The \'man-made\' Universe by Constantinos Ragazas

Constantinos Ragazas

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

John Cox

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

Constantinos Ragazas

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

Jose Koshy

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?

John Cox

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

Constantinos Ragazas

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

Constantinos Ragazas

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

John Cox

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

Jose Koshy

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?

Constantinos Ragazas

JRC,

You write, "... me perplexed in how you state things that would be self evident in pure mathematics. "

I am not sure what you are saying here. The only "self-evident" idea I have ever said in any discussion is "we can only know what we think we know". As corollary to this, we cannot know "what is" physical reality. But can only know our measurements, observations and understanding of our experience of physical reality.

It seems to me a core misunderstanding is what is a mathematical identity. And why Planck's Law as was and is is not a mathematical identity. But I am demonstrating and arguing it IS! So let me focus on this and forego your other points of agreement/disagreement for another time.

Simply, a mathematical identity does not depend on any physical suppositions in its derivation. Like, for example, the physical existence of "energy quanta" having energy given by hv used by Planck, Einstein etc. to derive Planck's Law. My derivation of Planck's Law does not make any physical assumptions. It is a pure math derivation. Thus, a mathematical truth.

As such, it describes the functional relationship between the "incremental change" of a quantity, its "average over that interval", and its "instantaneous value" at the start of that interval. Notice! Nothing here about physics, energy, frequency, etc. I show Planck's Law in its mathematical essence is just that!

You write, "... I don't understand why you said that Planck's Law could not be an identity because he introduced a physical constant". It's more than that. The derivation depended on the assumption of the physical existence of "energy quanta" having energy given by hv. Thus, it is not a mathematical derivation that does not depend on physical assumptions having a "physical view". Math does not claim any "physical view".

Certainly we can substitute in any mathematical identity quantities and equivalences consistent with the mathematical meaning of those parts in the mathematical identity. Thus, if we know or assume the "change of energy" is given as hv, and the corresponding "average energy" for this is given by kT we can substitute these values in my mathematical identity to get Planck's Law in the form familiar in Physics.

This is no different than making appropriate substitutions in the Pythagorean Theorem. But this does not make the Pythagorean Theorem any less a mathematical identity. Again, the issue here is the physical assumptions used in the derivation. A mathematical identity makes no such assumptions!

Constantinos

Constantinos Ragazas

Dear Jose P. Koshy,

I am showing how Planck's Law at least can be derived using continuous energy. What was sought since Planck but not realized for more than 100 years.

As for entropy and time, this connection is a natural consequence of my mathematical derivation of Planck's Law. It shows entropy is the "amount of evolution/devolution" of a system over a "duration of time". Thus entropy can be positive or negative.

But the "duration of time" is always positive. This, in this view, is the unrecognized real essence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics! It stands the reason. Since no other fundamental law of physics concerns the most fundamental physical variable, time!

As for Theory of Relativity, I see it as a special theory of measurement in one case (as I also see QM). And as a description (but not explanation) of gravity in the other case. Both badly misunderstood and misapplied!

Certainly the spacetime continuum is in contradiction with Thermodynamics. Since it is premised in "event-points". While Thermodynamics requires physical events to have positive and non-zero duration of time.

Constantinos

John Cox

Constantinos, Okay!

Thanks for that clarification. It goes to what Tom Ray consistently says, that the math has to stand on its own for an application of it expressing a physical ontology to be valid. I doubt many would disagree, but also I think most look at e=hv and simply recognize it has the form of an equality.

I think what physicists would find most valuable in your methodology is where it might weed out any expressions or formulations which might not stand on their own, formally. The accumulation of 'physical constants' and 'units of measure' is bewildering. Give me cgs! and thin it out from there. Gads! jrc

Constantinos Ragazas

JRC, you write further ...

"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."

I don't follow you here. Typically for any physical law based on some mathematical model of "what is", the experimental data hopefully fits the theory -- but never identically! And the closer we look into the physical experimental measurements, the rougher and more divergent our theoretical fit is. Such identical fit between experimental data and theory can only happen for mathematical identities.

For example, if we had very precise measurements of points of a very precise circle drawn by very fine instruments, the experimental coordinates of points on such circle will fit very identically with the Pythagorean Theorem. That would be so BECAUSE the Pythagorean Theorem is a mathematical identity. Something similar to this is happening between the COBE spectrum and the theoretical blackbody radiation curve based on Planck's Law. And THIS is explained by my purely mathematical derivation of Planck's Law, proving this Law is a mathematical identity. There is just no other explanation for this!

I can summarize my argument on this as follows. "If the physical law is a mathematical identity, then the experimental data fits very identically to the theoretical curve."

The reverse is not valid, however. Nor can we properly argue, as physicists often do, because experiments and theory fit very identically our physical law is absolutely true. Or our physical law is a mathematical identity. A mathematical identity must be mathematically derived and proven to be true absolutely.

You write,

"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."

That's news to me. Who and how and when it was shown that the CSL Hypothesis contradicts the Quantum Hypothesis? I have a short need and elegant proof of this! And it all ties together with all of my other results and derivations.

Constantinos

John Cox

Constantinos,

I grew up in a small family publishing business, I started having income tax with-held when I was 11 years old and worked in the business in a production capacity through high school. My grades suffered but I got one hell of an education. I'll give you some free editorial advice. In the popular press you just have to tease people so they will read on. But in scientific writing, which is more art than science, don't waste people's time. You will gain a wider audience, by physicists whom might cite your work in support of their own if you present your work concisely in clarity of no uncertain terms. But they will not pay attention to an interminable argument that they must support if they cite your work,

Case in point: you stated in your last paragraph of 4/4/15 @ 01:40 GMT -------- "--- Who and how and when it was shown that the CSL Hypothesis contradicts the Quantum Hypothesis?"

That is a politician's stump trick. I didn't suggest that and you know it. I had stated the contradiction in '...the photoelectric effect as commonly interpreted as per Einstein..' which is as a particle. That's what won him the Noble. That's in contradiction of Einstein's SR.

You want, and need, a wider audience than me. I spent a month trying to figure out what you were driving at and you finally summed it up (fairly nicely - ed) in the clarification you posted 3/3/15 @ 20:27 GMT. That is kind of what you should lead with in commenting on other's essays. Say; HEY - LOOK! I provide PROOF of Planck's Hypothesis! Then you can briefly give the argument that it is necessary in light of the strictly empirical origin of the quantum, and that while true to form the formulations themselves lack a basis of mathematical truth, which You can provide. And then you can say that it leads to some surprising results. Because that gives physicists a new toy. Let them play with it. And with there being a classical revival, a continuous rationale of the quantum that is mathematically complete would be welcome. Too much work is based on calibrating measures to that value to attempt to dethrone it without another finite benchmark. And the way you present your arguments sounds like an intent to vanquish the quantum entirely.

And, no, I don't think you do follow what I said about Wien. He was taking a chance. Because physics uses math, but like the color purple it is a figment of human imagination, and physics is about what it is that is physical.

I'll end with an old editorial device that tells the writer and the typositor that its time to pull a galley proof.

- 30 -

Constantinos Ragazas

JRC,

Your publishing business background not withstanding, I assure you I take great care and make every effort to be as clear and concise as I can. And address misunderstandings as these naturally and often arise. But no degree of clarity will make one listen more when they are not ready or able to hear.

Physicists being so intellectually invested in the "particle/quanta" paradigm, cannot hear what I have been clearly shouting from the rooftop for years. Steven P. Sax, for example, promised awhile back he would read and study my results and comment in detail. I am still waiting! But I am very patient and understanding of human nature. As I in the meantime pursue various other interests and intellectual ventures. (want to hear about my Stonehenge explanation?! )

You write, "I didn't suggest that [the CSL Hypothesis contradicts the particle Quantum Hypothesis] and you know it. I had stated the contradiction in '...the photoelectric effect as commonly interpreted as per Einstein..' which is as a particle. That's what won him the Noble. That's in contradiction of Einstein's SR."

I need to address this! How what I said you said is different from what you say you said? The CSL is the essence of SR. While the particle Quanta Hypothesis is the essence of Einstein's photoelectric explanation. When you say Einstein's SR contradicts Einstein's photoelectric effect explanation, you are saying the CSL Hypothesis contradicts the particle Quantum Hypothesis. What I am saying. And more importantly what I have mathematically proven! If others have other proofs of this, naturally I am very interested knowing.

Constantinos

John Cox

Constantinos,

The standard interpretation of the photoelectric effect is that light is a particle (photon) in a multiple of n integers of h (the quantum), the detection of which is dependent on the 'work function' necessary to eject an electron from the target metal. That particle can only be 'massless' if its a particle, or it will violate the infinite mass prohibition in SR. What you are saying that all the energy necessary to eject the electron is carried in one wave at or above the threshold frequency and absorbed by the metal as a culmulative exponential rate in the duration of 1/f. I think 'massless particle' is a contradiction, and that the 1/f rationale is viable as an action dependent on the target.

However, if a wave of a given frequency can carry any amount of energy per 1/f then wouldn't that match the same distribution of frequencies expected by Wien and colleagues, and researchers of the blackbody experiments?

May I remind you that my post to Steve did not in anyway presume upon you, nor what you had said in yours would have been construed by anyone that I had. I would not have defended his rating in that manner if I'd expected response from him, and if you have read a number of essayists you would have recognized that unlike yourself, there have been a number for whom its 'my way or the highway' and have issued derogatory and derisive condemnations of others commenting on their work if in disagreement of a strictly QM or Relativistic approach. One individual even stated he deliberately gave ratings of 1 to those whom he considered unqualified in QM! I haven't bothered to look to see if anyone has member status or not, but did want to point out the obvious distasteful prejudice while simply giving Steve high marks for a cross-disciplinary approach and acknowledgement of some originality. And then bow out and engage elsewhere. You have been challenging me.

The holy grail in physics today, is to find where symmetry is broken. What Wien et.al. expected to find was a smooth curve of distribution in which the change in slope was in the same direction, limiting at a one to one correspondence of intensity and frequency. What they found was a smooth curve that changed direction of slope near the maximum and rolled over to top off. That means a break in physical symmetry that causes thermal energy to seek a path of least resistance. If your methodology can independently find that break in physical symmetry while maintaining a continuous function that does not break mathematical symmetry, by which I properly mean fully reversable, your book would fly off the shelves. If you have shown that, I simply haven't seen it. May I be excused, please. john

Constantinos Ragazas

JRC,

The contradiction you are arguing between SR and Einstein's photoelectric effect explanation is different. I agree. In truth, "massless particles" is an oxymoron, imho. But that's another story!

What I have mathematically proven is more precise and more consequential: " If the speed of light is a constant, then light is a wave". The converse, " if light is a wave! then the speed of light is a constant" has been known to be true since Maxwell. Since a wave requires a propagation medium, the two propositions together prove the existence of "aether"!

In my Chapter, ( see "The Thermodynamics in Planck's Law") I have a section on the photoelectric effect. I show how this can be explained not needing "energy quanta". Check it out, if you have not done so already.

Constantinos

John Cox

Constantinos,

I,ve reread the photoelectric proportion and want to give more thought, because it has always been a matter of confusion for me as to how people seem to use words like quanta, Quantum, and photon. And you include quanta in your photoelectric equation which I think I follow pretty well. And your point about what an electrician would refer to 'spurious' currents is something experimentalists must assume as a problem of 'clean-ness'. And experimentally, the theoretical distinction between intensity and frequency has always seemed fuuzy to me.

But... I was at a saturation level and winding down from a couple discussions and needing to put everything on a shelf for a while at the time of our encounter. I think we agree on the rate of action being exponential, and at a subluminal velocity it could be easily illustrated in a straight line with a 10ft. pocket tape measure being pulled out or retracted at a uniform speed.

So let me have my break, I need to get my feet on the ground and its getting time of year for that, spring cleaning and grounds maintenance. Meanwhile maybe someone else will step in and clear up where I'm not seeing a distinction between a single one second wave of given frequency in your scheme and additional such waves in the same second which is conventionally taken as intensity, but hybridized into a single wave in your schemata as an exponential averaged energy. Am I saying that right? jrc

John Cox

Constantinos,

Well...its started to rain on me, so I've had a little time to let things gel without trying to push it. Strictly from the standpoint of a continuous flow of energy at uniform light velocity, I see your point that given an exponential rate of absorption by which we measure frequency and energy value, Planck's quanta must be taken as empirical experimental derivation of the least observable average.

Your conclusions are as disruptive of conventional thinking in Classical mechanics as they are in QM! And I must say just intuitively that the geometric relationships look fascinating. Eta, the accumulation of energy as a waveform of energy of a given frequency is absorbed, effectively slows the energy from light velocity to relative rest at the exponential rate. That rate can be plotted along a straight line, just as I could mark out ten equal intervals on a board and show the additive factoral of 1+1/1! +1/2! +1/3! +1/4!... +1/10! and then also take the full length of board as a light second with a frequency of 10, and each of those intervals subject to the same factoral scheme. That is the natural exponential function: e = (1+1/n)^n. And that graphs as a hyperbolic function. But then, the shape of wave must be addressed which adds a second hyperbolic function which relates the rapidity of change of the cosine of the angle of a hyperbola as a natural log, and in browsing for references I found that rapidity is used in research such as CERN in factoring the Lorentz Term 'gamma' in the time parameter of v/c. So for the absorption of a continuous flow of energy following a sinusoidal path to be an accumulation at the natural exponential rate, means the event is a coincidence of two hyperbolic functions, one along a proper timeline, and the other which Minkowski identified with Lorentz in SR. So the deceleration of the energy @ c to mass @ ~0 makes the convergence of the two hyperbolic functions 'go ballistic!', that is to rotate into a parabolic plane on which we find the acceleration of gravity.

I didn't dig into it, but I also found what appears to be such a convergence of hyperbolic function in what is called Cubical Parabolic Hyperbola, at mathworld; http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CubicalParabolicHyperbola.html

Please forgive my intuitive liscence, its been more then a quarter century since I had my old T-I 30 ,rigged with a clip for a 9V plug-in adapter, in any kind of serious use. And that pretty rudimentary. But from as well as I can follow, you make very strong argument that a given frequency can translate a continuous range of energy content per 1/f. That it is the cyclic rate of accumulation that is reacted to by any relative rest mass entity that gets in the way of an electromagnetic wave.

Cordially, jrc

Constantinos Ragazas

Dear JRC,

I am pleased my simple mathematical derivation of Planck's Law agrees also with your (and current Physics) complicated "physical view". I have in the past argued and believe possible Physics can be made more sensible and simple. What is motivating my efforts here. In my very rudimentary and limited capacity, I have tried to show how! And I have obtained some rather interesting and sticking results. But the bulk of the work will need to be done by others more adept and capable in Physics. I am not a physicist! But I have a "message" to deliver!

Why must Physics be simple? Because Physics purports to tell us what is our physical Universe. What current Physics is telling us puts us in conflict and contradiction with our senses. This cannot be good! This warps and twists our minds, our spirit and our values. It defines our understanding of who we are. It corrupts our values and relations to the World and one another. Consider, for example, the explanations given by physicists for the double slit experiment! Photons with consciousness and precognition?! Please ...

The local representation of energy as an exponential seems natural enough to me. This is what we also have for radioactive decay! Further, such exponential local representation of energy is mathematically equivalent to Planck's Law being exact. For any other representation, Planck's Law is a limit.

You make many interesting observations! Many I am not familiar with. But most seem to seek some way of fitting the standard view with this simple view. I believe you are onto something!

Constantinos

« Previous Page Next Page »