Constantinos,

In encountering comments of yours on a number of occasions, I've found myself in agreement with you but have not been at all certain why. That is not uncommon for me, and makes me try to think.

What you propose is a very strict discipline of methodology in theoretical definition of terms, and I think that is a necessary principle in any logical pursuit. It is not how much we can expand the meaning of a definition, it is how strictly we can limit the meaning, that gives definition.

I want to read the thesis for which Steve Sax provided a reference, before getting into a deeper discussion because it is generally helpful for my understanding to have a peg to hang my hat on. And the Rubidium phenomenon might be a good start point. Like Steve, I'd like to see how the application of your methodology works. Give me a little time to digest the link you gave on Planck, and the Rubidium paper. I'll be back. jrc

Jeo Fisher,

Your "cut and paste" comment is way off target to the central idea of my arguments. Namely, we cannot know the Truth of "what is" physical reality. But only know our measurements and understanding of "what is".

From your comment, you on the other hand claim to know such Truth. That is Metaphysics. And there is no end and sensible resolution to Metaphysical claims. Other than engaging in "religious wars". Which is what you are doing here, imho.

Constantinos

JRC,

You write, "*In encountering comments of yours on a number of occasions, I've found myself in agreement with you but have not been at all certain why. "

Maybe because I make sense?

Take your time with the rest. I do. Best to let the sensible truth emerge from the fog of theorizing, that impose such 'truth' of our theories on others.

Constantinos

Dear Jose P. Koshy,

I too believe in a physical reality independent of our Mind and Will. I have also often argued in the past we cannot know the Truth of "what is" that physical reality. But only know our measurements and understanding of "what is". Where physicists often go wrong is believing we can and they know! Or they nearly know and will know more for sure with their next best model of "what is". I have characterized all such ventures as Metaphysics.

I am not interested in Metaphysics. And physicists also reject Metaphysics, even as they unwittingly practice it.

I have proposed a way out of this dilemma. Measurement being the essence of Physics, all Basic Law of Physics should be Mathematical Identities that describe the interactions of measurements. Such MUH however differs from Tegmark's idea in that it is not an Ontology. The Universe is not made up of Mathematics. Just our knowledge of the Universe is made up of Mathematics. But even this would likely change. As we come closer to the limits of such mathematical methods.

In my view, QM is such mathematical foundation. So we are nearly there! All we need to do is realize it. And clean up some past gross misconceptions and physical assumptions we have made. Like the existence of energy quanta. Or believing Planck's Law is a Law of Physics which proves the existence of energy quanta used in its derivation. This simply is not true!

Planck's Law is actually a mathematical identity! Like the Pythagorean Theorem, also used in making measurements. It can be mathematically derived without the assumption of energy quanta.

You ask, "what is energy"? In terms of the quantity 'eta' in my formulation, energy is the time rate of 'eta'. But I know you mean more than that. You seek a "physicalist' explanation of energy! I don't see such need.

Constantinos

Constantinos,

I've read through your Chapter, and waded into the Rubidium thesis. Let's just concentrate some on the accumulation of energy in your paradigm.

The point is well made that any observation is a matter of some sort of detection and black-body emission in the original experimentation was deduced from detection, and the same assumption was made then as you have that conservation applies in the transfer of energy. There is a necessity that measurement 'here' is faithfully represented 'there' if at all. And, yes indeed, your eta equation is the same identical form as Planck's.

I did get bogged down on the list of conditional criteria of 'if and only if' but that probably wouldn't be a problem for mathematicians. Where I don't follow your arguments is where the sensor determines discretion, as depicted on the saw-tooth graph. While I agree that that a continuous, and non-varying, input of energy would accumulate in exponential fashion as a function of time, isn't that time period present in the frequency term of your equation? How does the sensor know it has finished receiving one wavelength of a one dimensional wave? Am I misunderstanding something, or completely?

Physically, I think energy propagating through space would occupy a volume, and accumulate in a volume, not at a point. Which is really behind my question about using 'e' as the index of light velocity, which I had used successfully long before learning the Convention against it. So we have some similar views, but also some which are diametrically opposed.

Hope I'm not too much a disappointment. jrc

JRC,

... much too much here and too condensed in my Chapter to digest. And likely my exposition of these results make them even more indigestible. So let's take these one at a time, if you like.

You write, "And, yes indeed, your eta equation is the same identical form as Planck's."

Good you agree! Planck's Law is a mathematical identity that does not need any physical assumptions of the existence of energy quanta for its derivation. Doesn't this completely explain why the experimental blackbody spectrum fits so identically the theoretical curve? Know of any other clear and convincing explanations for this?

Constantinos

Constantinos,

"Doesn't this completely explain why the experimental blackbody spectrum fits so identically the theoretical curve?"

The observed curve of the blackbody spectrum did not fit the theoretical curve. The exponential function does not directly relate to energy, but to the *probability* that higher frequencies give greater chance for a continuous flow of energy to choose an ever higher frequency over a lower one. The 'Violet Catastrophe'. It is the limit of 'h' that produces the fit, as the thermalized energy within Wien's furnace must choose any available frequency to escape through the aperture that keeps the furnace at a stable heat. And that distribution is what matched the observed distribution of frequencies at any given furnace temperature. Probability has its chance, but it's not only probability, it's also path of least resistance for the furnace seeking thermal ambient equilibrium.

How does your system provide "a Planck-like limit"? Like I said, I get bogged down in the conditional criteria. I quite agree that the Planck Quantum is a time dependent action value. Why it is a preferred value in nature might be an easier question than why the speed of light is 'that' preferred value. (Now there's a Taboo!) jrc

JRC,

I was referring to the Cosmic Microwave Blackbody Radiation curve! Why don't you check the following link where this curve and the theoretical curve based on Planck' Law are superimposed. And get back to me!

Experimental vs Theoretical Blackbody Spectrum

I'll address your other points after we have settled this.

Constantinos

JRC,

Further to your points ... You write, "Where I don't follow your arguments is where the sensor determines discretion, as depicted on the saw-tooth graph. While I agree that that a continuous, and non-varying, input of energy would accumulate in exponential fashion as a function of time, isn't that time period present in the frequency term of your equation? How does the sensor know it has finished receiving one wavelength of a one dimensional wave? Am I misunderstanding something, or completely? "

Yes! Three important points to consider here.

1) Associating a wavelength with time of absorption is incorrect! That may be how the current paradigm of Physics may view it. But I am presenting a different view. And worse than mixing metaphors is mixing paradigms! When does the sensor know when to absorb the "gulp" of energy that has accumulated? Simple. When "local equilibrium" at the interaction site is reached. When does the sensor know when to stop absorbing more "gulps" of energy? Easy. When global equilibrium is reached between the sensor and the source.

2) We have the exponential rate of "accumulation" of energy at the sensor, r, and the "frequency of radiation" , nu, (thought as the wave frequency). These are related but not identical concepts. The "wave" idea is physically imposed by us describing what we say happens. In contrast, I find the exponential rate of energy accumulation more sensible here. While physically nu can only be thought as a positive integer, r can be any real number positive or negative (describing both absorption or emission). This makes more sense. Don't you think?

3) Further, the interval of time for an amount of accumulated energy h to be absorbed by the sensor is h/kT (see my Chapter for a discussion of this). If anything this should be taken as the frequency of absorption! And not the exponential rate r (or nu). From this we clearly see the relationship between temperature T and "absorption frequency": the higher the temperature, the higher the frequency, and visa versa.

Do ask if any of this is still not clear.

Constantinos

Constantinos,

Thanks for the additional effort at explanation, I think I'm beginning to get an idea of your concept and its made me want to refresh on some things I haven't considered for years, and hadn't fully absorbed anyway. I think I am starting to see the expediency of treating the 'wave' as one dimensional because we can't really know if any such thing exists.

I wanted to check in and say not to worry, I've got matters to attend to and wrap up this weekend, and have to concentrate on those so that I know my ducks are in a row and won't have anything nagging at me. So my reading is on hold a couple days.

Have a nice weekend. jrc

Dear Constantinos Ragazas,

I am interested in alternate theories; and curious to know their viewpoints. Summing up your viewpoits, I get this: The physical world is real; but we have to be content with the mathematical equations that describe the interactions; any attempt to go further is metaphysical in nature, or we cannot expect to understand the real nature of physical reality. Am I right?

Based on the above, let me ask you another question. With or without quanta, Planks equation is correct; then why do you opt for 'without-quanta' model? I think the reason is metaphysical than physical.

Have you developed your theory further? Can I assume that at present you are somewhat sure that QM as visualized bu you can incorporate the equations that describe the interactions at cosmic level?

Hello Jose,

We can only know our measurements, observations and understanding of "what is". We can have an understanding of the Universe. But not understand the Universe. This is self-evident. No less evident than not truly knowing another human being. Such understanding is not limited to mathematical equations, however. Though these at this time provide the most objective reasoning and self-consistency.

But we should not confuse our understanding with "what is" the Universe. And yes, any claims that we know "what is" the Universe are metaphysical and lead to intellectual "religious wars". You write, "we cannot expect to understand the real nature of physical reality. Am I right?". That is my view. We can't in essence.

Planck's Law I have shown is a mathematical identity. As any mathematical result, it can be derived using various methods. Planck originally derived it using what he thought was a mathematical trick. Einstein latter proposed the physical existence of energy quanta in his derivation of this Physical Law. But Planck's Law is a mathematical truism and not a physical law that depends on the assumption of the physical existence of energy quanta. The issue here is not whether we can derive Planck's Law "with or with-out quanta". But rather between mathematical truths and physical laws. I am arguing Physics can and should be based on mathematical identities.

There are many interesting results that come out of this. Please read my Chapter for details. "The Thermodynamics in Planck's Law".

But let me highlight two here.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics: all physical events require some positive duration of time to occur

"If the speed of light is a constant, then light is a wave"

Constantinos

Constantinos,

In your reply to Jose you state, "The issue here is not whether we can derive Planck's Law 'with or with-out quanta',"

I see your point. While substituting eta in your equation for h in the derivation you use of Planck's Theorem, does have the exact form, it is not the same mathematical identity. Which I think is your major argument.

I have not found the derivation you employ in several references I briefly looked into but accept it as it is quite apparent you are very familiar with the vast body of work which has developed from his original formulations. Let me start there because I'm quite content with the simple reductions and think the derivation is good as it simplifies to an energy term on the left side. (And I really don't have the desire for a lot of math)

In essence, and I think this is important in how you introduce others to your work, what your identity does is to make global what is expressed locally to the incident waves from a source by the Planck identity. And more. It is scale independent, by averaging the energy term it can show the local value of h as the absolute value of a single wave event to be a time dependent action, while also extending relativistically to infinity. It was the limit at infinity that had me worried.

So in real terms and applications your equation is complimentary to Planck and does not displace Planck's (theorem) Law. And it can't without also refuting the basis of itself. Nor would many accept doing away with its reduction to e=hv.

Another aspect of the global feature is that it might be applicable to a 'flat flow' measurement. If you are familiar with mechanical maintenance and how an AC Induction Motor operates, the characteristic of 'slippage' gives a good illustration. Without digression in how its done, the magnetic field in the stator electromagnets rotates while inducing magnetic field regions in the rotor. But the rotor's physical rotation continually lags behind the stator field rotation, its 'slipping'. Now consider the slippage cylindrical plane as a flat wave. Similar to the shear plane of laminar flow in hydro-dynamics. Its not that the slippage doesn't give a perturbative reactance in producing an electromagnetic field, it does and its scale independent, you can hear it because to rotor's speed produces oscillation in the audible range.

In your paradigm of interaction of measurement as mathematical identities, that slippage illustration could possibly apply to a continuous flow through the medium of an emitter source. Interactively, evanescent waves which are those that reflect back into the interior of a medium, decay exponentially in intensity. That could be related to your 'if the speed of light is constant, light is a wave', and the interface at emitter and absorber.

So I think you can say that whether I recognize it or not, I'm responding in accord with your hypothesis that it is mathematical identity by which we do physics. Don't expect to purge physics anytime soon of it being used to discover 'what it is', that's why most people go into physics instead of math.

Cordially, jrc

JRC,

Briefly, Planck's Law in Physics as it is currently thought is NOT a mathematical identity! Because its derivation assumes the physical existence of energy quanta. My derivation of Planck's Law IS a mathematical identity. Because no physical assumptions are made in its derivation. Just math. The quantity E that appears in it can be anything. Originally, and for the historical record, E was "earnings" in an equation I was deriving at the time for my Investment Club members to help us make good investment decisions!

Why is this important? Because it was and is believed that Planck's Law "proves" the physical existence of energy quanta. I am proving it does not! Further, as a mathematical identity, my derivation EXPLAINS why the Cosmic Blackbody experimental spectrum fits so identically the theoretical curve based on Planck's Law. Whereas, and in a typically twisted reasoning, this fit is used by physicists to "prove" the physical existence of energy quanta Planck's Law is thought to be based on!

Constantinos

Dear Constantinos Ragazas,

I downloaded the file you referred to. I agree with you that a mathematical equation is just 'an equation' and can be used in any situation that warrants such an equation. Here the equation is used to explain the blackbody radiation.

However, you stated that from the equation you came to the conclusion that energy is continuous. From the same equation, the mainstream physicists came to the conclusion that there is energy packet (quanta). Based on the same equation, I came to the conclusion that a quanta is actually a packet containing particles moving at speed 'c'. My question was why you came to such a conclusion. I think you are not arguing that for energy quanta, the equation is not valid.

I just want to know the actual reason: just an alternate proposal or just because it agrees with your assumption regarding energy.

Regarding the second law of thermodynamics, I cannot see any relation between positive duration of time and second law. Also I cannot understand the logic of your argument that if speed of light is constant, light has to be a wave. I would argue that light is particles moving at constant speed; what prevents them from moving at constant speed?

Constantinos,

By the same logic, your equation is not an identity because it contains the Boltzmann Constant which is a physical proportion of energy/temperature while Planck's Constant is a physical proportion of energy/time (erg/sec).

Have you studied why Planck formulated his equation in the terms he used, under the prevailing conventions of his day? It wasn't as commonly understood today, in fact as a matter in probabilities theorizing, Planck apparently did not accept the emerging assumption of equipartion which is the hallmark of QM. And equipartition is a philosophical assumption and is still argued about. None-the-less Planck is accepted because it solves the violet (or ultraviolet) catastrophe which had yet to be recognized in 1900. Planck intentionally addressed the problem of intensity of frequency distribution as physically observed in laboratory experiments which were based on mathematical arguments.

Your 'E can be anything' is yours to defend, not Max Planck's problem. I've tried to not 'mix paradigms' and given your derivation full acceptance without an explanation of what the terms come from and how that logically should argue for introducing a limitless average instead of a proportional constant, even to the point of treating the limitless 'E' as global.

And I've had other things to do. So don't bash Planck, explain yourself. How does your equation in application to the observed curve of intensity in spectroscopic frequency analysis of laboratory blackbody radiation experiments, explain that curve? If, as the link you want me to download and read instead of answering the question suggests, your equation matches results in current cosmic background radiation, it might interest people to know that the function that Planck's original 1900A.D. formulation produces, limits out at ~2.8K - very near to that of the modern measurements. Physics is supposed to be about what is physical, jrc

Hello Jose,

... and thank you for the opportunity to clarify further my views and ideas on this. Planck's Law as was derived originally was thought to be possible (and continuous to be so thought) only if we assumed the physical existence of energy quanta. It thus became a conceptual and physical foundation for the development of Quantum Physics. But this as we now know lead to all sorts of counter-intuitive views of our physical Universe, of "quantum weirdness". And has placed us and our Collective Conscience in conflict with our sense experience. Simply, QM based on the metaphysical belief of the existence of energy quanta has warped our view of our Universe, our physical existence and of Reality. It's time we reclaim our "senses"!

I did not come to the conclusion that energy is continuous from "my equation". Rather, "my equation" can be derived using continuity. And not assuming the physical existence of energy quanta. Something that was not thought possible in 100 years of physics.

There are many sensible consequences to this formulation. My rephrasing of The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of them. And, yes, you are right. The Second Law is not about "duration of time" (the arrow of time) but about "entropy". But it SHOULD BE about "duration of time"! My results clarify the intimate connection between "entropy" and "duration of time". Rephrasing the Second Law removes all the present dilemmas with this Law. Since, while "duration of time" is always positive, "entropy" can be both negative or positive. As we know it is.

I think you misunderstood my proposition: "if the speed of light is a constant, then light is a wave". This can be mathematically proven using my approach!!! Demonstrating clearly the inherent contradiction between Einstein's CSL Hypothesis and Relativity, and Einstein's Quantum Hypothesis and QM.

Constantinos

JRC,

Please allow me to know what is and is not a mathematical identity! In my past life I taught math.

Boltzmann's constant is a red herring in this argument. It was not used nor needed in my derivation. But appears in my final equation only for purposes of comparison with Planck's Law. I could be perfectly content if "average energy" was used instead. Your argument here is like arguing the Pythagorean Theorem is not a mathematical identity because we can substitute physical measurements when using it.

By the way, a similar relationship between "average energy" and "temperature" can be obtained through my derivation. Including a "Boltzmann-like constant".

Have you checked out the link I send you of the Cosmic Background Spectra and it's identical fit to the theoretical blackbody spectrum obtained using Planck's Law? Have an explanation for that? I do!

Constantinos

Constantinos,

I'm not sure if we got off on a mis-step or if my lack of formal math education leaves me perplexed in how you state things that would be self evident in pure mathematics. But I have long recognized that our empirical measure is based on wholey arbitrary units evolving from earth bound metaphor, and that it is by mathematical axiomatic operations that we define physical relationships. The exponential function giving 'e' is an exponential identity, and so is the harmonic series that we find in radioactive decay. But a proportional constant is an equality, so I don't understand why you said that Planck's Law could not be an identity because he introduced a physical constant. It has become quite common for the quantum to be taken only as a finite, specific quantity of energy rather than as a time dependent empirical unit only applicable to a single waveform of any frequency, per 1/f. And the size of the unit is dependent on the assigned size of the unit in Boltzman. But taken only as a constant unit value does not identify any kind of operation.

Yes, the plot lines of COBE and blackbody radiation are identical and should be a great corroboration of Wien's intuitive reasoning that repetitive absorption and emission would thermalize radiation towards a mean distribution.

Yes, the photoelectric effect as commonly interpreted as per Einstein is in contradiction to the postulate of constant speed of light, and many before have said that it only behaves like a particle hitting the spot when its absorbed. I could ( and have ) shear off a high tensile bolt with a half-inch drive air impact wrench with a lower supply pressure if I have the beats set too high. The supply can be regulated in a continuous manner at the compressor reservoir, and the cyclic rate is set by bleeding off the exhaust on the gun. Its a continuous function but still translates to batta-batta-batta.

I am sorry not to follow your mathematical construct, especially in that there is a observational experimental limit that leaves us with 'the Photon'. And it is not at all clear to me how your methodology determines the cyclical rate of accumulation along the one-dimensional wave. Those whom have commented have limited themselves to general agreement on a philosophical level but haven't offered mathematic discussion, and I think I'd need to watch & learn from that sort of learned discussion to get a handle on what is a mathematical paradigm. Cordially, jrc

Dear Constantinos Ragazas,

So you think that the concept of 'quantum' has led to counter-intuitive models, and as a step towards correction, you are proposing continuous nature of energy.

Regarding entropy, my opinion is that entropy should be redefined so as to obtain the following result: if the entropy of the universe increases, there will be a corresponding decrease in entropy of the bodies in it. Or entropy changes are reversible.

I will go through your descriptions again leisurely to know how you relate second law with duration of time. What is your opinion regarding the relativity theories of Einstein?