baseball mechanics

[AntonioLao]

De Broglie’s Nobel Prize discovery asserted the duality of particle and wave nature of everything in the physical universe. This idea is simply expressed by the concise equation: p = h/l. This is a quantum mechanical expression. On the other hand, the classical expression for the linear momentum is given by p = mv as the product of mass and velocity of the moving particle. The Planck’s constant of action is given by h. The wavelength is given by l. The following discussion is not a verbatim excerpt of the one found on Page 94 of Dr. M. D. Fayer’s book: Absolutely Small. The value of Planck’s constant of action is approximately 7´10^(-34) joule-second. A standard Major League’s baseball weighs approximately 145 grams. An average fast pitch is about 40 meters per second. By the equality expression p = mv the linear momentum of the baseball is approximately 6 kilogram-meter per second. Then solving for the wavelength of the baseball by the equality expression p = h/l it is approximately 1´10^(-34) meter, roughly 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 1 the size of an average atomic nucleus of 10^(-15) meter, which is beyond the means of precise measurability by the best scientific instrument.


However, although a moving baseball always has a very small wavelength, by the same mathematical equality expression (p = h/l), a baseball that is relatively not moving or at rest has its wavelength infinitely long since its velocity is zero. That is to say any quantity no matter how small when divided by zero gives infinity, which is incidentally not mathematically defined as a number. The answer becomes physically meaningless. Moreover, instead of a baseball, if the particle is an absolutely small particle of light photon then its mass is always zero and again its wavelength is infinity, although as pure energy, a photon has the ability to take on all the values of the wavelength comprising the range of wavelength of the electromagnetic field. The linear momentum of a photon is always defined as its energy divided by its speed: p = E/c. Quantum mechanically speaking, the energy of a particle or wave is always equal to the product of Planck’s constant of action and the defined frequency of the said particle or wave, whatever makes sense, physically speaking. Nevertheless, completely resolving this duality paradox would require simply the redefinition of linear momentum as the ratio of quantized space-time over the space-time continuum: p = H/S. If quantized space-time (H) is defined as the square of energy: H = E and the space-time continuum (S) is defined as the product of energy and the speed of light: S = cE then substituting them into p = H/S gives the correct expression for the linear momentum of light photon accepted by theories of quantum mechanics and quantum fields. This new definition of linear momentum for free and bound particles is mass independent. It depends only on the sums or partial sums for the total energies of the universe.

[mkirkpatrick]

Not sure about baseball we are more into cricket here,wonder then what would be the wave lengh of consciousness?

regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

The wavelength of consciousness will have a value between zero and infinity but not everyone has the same value of wavelength of consciousness. Shorter wavelengths correspond to people who are more intelligent.

[mkirkpatrick]

The wavelength of consciousness will have a value between zero and infinity but not everyone has the same value of wavelength of consciousness. Shorter wavelengths correspond to people who are more intelligent.

Well then yours must be very short,and mine very long then!

regards michael

[AntonioLao]

Not necessarily since there are different categories of intelligence. But I'm sure our wavelengths are shorter than those of animals.

[spacedout]

From what you say an object that is not moving will have zero wavelength. Einstein used the Brownian movement to prove that atoms exist. In the Brownian movement particles of various masses are bumping each other and exchanging momentum mv. From this I would expect the baseball to have a very short wavelength due to its larger mass. Also, the lighter the particle the longer the wavelength and the faster it moves. A blue photon weighs more than a red photon and therefore the blue photon should move slower [but it doesnt]. From this I would expect there are components making both photons that individually travel at a constant speed C. Each wave of a photon must have the same MV. A photon is quantitative as a particle so all the waves are in a Planck length. Heavier photons will have waves packed into this package.

A concern of mine is light propagating through aether that is moving 2 times faster than the speed of light. The speed of light would be 2c relative to absolue space. If light speed c^2 is energy for every step forward c steps must be in a vortex or oscillation ---in other words there is movement and energy in the photon. If there is energy there is mass just like mass in a ball. The identity of the vortex or oscellation is its identity. If the object is moved at twice the speed of light all vecters would be aligned in the same direction and no vortex would exist

[mkirkpatrick]

Not necessarily since there are different categories of intelligence. But I'm sure our wavelengths are shorter than those of animals.

I was kind of hoping you would say that!


regards michael.

[spacedout]

If c^2 means one unit speed forward and c speed as an oscillation or vortex ---when all vectors are in one direction at s = c^2 the energy of a basic photon will be c^4. Acording to ccwt the speed of light c = 1/p where p is the number of steps in a row of a ccwp. When p = 1 it is one step, the limit of speed with no internal energy and is the maximum speed possible [the universal clock]. Using stepped theory nothing can go faster than the twice the speed of light. When p = c, c^2 = cp.

[AntonioLao]

From what you say an object that is not moving will have zero wavelength.

Nope. A classical object like a baseball that is not moving has infinitely long wavelength.

[mkirkpatrick]

Nope. A classical object like a baseball that is not moving has infinitely long wavelength.

If that is so then a moving baseball would have a shorter wavelength!

regards michael.