A speculation about mass energy equivalent and frequency
The Focus Fusion Society › Forums › Focus Fusion Cafe › A speculation about mass energy equivalent and frequency
- This topic has 8 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 7 months ago by
Brian H.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 24, 2012 at 5:51 pm #1306
BreakableKeymasterThank you everyone for letting me bounce my crazy ideas off you.
Please add another contender to the craziness parade.The mass equivalence to energy:
E=mc^2Frequency equivalence to energy:
E=h*f (where h is plancs constant)Can we combine into:
h*f=mc^2
f=(mc^2)/h Frequency equivalence to massLooking at the EM spectrum you can see that the right side cuts off at about:
10^21 hz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EM_Spectrum_Properties_edit.svgI assume that beyond this point photons materialize into sub-atomic particles due to amount of energy they have.
Although I do not have enough understanding to evaluate this in the framework of quantum mechanics,
but this helped me to accept the concept that sub atomic particles are standing waves,
assuming that waves can “stop” when the reach super-high frequency.
Maybe reducing the frequency would make the waves “go” again.So the idea is:
Make a matter to energy convertor, by reducing the frequency of standing waves (subatomic particles).
This is left as an exercise to the reader =]January 24, 2012 at 7:18 pm #11338ikanreedParticipantI don’t follow exactly. I get that you want to alter the waveform of matter under the idea of inducing it to become energy, but matter IS energy. How do you propose to control the kind of energy the you get?
January 24, 2012 at 8:23 pm #11339AaronBParticipantGood thinking! I don’t think it’s crazy at all because it matches what I think. 🙂 To further your thoughts, the quarks that make up a neutron or proton ARE the superimposed and interacting waves. The waves are caught in a stable, inter-precessing, harmonic grip. To go further, the trapped waves concentrate the space-time fabric, since waves have more surface length than flat lines, which pulls surrounding fabric toward it just a little bit. Therefore, if any two particles exist, the fabric directly between them is shorter and tighter than the surrounding ambient fabric. This creates a gradient, which is or causes the force called gravity. The ratio of that gradient increases as the particles approach each other. To go further, space-time fabric has a natural speed of wave propagation in a vacuum (area without mass particles to mess it up). But in a space where there is a super-concentrated amount of mass, the relative ambient fabric itself is pulled tighter, so the speed of propagation goes up (c is not constant). So, you can have a super-concentrated mass without a singularity (ie. no black holes or other impossible event-horizon craziness). To get a bit more speculative, the chirality of the waves that made the primordial particle set the stage for the matter-antimatter asymmetry since the EMR waves that left the particle to interact elsewhere in space had consistently one-directional angular momentum (polarized light). The primordial particle was the instability that “seeded” the rest of the universe. Instead of a big bang, it was the “little pop” in an otherwise lonely universe that started the subsequent avalanche into what we have now. Gravity eventually concentrated the hydrogen, creating a higher level instability, a star, which led to higher order atoms and energy concentration. The first supernova brought the next instability and even higher-order atoms about. And on and on in a fractal/Fibonacci kind of growth.
To build a matter-to-energy converter, I suppose you’d have to get the quark waves to come out of harmonic precession somehow. Throw a Planck wrench into it and let the gears fly!
Fine print: These are my own ideas and opinions, and do not necessarily represent the opinions or views of anyone or anything else. If someone else already thought of them or wrote about them, I’m unaware of it, but so be it. If these ideas are completely wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind at any future time, or to hold onto them for as long as I want.
January 24, 2012 at 8:35 pm #11340vansigParticipantYou should be able to do this in the vicinity of large gravitational shear forces, such as those produced near the event horizon of a black hole.
January 24, 2012 at 10:30 pm #11341BreakableKeymasterGreat guys, tnx for not dismissing me out of hand.
but matter IS energy. How do you propose to control the kind of energy the you get?
Why control, just make a big boom first 😉
Throw a Planck wrench into it and let the gears fly!
Exactly 😀
such as those produced near the event horizon of a black hole
Ok, so where do I buy one, does Walmart carry those yet? 🙂
Eh gravity is too messy to work with, I was hoping EM waves could do the trick 🙁January 24, 2012 at 10:33 pm #11342BreakableKeymasterAn approach to falsify: try to produce ultra high frequency EM waves and have a subatomic particle detector ready
January 24, 2012 at 11:43 pm #11343ikanreedParticipantBreakable wrote: Great guys, tnx for not dismissing me out of hand.
but matter IS energy. How do you propose to control the kind of energy the you get?
Why control, just make a big boom first 😉
No, when I said control what kind, I meant, how do you know that what you get back out isn’t just more matter? It’s just so abstract an assertion that I don’t get what you’re converting to what. You’re mistaking confusion with pragmatism. Only certain kinds of energy are useful for doing work. How do you intend to get those?
January 25, 2012 at 12:48 am #11344BreakableKeymasterikanreed wrote: … Only certain kinds of energy are useful for doing work. How do you intend to get those?
Certainly its too early to even speculate on that. Feasibility is the primary concern.
Of course in the end it would depend on what would the process require and what would it generate. In my opinion as long as the outcome is EM and there is more of it than input Q>1, then you can make it useful. On the other hand if the Q is too high then it is much less desirable.January 25, 2012 at 10:59 pm #11355Brian HParticipantAaronB wrote:
…Fine print: These are my own ideas and opinions, and do not necessarily represent the opinions or views of anyone or anything else. If someone else already thought of them or wrote about them, I’m unaware of it, but so be it. If these ideas are completely wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind at any future time, or to hold onto them for as long as I want.
Reminds me of this: Subquantum Kinetics
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.