, then the formula is not invariant.

Is just Mathematics, is a mathematical verification. This has nothing to do with comparing if the formula is verified by other theories.

That is what I did with De Broglie law and the law results to be NOT INVARIANT.

 

So you want to construct a definition for "invariant" in such a way that it won't apply for relativity?

This is more or less what I said, except that I added emphasis on the final physical predictions having to transform correctly. De Broglie's formula doesn't make any physical predictions. You can't grab a ruler and measure the wavelength associated with a moving particle - it's just an intermediate step for calculating the probabilities for where a particle will end up. Because of this, I wouldn't see a "variant" wavelength in itself to be a problem for SR.

Huh? The if the formula λ = h/p is used in all inertial frames, where's the problem?

 

przyk,

The problem is that the formula is not invariant and the first principle of Relativity is then NOT VALID.
Just that.

 

Dalespam,

I know about Alvaeger experiment: Alvager Experiment
I have already analyzed Alvaeger experiment in other forum:

 

If the formula is used the same way in all frames it is by definition invariant. You haven't shown that applying λ = h/p in two different inertial frames leads to a physical contradiction. If you don't know any QM (and by your own admission it's something you're not interested in investing your time in) this is a dead end for you.

Seriously, learn some physics and try starting out with the assumption that physicists aren't stupid. Then maybe you won't raise so many false alarms.

 

przyk,

Yes I did.
Section 1.1 - B.
The formula in different frames give inconsistent values. This mean contradiction. The formula is not invariant.

If you stubbornly apply the formula in different frames you will get wrong results, Just that.

 

Like? Since you don't know how to apply any QM using the de Broglie wavelength, and remembering that I've already stated that the wavelength on it's own has no physical significance, I am at a loss to see how you can make such a claim.

For the record: if you solve the same problem using the same set of theories two different ways, and get two different measureable physical solutions, you've found a contradiction in the theory.

 

przyk,

In current Physics is a wave-lenght.
Wave-lenghts has no physical meaning to you? It's the distance between two "peaks" of a wave or the distance traveled in a period of time.
May be it has no significance to you but it do have a physical significance.

By the way in the new theories the lambda given by De Broglie formula has a different phisical meaning. It represent the distance between the elementary rings that composes the basic particles like the electron. It is related to the lenght of the particles.

SDection 1.1 - B can be understood that way. I have already found a contradiction in Relativity Theory.

 

I know what it's called. All that tells me is that the abstract waves associated with moving particles have properties that resemble those of real-life, physical waves. I expect all you'd have to do is substitute all the λ's in QM with "h/p", and your problematic waves completely disappear from the theory.

Really? Show it then. Predict two contradictory measurable observations by applying QM and the de Broglie wavelength.

 

przyk,

It is done at Section 1.1 - B.
But you don't read it properly isn't it?

 

You didn't read my posts properly, did you?

 

Yes I did.

 

Where?