Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8972 total)
157 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 156 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,501 Year: 7,249/23,288 Month: 1,155/1,214 Week: 167/303 Day: 7/36 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   gravity
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2153 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 65 of 81 (688996)
01-27-2013 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by AZPaul3
01-23-2013 7:49 PM


Sorry to say, but this critique of Schroeder is as much bullshit as some of the stuff that Schroeder expels. There is nothing wrong with the given equation, and suitably re-written gives the Compton wavelength for a particle, assuming m is the rest-mass. I haven't read the relevant Schroeder work, so I cannot say in what context he was using this, but Perakh's complaint appears completely unjustified. Perakh also appears very juvenile in various other areas - such as his complaints about the use of centrifugal force and the rest-frame of a photon.

This is the problem when real physicists are too busy and too jaded to be bothered countering mumbo-jumbo - the job gets picked up by those insufficeintly qualified/experienced to do the job.

Now Oser does a reasonable job, as one would hope given his background, but even here his critique is a little off perfect in a few areas...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by AZPaul3, posted 01-23-2013 7:49 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by AZPaul3, posted 01-27-2013 5:40 PM cavediver has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2153 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 66 of 81 (688997)
01-27-2013 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by shadow71
01-26-2013 4:37 PM


Re: You need actually understand what people write
Although he "inclines" to nature, he sounds very much like Schoroeder, and I believe supports most of Schroeder's postions.

I can assure you, from both a personal and professional perspective, that Paul Davies sounds nothing like Schroeder and would support very few of Schroeder's positions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by shadow71, posted 01-26-2013 4:37 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by shadow71, posted 01-27-2013 2:53 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2153 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 69 of 81 (689017)
01-27-2013 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by NoNukes
01-27-2013 2:21 PM


It is not necessary to disintegrate matter to produce EM radiation. Accelerating a charged particle is sufficient.

Which is actually the same process, with just a flip of space and time


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 01-27-2013 2:21 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2153 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 78 of 81 (689041)
01-27-2013 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by AZPaul3
01-27-2013 5:40 PM


In the case of a photon then planck's constant disappears?

No, because we are talking about massive particles, not massless particles. This is already established in getting to where m is rest-mass, as I previously stated. If we're dealing with a massless particle, we don't have this relationship, as it is not possible to bring that particle to rest.

In your rearrangement with h on the lhs, you have to realise that as you vary m, you must also vary f.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by AZPaul3, posted 01-27-2013 5:40 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by AZPaul3, posted 01-27-2013 7:31 PM cavediver has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2153 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 81 of 81 (689567)
02-01-2013 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by AZPaul3
01-27-2013 7:31 PM


Sorry, didn't see your subsequent edit

The wave length of the scattered photon would be constant given the constant rest mass of the particle.

No. The Compton Wavelength is not the wavelength of the scattered photon in Compton Scattering, merely related to it (the three factors are incident wavelength, angle of incidence, and the CW.) Go study the process and you will see.

f would also be constant for any specific mass.

Yes - that is the whole point of the Compton Wavelength.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by AZPaul3, posted 01-27-2013 7:31 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020