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

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

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

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?

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,

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,

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,

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

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