Question

I am studying Quantum Mechanics. It seems to me that the frequency of a wave is a measure of its inertia. As the frequency of wave increases, the inertia of the wave increases. This increased inertia first appears in the discreteness of wave packets or photons. It seems that the higher the frequency of electromagnetic radiation, the straighter will be its path through a gravity field. A massive celestial body may break down an elecromagnetic radiation into its frequency spectrum.

Is there any existing data relating frequency to inertia?

Answer 1

photons: momentum = energy/speed of light = E/c = h f / c
c = f lambda, so
E/c = h / lambda

So momentum is inversely proportional to wavelength.

Answer 2

Momentum = E/c = (h/c) f
So, momentum is directly proportional to frequency.
How does inertia relate to momentum? Can we consider mass equivalent to inertia? Then a photon is not without mass.

Answer 3

Photons are massless. They have both energy = h f, and momentum = h f / c.
When they are reflected from a mirror, the mirror gains 2 h f/c momentum per impact.

"inertia" not used much, although the conventional meaning is resistance to motion,
which is why acceleration = force/mass, with the mass being resistant to motion without being pushed or pulled..

Answer 4

The stars and planets in this universe are massive and can be located with precision. However, the electrons in an atom have very little mass or inertia. They can be located in highly probabilistic terms only. Thus, it appears to me that the higher is the inertia of an object, the greater is the certainty with which it may be located as a discrete entity.

Wave is not a discrete entity but a particle is.

Inertia is resistance to motion. Increasing inertia may collapse an electromagnetic wave upon itself making it appear like a discrete particle with mass. It may also be looked upon as condensation of motion or space-time.

I see a relationship between frequency, inertia and mass.

This is just a conjecture on my part.

Answer 5

Heisenberg uncertainty principle dx dp >= h.

product of uncertainty in position and in momentum (mv) always greater than h.

dp is small and quite negligible, as a fraction, for all but the tiniest entities.

Answer 6

I know that but I am not looking at it in classical quantum mechanical terms. I am looking at how mass is created. My intuition is,

(1) I am looking at Motion as the fundamental entity and not space and time.
(2) Space and time are aspects of motion.
(3) If motion is represented by a wave then space would be represented by the wavelength, and time by the period.
(4) In short, I am looking at space and time as part of motion, and not the motion taking place in space and time.
(5) Frequency acts as inertia (resistance to motion) where wave is concerned.
(6) As frequency increases, the resistance to motion increases until the wave starts to collapse on itself.
(7) Then the wave starts to exhibit particle properties. The inertia then starts to appear as mass. It is energy condensing into mass through the mechanism of inertia due to increasing frequency.
(8) The particle then starts moving at a frequency that is small but of "second degree".
(9) As this frequency increases, a "second level" inertia increases, which then collapses as another shell of mass around the previous shell.
(10) And so the particle builds up.

It is all just a conjecture. I have to see if math can support it.

Answer 7

Here is the thread on my blog where I am recording my research.

http://vinaire.me/2014/01/01/khtk-axioms-2/

.

Answer 8

Best wishes, but this is beyond me.

Answer 9

"Wave is not a discrete entity but a particle is."

You should consider rethinking this, since these are simply models. For instance, a single sine wave has one frequency but no position. If you superpose multiple sine waves (all this means is add up, like a Fourier series) each one with different frequencies you can start to get something that now is localized in one area but now has multiple speeds (frequencies) describing it, so really the wave model can be a perspective of the particle model, and this is specifically called a "wave packet".

Photons can be modeled with great success as particles (see the photo electric effect) and a wave (see the Jung double slit experiment) and there truly is some kind of wave-particle duality going on. The distinction between the two is artificial, so just keep that in mind.

---

" Increasing inertia may collapse an electromagnetic wave upon itself making it appear like a discrete particle with mass. It may also be looked upon as condensation of motion or space-time."

What are the units of inertia? How do you measure it? How do you change the inertia of light? Why would this cause a collapse, and is this like destructive interference? What does condensation of motion or space-time really mean? Is it like condensation of Fairy dust or Goblins because that's just about as nonsensical.

---

"I see a relationship between frequency, inertia and mass."

Look into the De Broglie wavelength. Also, inertia and mass are linked by Newton's first law I believe.

Answer 10

(1) I am looking at Motion as the fundamental entity and not space and time.

I'm not sure why you think there is a "fundamental entity", or even what that means since mass and charge seem pretty fundamental too. Also, the units of motion is meters per second, which is just (space)/(time). I'm curious as to what your motivations are. Interestingly enough, the speed of light being constant is a conjecture of relativity, so maybe you're trying to do something that's already been done.

(2) Space and time are aspects of motion.

Backwards. Motion is an aspect of space and time. Without time you have a still picture, without space you just have nothing going on for a long time.

(3) If motion is represented by a wave then space would be represented by the wavelength, and time by the period.

\[v=\frac{ \lambda }{ T }\] velocity has units of meters/second and if you measure the distance something travels in one oscillation and divide it by the time it takes to make one oscillation, you are effectively measuring its speed. So hey, there's some support to the mathematical stuff, which is a good sign.

(4) In short, I am looking at space and time as part of motion, and not the motion taking place in space and time.

This begs the question; what are you talking about? What's the motion that happens outside of space and time...?

(5) Frequency acts as inertia (resistance to motion) where wave is concerned.

Maybe you'll find Lenz's Law interesting, along with Maxwell's equations and the original derivation of the speed of light from them. I suggest you suspend your research into quantum/relativity until you've learned a little bit more of the classical electricity and magnetism like Maxwell's equations.

(6) As frequency increases, the resistance to motion increases until the wave starts to collapse on itself.

I didn't answer 5 and I can't answer this one either really, since I don't know what you're talking about. Maybe drawing a picture of it would better explain. As frequency increases? Frequency of what? Collapse on itself? If you make a sine function with a really big frequency you'll get something that just looks like a really squished together sine wave, but never anything that "collapses" onto itself.

(7) Then the wave starts to exhibit particle properties. The inertia then starts to appear as mass. It is energy condensing into mass through the mechanism of inertia due to increasing frequency.

Wave/particle duality. Photons, electrons, everybody.

(8) The particle then starts moving at a frequency that is small but of "second degree".
(9) As this frequency increases, a "second level" inertia increases, which then collapses as another shell of mass around the previous shell.
(10) And so the particle builds up.

Could you design an experiment to test this theory out?

Answer 11

My motivation is to understand the interface between physics and metaphysics. I am starting with the following postulate.

<b>There are no absolute certainties.</b>

DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”

Declaring an absolute certainty shall give rise to inconsistency. The speed of light is a certainty for now, but it is not an absolute certainty.

Answer 12

What is the current model for mass? How does mass come about?

Answer 13

I think you have a poorly defined postulate if you want to get anywhere close to answering questions about the relationship between physics and metaphysics. All that "postulate" says is that if I say something, anyone can basically refute it.

For instance, is the pythagorean theorem an absolute certainty? No.

---

You also seem to contradict yourself in what your true goal is. See you start out saying this:

" I am starting with the following postulate. There are no absolute certainties"

and then you end with,

"The speed of light is a certainty for now, but it is not an absolute certainty."

This seems to imply you think there are things that are "absolute certainties" even though the speed of light isn't one of those things. But by your "postulate" there are, and can never be, any absolute certainties. But how do you back this up in the first place when relativity and quantum mechanics give useful results that affect our lives every single day?

Answer 14

I think you misunderstand fundamentally what physics truly is. It's all models, NOT reality. These models tend to be so good that many people believe that the models of physics are the reality itself, but in actuality they are only compact ways of looking at a table of data in a thing called an equation. However once we put them in equation form, we can often times use these relations to relate other experimental data to other experimental data and use these to make predictions beyond what we've seen in the lab.

A beautiful example of this is Maxwell's equations. See, it was known that if you had a loop of wire with an ammeter in it and nothing else, that if you moved a magnet through the loop, it would cause the ammeter to move. From this it was clear that a changing magnetic field gives rise to an electric field. From this, and a very special case involving a capacitor, it was figured out that there was a gap in the current. So a displacement current was calculated to fit that spot, just out of the sake of consistency. Interestingly enough, this bit of mathematics predicted that there would be a changing electric field here that would give rise to a magnetic field.

So almost immediately from another area of mathematics that models the movement of waves, it was realized that a changing magnetic field creating an electric field along with a changing electric field creating a magnetic field might then be able to propagate itself through space on its own. And when this is plugged into the differential equation representing waves, the calculated speed of that wave turns out to be a constant. And at the time, was incredibly close to what the speed of light was calculated to be at the time. It is from here that Maxwell discovered something based off of experimental evidence about the speed of light as being a constant speed and gave rise to Einstein's concept of relativity. It's all based off of experimental data along with giving for useful, practical predictions.

But we don't know everything. So we're still going. Where does mass come from? Well so far we know that the conservation of energy and conservation of mass are really the same law since energy and mass are interconvertible. See: E=mc^2. Since mass and energy is conserved, it is neither created nor destroyed to our best knowledge.

Answer 15

Ha, ha, Kainul, you are getting me to think and that's good.

It is a waste of time to refute a certainty. Instead one should come up with a better certainty as Einstein did with all due respects to Newton. The Pythagorean Theorem is a certainty only in the relatively narrow context of Euclidean Geometry.

The speed of light being a constant is a useful certainty. But I believe that there is a wider context in which the speed of light would simply be a special case.

I do not mean to imply at all that there are “absolute certainties”. My postulate is:

“There are no absolute certainties.”

I believe that one can always come up with a better certainty. That is how science makes progress. There would be no progress for the person who believes in absolute certainties.

A certainty being relative does not imply that the results from it cannot be useful. Newton’s mechanics is still very useful in our daily life.

Answer 16

I guess to rephrase it, science is like a stick and everyone has a knife, but there's no "sharpest stick" since you can always make it sharper and sharper to poke deeper and deeper holes. But having some sort of correspondence principle is really nothing new.

Answer 17

So I hope I have been able to explain my postulate better. If you have any further questions please ask away.

Answer 18

Yes, Physics models reality. Physics is not reality. And that is why the certainty it provides is relative only and not absolute.

Right now I am making a thorough study of the mechanics involved in the propagation of sound, so that I can see what the mathematics predicts about the propagation of EMR, and what has been determined. Einstein had first denied the reality of ether, but later he did start to talk about ether but of a different kind. An interesting thing to consider would be space-time as a medium.

You are right in that the conservation of energy and conservation of mass are really the same law. Should the conservation of inertia (resistance to motion) be added to this mix? My intuition is that “inertia” is present even before the mass is detected. Inertia is responsible for creating the discreteness of a photon. A photon may be massless, but it is not “inertialess.” Energy seems to convert into mass through inertia (resistance to motion). What really happens when more energy pumped into the radiation cannot accelerate the speed beyond c? What is the mechanism by which energy converts into mass?

Answer 19

My next postulate is,

"All motion is relative."

With nothing else to compare to one cannot tell if one is at rest or if one is moving at the speed of light. When there are two objects in relative motion there is still no way to tell which object is at rest and which object is moving.

There is no frame of reference that may be considered absolute. Einstein makes "speed of light" as the absolute frame of reference, from which he then derives rest of his theory. I want to examine this frame of reference more closely.

Answer 20

Could space-time be “electromagnetic radiation” of frequency zero? Does this act as the fabric, the disturbance of which creates the actual EMR?.

Answer 21

I think you have a lot more learning to do before you start hashing out mystical "postulates".

Answer 22

I am sure I do.