It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Mass To Light New Equation

page: 1
4
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 04:16 AM
Hi.

I was toying with the idea of an unified theory by looking at particle's mass so I took a couple of days to try and come up with a set of equation that could translate mass of a particle into its wavelenght equivalent. The idea was to look at particles's mass prediction problem using a "wave" view instead of classical mass view (I won't go into that here).

So, I came up with two equations that directly derived from Planck's most popular equation and Einstein's most popular equation.

Planck:

hc
____ = E

l

h=6,626176 x 10 E -34 Joules per seconds
c=299 792 458 meters per seconds
l=wavelenght (meters) (I can't make the little lambda greek symbol with my keyboard so I put a small "l" instead, sorry. )

And Einstein:

E=mc2

(We all know how this one goes. )

Now, it took me a couple of days to figure the two new equations out. I don't have a very mathematical brain, more of a graphical one. But I think I nevertheless suceeded, and now I present to y'all Equation Number 1:

hc
____ = l

mc2

And Equation Number 2:

hc
____

l
______ = m

c2

Equation Number One is designed to directly convert a particle's mass into its correct wavelenght equivalent. For example, let's say I got a positronium (e- coupled to an e+) and this positronium collapses into 2 photons. My equation is supposed to give you the possibility to determine those photon's wavelenght.
But the question is, does it works?
To test it I tried with an e- anihilating with an e+. Now, both leptons have a mass of 9,11 x 10 E -31 kilogramm (do not forget that MeV is not a mesurement unit accepted by these kind of equation — you have to translate masses to Kilogramms first). So, let's see.

hc equals 1,87722842 x 10 E -25 on my calculator.

c2 gives a BIG value of 8,987551787 x 10 E 16.

Then the electron's mass multiplied by c2 value will give 8,18765967 x 10 E -14.

Now, hc divided by mc2 gives the final orchestra-backed answer:

Wavelenght "l" of an electron's mass fully converted to photon is equal to 2,29275335 x 10 E -12 meters.

But when I went to Google and see if the equation gave the right answer, I found no recorded data about positronium anihilation photon's wavelenght. Is my equation confirmed by observations? Have the Cern recorded the photon's wavelenght outcoming from a positronium anihilation? If yes, does it match 0,00000000000229275335 meters?

As for equation number 2, I don't know what to make about it. It seems it could have applications in teleporting matter through transparent mediums, tough, but that's pushing imagination a bit.

EDIT: I took a beer and then I realized that my "c"s in my equation were self-canceling. In fact, equation 1 can be shortened and written as:

h
____ = l

mc

Yeah, that's better. The result is the same but it's easier to compute.

posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 07:42 AM
This is the kind of stuff that fascinates me as well. I want to understand HOW we are saved to Heaven, the transition (the bible says, new heaven, new earth, & glorified bodies in Heaven). OK so HOW will that happen. Of course only God Knows All but it is something I am curious about. Literally, how. If people raise from the dead during the rapture up, how does that happen?
the # 10 is a binary #.
Would the rise in photons during the solar mass ejections be a part of this transition then?
& what if, people are made differently, electricall charged that some will go to Heaven, & by be co ming one with GOD, is also an electrical regeneration.
I saved your post to favorites so I can read further in re what you write.
I've thought a lot about Einstein's theory & how this transition will occur. But still, how will it take place, rebirth to Eternal Life.
The bible says, "new heaven & new earth." But it seems more of a regenerating of.
What if, those that are, "saved," to Heaven are recharged by the electrical pulse of the sun (God Created The Heaven's & The Earth, but being saved, said to be (in the bible), in, "the world, but not of the world," &
those that choose anti christ will take mark of beast, 666, the connection to carbon, earth's core, magnetic (metal), into center of earth, hell?
Choose THE SON or THE SUN, & this electrical recharging to LIGHT, THE LIGHT OF CHRIST, to live forever.
brain food. love it.

edit on 21-7-2012 by J7IST1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 08:11 AM

I think there is an aspect of wave duality that is missed by science. They are viewing wavelength as a flat plane. The equations do not account for the toroidal nature of light. When viewed by dimension instead of flat plane, the mathematics then change. Science views wavelength as we see a slice of time. Instead, it should be looking for the back and front end of the equation. Nature provides the examples for us. DNA and Light should match from one domain to the next. Light is not a duality. It's a trinity. Light is particle, wave and information. Information is consciousness.

Read my theory of light linked in my signature. I would be interested to see your thoughts on my theory and how this might apply to your equation.

Also, take a look at our solar system. The sun moves. The planets move around the sun, yet with the sun in a vortex. It's a corkscrew. Take a look at a winding staircase. If you are at the top, the bottom is smaller by perspective. Travel down the staircase and you see that perspective is in a ratio by relative distance. The staircase is the same all the way down, yet not when viewed by slices. This is the key to then seeing the equation by perspective or actual reality by slice. This is the problem in the equation. It's not simply linear.

There is a key in the Bible. Forget the theology and just read what is said. I am not preaching here. I am merely showing that there are clues we need to see for a correct perspective.

Hebrews 11

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

It was formed with information.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Genesis 1:1-3

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

As stated by Paul Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanical wave equation, our universe is parallel to another universe in opposite. Our matter is anti-matter to this mirrored universe. The event horizon between these two universes represents the projection point of both.

Now, go to Genesis 1:27

1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Put them all together with the what Dirac was seeing. We are inside an image created by time, space, matter and energy. We are the image of God created with WORD. The Trinity of God is the Trinity of light. We just need to see it for what it is really saying.

-Father (Prima Materia of Light and Energy that is conscious and governs the universe from what is not seen)

-Son (First born image of God called the Word that was with God in the beginning. WORD / WAVE)

-Holy Spirit (Consciousness)

Light is all three by the pattern of the the whole at a ratio of 1:1.618 in a Vortex. Time and Gravity are merely perspective by distance and size in relation to the rest.

edit on 21-7-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 08:17 AM

Explanation: S&F!

Black hole electron [wiki]

Personal Disclosure: I think your very close

Keep trying and goodluck!

posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 09:51 AM
I remember something like that from years ago in my physics classes where we found plank's constant to equal mc lambda.... substitutes into the equations very well

edit on 21-7-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 11:42 AM

I am not into maths too much but this equation seems to refer to the relation of black holes with Plank's length... Great find anyway, thanks.

posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 11:45 AM
I am really looking for data on electron/positron annihilation. To prove the equation right or wrong I need data on annihilation photons.

posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 04:59 PM

let me congratulate you
,

a very interesting idea you have come up with,

you should read this from physorg
although it is related to much larger structures, you might find something interesting

Light disperses from a supernova explosion (yellow) to a site of detection (blue). As the universe expands, the light energy becomes diluted as it travels from its past, dense surroundings to its present, sparse surroundings. The light’s wavelength increases as a result of the decrease in surrounding energy density. Image credit: Annila. ©2011 Royal Astronomical Society

physorg

The standard model of big bang cosmology (the Lambda-CMD model) is a mathematical model, but not a physical portrayal of the evolving universe,” Annila told PhysOrg.com. “Thus the Lambda-CMD model yields the luminosity distance at a given redshift as a function of the model parameters, such as the cosmological constant, but not as a function of the physical process where quanta released from a supernova explosion disperse into the expanding universe.

If the universe’s expansion is due to mechanisms that “break matter to light,” then the universe’s expansion is expected to follow a sigmoid curve. Image credit: Qef, Wikimedia Commons

same source.

so this example is for matter in the form of stars and nova explosions,
but the same principals are at play,

turning matter into light, although on the scale of stars not atoms i thought you might be interested in the work.

xploder

edit on 21-7-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 05:37 PM

Originally posted by swan001
I am really looking for data on electron/positron annihilation. To prove the equation right or wrong I need data on annihilation photons.

in what context?

in 1 earth G of pressure/density?
would different conditions place different constraints to the amplitude/frequency of the resultant wave?
does a fixed point in space change the energy profiles?
or is a relativistic notion of an observers position alter the outcome?

maby i can help?

xploder

posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 06:10 PM

Congratulations...you've derived the de Broglie wavelength, λ = h/mv. (That is actually quite a feat...considering it took thousands of years to figure it out the first time.)

What you have here is the wavelength of any particle or object with mass m and velocity v. Due to the conservation of momentum, it does also work for what you're dealing with (matter-energy conversion), but it's had much broader application since it was first formulated...back in 1924.

edit on 21-7-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 06:36 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

Congratulations...you've derived the de Broglie wavelength, λ = h/mv. (That is actually quite a feat...considering it took thousands of years to figure it out the first time.)

What you have here is the wavelength of any particle or object with mass m and velocity v. Due to the conservation of momentum, it does also work for what you're dealing with (matter-energy conversion), but it's had much broader application since it was first formulated...back in 1924.

edit on 21-7-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

for someone who claims to be not really into math,
i think the op has done well,
you point out this has already been formulated,

but the op seemingly came to the same conclusion,
i a like that

star and flag to the op

xploder

posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 06:41 PM

Originally posted by XPLodER

for someone who claims to be not really into math,
i think the op has done well

Indeed he has. If he had formulated it 88 years ago, it would be the Swan wavelength rather than the de Broglie wavelength. And, honestly, Swan wavelength would be easier to pronounce.
edit on 21-7-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:57 AM

Oh, damn.
Well, since my equation is similar to this "De Broglie equation", and that De Broglie's equation is around since 1924, that at least mean that the physics community already validated the equation's accuracy.
I am a bit decieved, to be frank, to know that I worked 4 days and 4 sleepless nights just to find out that the equation already existed and was invented almost a century ago...
Well, at least I can assume that I can use the equation safely. Thanks for your post!

edit on 22-7-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 05:00 AM

Wow, interesting indeed. "redshift is not linear but sinusoidal"... Very educating. thanks!

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 12:08 PM

Wait! There is a big difference between the De Broglie's equation and mine!
De Broglie's equation goes:

l = h/mv

Where v is the particle's velocity. This velocity is a variable. That means, De Broglie's equation can be used to predict the total conversion of mass to energy, but only if "v" is equal to the speed of light. In my equation,

l = h/mc

the velocity part is always the speed of light "c".
It seems as if De Broglie's equation was designed to give you the energy's wavelenght of a moving particle. Mine is designed to convert the totality of particle's mass to energy, even if the particle's velocity is zero.
While De Broglie equation predicts the variable partial conversion, mine always predict the total conversion. Einstein's equation is E = mc2, not E = mv2... De Broglie can't predict total conversion as long as "v" is not equal to c. Mine is set to always take care of that part.
So maybe my equation can be considered new and different after all!
After all, Einstein's equation E = mc2 is considered distinct from original kinetic energy equation E = mv2.

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 11:38 AM
So I now I believe I can rightfully claim that the l=h/mc equation is mine... Yahoo. The Swan's equation.

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:29 PM

That's why I told you that, due to the conservation of momentum, the de Broglie equation can be used for what you're dealing with (which is essentially mass-energy conversion). Your equation is just a tunnelvisioned form of the de Broglie equation.

ETA: you can call your equation the Swan application of the de Broglie equation, but you can't call it the Swan equation.
edit on 25-7-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:11 PM

Right. Just as Einstein's E=mc2 is a tunnelled version of E=mv2.
I am from Quebec.
What do you think about the other equation I found out?

m=((hc)/l)/c2

What do you make of it? I can't see any applications other than transferring light back to particles... But that can't happen, right? I mean, it would imply that light from the sun adds mass to Earth's surface. We know that to be untrue, it only adds energy by interacting with its atoms (photoelectric principle).

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 07:05 PM

Originally posted by swan001

Right. Just as Einstein's E=mc2 is a tunnelled version of E=mv2.

Except that E = mv² doesn't exist. The closest thing to it is kinetic energy, E = ½mv².

I am from Quebec.

In that case, je ne pas speak le French

What do you think about the other equation I found out?

m=((hc)/l)/c2

What do you make of it? I can't see any applications other than transferring light back to particles... But that can't happen, right? I mean, it would imply that light from the sun adds mass to Earth's surface. We know that to be untrue, it only adds energy by interacting with its atoms (photoelectric principle).

m = hc/λc² = h/λc

This correctly implies that photons have relativistic mass. This, in turn, implies that photons have momentum, since, rearranged, the equation becomes

mc = h/λ,

and mc is momentum, p, giving

p = h/λ.

This is the principle behind solar sails, among other things.
Again, nothing new.

posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 08:33 AM

Originally posted by CLPrime

Except that E = mv² doesn't exist. The closest thing to it is kinetic energy, E = ½mv².

Right you are again! I should have looked deeper in Wikipedia. Thanks

new topics

top topics

4