Science desk
< November 20	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 21

Britton & Rose 1922

Greetings, has anyone access to "Britton & Rose 1922" or knows what it is? From Lobivia pampana, I need to know whether they refer to Misti, as if they do I can include this source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's this (see page 56 for the description of L. pampana). The work is dated 1919 in note 4 of our article, but that's the date of vol. 1; it should be 1922 for vol. 3, as in the Wikispecies entry. I see no mention of Misti there, but Herren Wedermann and Backeberg must have made a connection, as the synonyms they used indicate. Deor (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've revised note 4 in the Lobivia pampana article, so the second sentence of my response above should be ignored. Deor (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does the following (interesting?) analogy, between an electron's energy and a photon's energy, have any meaning?

Both massive particles, and photons, may have both (positive) "basic" energy and (positive) "relative" energy, in the following sense:

1. As far as massive particles are concerned: By the massive particle's "basic" energy I mean (due to the energy-mass euivalence) - the massive particle's "basic" (=invariant) mass - i.e the massive particle's mass measured by the massive particle's reference frame, while by the massive particle's "relative" energy I mean - the massive particle's relativistic mass - actually dependent also on the velocity of the massive particle's reference frame.

2. As far as photons are concerned: By the photon's "basic" energy I mean (due to the energy-frequency euivalence) - the photon's "basic" frequency - i.e. the photon's frequency measured by the source emitting the photon, while by the photon's "relative" energy I mean (due to Doppler effect) - the photon's "relative" frequency - actually dependent also on the velocity of the source emitting the photon.

I have three questions:

a). I wonder if, this analogy between a massive particle's energy and a photon's energy, and especially the analogy between the two distinctions between - the basic energy of a photon/massive particle - and the relative energy of a photon/massive particle (respectively), is too obvious, or has ever been discussed or noticed.

b). Does it have any other meaning, besides the very euivalence between frequency-energy-mass?

c). Additionally, and more important: Is there any point whereat this analogy can be violated? For the time being, I've only found one point violating this analogy: The massive particle's basic energy is the massive particle's minimal energy (because for an electron's basic energy to reduce, the electron must collide with a positron, thus annhiliating each other, in which case the electron will no longer be an electron), however the photon's basic energy is not the photon's minimal energy - because the photon's relative frequency may be smaller than the photon's basic frequency - if the source emitting the photon moves away rather than approaches.

HOTmag (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only 'basic' energy that makes any real sense for a photon is zero but you can give it a 'relative' energy in a particular frame like where it was emitted from. It isn't an analogy - the frequency is given by the total energy including that from the rest mass which you refer to as the basic energy. NadVolum (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All depends on what we mean by "basic" and "relative". The analogy refers to my definitions mentioned above, and when you say "It isn't an analogy" I can't understand why you don't see the analogy I do see, as long as we stick to the definitions mentioned above. Is there anything wrong in those definitions, #1 and #2 ? HOTmag (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "basic energy" is the particle's mass (or its associated energy mc²) — a frame-independent quantity that characterises the particle independent of its state of motion. The ("relative") energy of the particle is frame-dependent and characterises its state of motion (along with its momentum); its minimum value mc² is measured in its rest frame. For photons the mass is zero, its energy is connected to its frequency via hν, both energy and frequency being frame-dependent. Just use the terms "mass" (frame-independent, particle property) and "energy" (frame-dependent, characterises motion) consistently and distinguish properly between them and there's no need for other terms. That idea of a "basic energy" for photons — I guess its possible to do that but I'd say it characterises the emission process rather than the photon itself. When there is a need for that (e.g. when determining redshifts) we tend to say "energy in the emission-frame". --Wrongfilter (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's known. Actually, I added the new terms and their definitions, just for making it easier for the readers to notice the analogy I'm talking about.

Anyway, could you please look up again at the analogy between the colors in my definitions above, for noticing the analogy between, my definitions of "basic/relative" in #1 (referring to electrons), and my definitions of "basic/relative" in #2 (referring to photons)? I wonder if I'm the first one to notice it. HOTmag (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My second to last sentence is a comment on that — I can see why you see an analogy but I also think the analogy is not perfect. As I said that "basic frequency" looks more like a property of the emission process, and even there I'm not so sure (stream of consciousness suggests things like recoil of the emitting atom, other emission processes like bremsstrahlung, and generally the non-distinguishability of quantum objects such as photons). Picking up on the last point from the parenthesis: every electron has the same mass, every photon has a different "basic frequency". --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I accept it's not a perfect analogy. You thought about recoil of the emitting atom, while I thought about galaxies moving away while emitting light. Anyway, in my original #c I gave another reason for why I think the analogy is not perfect.

Regarding your last point: I've just replaced the word "electron" by "massive particle", to make sure that just as every photon has a different "basic frequency", so every massive particle has a different "basic" (=invariant") mass. HOTmag (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every type of massive particle, not every particle. I don't think I enjoy games where the goal posts are being shifted around... --17:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I really meant types of massive particles, and this is another reason for why the analogy is not perfect, besides the reason given in my #c. Anyway, I still wonder if this (non-perfect) analogy has ever been noticed. HOTmag (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B not an analogue I meant that if you just treated the rest mass of the photon as zero they were describing exactly the same sort of thing. The only real problem was your 'basic' energy for a photon which really should have been counted as your 'relative' energy in the frame in which it was emitted. NadVolum (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By "B" I guess you mean "#2", right? The analogue does exist, if you only replace every "mass" in #1 by "frequency" in #2. That's why both "mass" (in #1) and "frequency" (in #2) have the same color (red).

I can't see the problem you're pointing at. In #2, which discusses photons, the energy is interpreted as the frequency, so yes, as you expect: for a given photon, the "basic" energy, i.e. the "basic" frequency, is really counted as you expect it to be, i.e. as my "relative" energy, i.e. as the "relative" frequency in the frame in which the photon was emitted, so all in all, we actually reach the photon's frequency measured by the source emitting the photon, as indicated in #2. To sum up: For a given photon, there is no difference between the "basic" energy (i.e. the basic frequency) and the "relative" energy (i.e. the relative frequency), if both energies are measured by the source emitting the photon. The same is true for a given massive particle: There is no difference between the "basic" energy (i.e. the invariant mass) and the "relative" energy (i.e. the relativistic mass), if both energies are measured by the reference frame of the massive particle. So what's the problem? HOTmag (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "B" was simply me missing "y" in typing as in "By". NadVolum (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For proper energy I found a reference. Modocc (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be redefined? Modocc (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such that it includes "energy in the emmision-frame", E_e [where e is the emmision-frame of the emmited energy]. Modocc (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There would need to be a compelling reason to use it that way for it would be unconventional. Modocc (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just mass and "proper energy" redefined as E_e . Modocc (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up because of proper time and proper distance. Modocc (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to know the answer to your implied question: has anyone else put it to good use, or thought it was important enough to make it central to their model like I have? In other words, it leads to an abstract proof that we can do physics without relativity! Modocc (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of this desk I am not sure if I qualify though as a reference! I wouldn't mind outlining it here (because I think you and a few of the other regulars here would do fine digesting it) and publishing details somewhere else. Modocc (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consider a "proper force" algorithm that sums the Coulomb and gravitational proper force contributions to a field defined by a sea of gravitons. The consequence: compression waves with c always being the phase velocity of the energy both externally and internally in all matter. Modocc (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonrelativistic. The Coulomb "proper force" is electrostatic, there are no B or A field inputs and these are emergent, not fundamental. Modocc (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sizes of objects are dynamic due to the compression waves. Modocc (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The classical Doppler effect exists but it is almost completely obscured by the dynamic changes of the resonate interactions. Modocc (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum entanglement should emerge also with it because the unified field's interactions tend to be resonant as they correlate when intersecting classical Euclidean worldlines. Modocc (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the timing and positions of the gravitons' interactions tend to correlate. Modocc (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My model features the curvature of the proper energy, a dynamic process, that we observed. Modocc (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This paper "A SIMPLIFIED TREATMENT OF GRAVITATIONAL INTERACTION ON GALACTIC SCALES" by Sascha Trippe is evidence that a sea of gravitons exists. Modocc (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The gravitons have speed c with respect to the "inert" background of a nonrelativistic sea. Matter waves are always wave packets with group velocities of their energy. Modocc (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My abstract proof of my claim that relativity isn't real is on a paper with a misstep that needs revision, the correction is "in my head" though. I seem to have misplaced the paper. I will look for it. Modocc (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not modeled the subatomic forces, perhaps they are entailed and can be shown to be emergent. Modocc (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found my paper. It's a scribbled intermediate copy from 2006, my old computer will not boot, so I have to go to my shed and find one that's better, or find a file on a backup disk. Modocc (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That my proper force algorithm can be used was a recent idea about a year ago that I believe can utilize either paradigm's reference frame's transformations to weed out redundancies and omissions like the mysterious A field (I just learned how important that A field is from researching the invisibility cloak in a previous thread), my transformations are derived though to account for systematic calibration error. Modocc (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If proper energy has speed c and follows a curved path then one can write a=kc² where a is its centripetal acceleration and k is the curvature of its path. We can use the equivalence m₀c²=E_e and the fact that a/c² = F/E_e to show that it describes an acceleration force F = kE_e. Modocc (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a break from writing now so I can locate and upload a proof. Modocc (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The frequencies of atomic vibrations of accelerated atoms are lower because the internal transverse oscillations of their proper energies' path lengths lengthen. With the postulate, all proper energy has constant speed so with their longer path lengths the internal energies take additional time that is proportional to the Lorentz factor. In other words, this model entails time dilation. Modocc (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Observe that under the model, its postulate entails ct=c't' because classically distances are invariant x=x'. Therefore, this leads to the paradox of whose clock is at rest! Modocc (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of my papers are a bit dated now. I've amassed quiet a few to document my progress. Modocc (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given this desk's importance, I plan on uploading this and select other threads to Zenodo accredited to Wikipedia so they can be cited. Modocc (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure "this desk's importance" is zero to several significant figures. PianoDan (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then they are uninformed, ignorant and irrelevant. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

By "Significant Figures" I don't mean PEOPLE, I mean... oh good lord, never mind. PianoDan (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, that's a good one. But about right for this confused discussion. Anyway we don't need people's OR uploaded whether the significant figures are mere cyphers or not :-) NadVolum (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After it's archived a portion of this thread will be uploaded to Zenodo and to my own website, not here. With respect to the OP, his question has helped revive my spirit. I've more spring in my step now than I have had in years and I'm 63! Modocc (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx. "Proper energy" is simply another term for "rest mass". My question was actually about the analogy between my #1 - being about a massive particle's proper energy (i.e. about the massive particle's rest mass as measured by the massive particle's reference frame), and my #2 - being about a photon's proper energy (i.e. about the photon's frequency as measured by the source emitting the photon), so my question still remains. HOTmag (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more explicit when I redefined "proper energy". It is the energy E_e, in the emission-frame, e, of a particle-wave with a velocity of c with respect to a field and I quoted Wrongfilter. A fuller quote should help clarify why: "That idea of a "basic energy" for photons — I guess its possible to do that but I'd say it characterizes the emission process rather than the photon itself. When there is a need for that (e.g. when determining redshifts) we tend to say "energy in the emission-frame'." By definition, E_e is inclusive of your 'basic energy of a photon". I'll fix that. Modocc (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]