- Thank you received: 0
cosmological red shift
16 years 6 months ago #20918
by JMB
Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly was created by JMB
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pshrodr</i>
<br />
What do we know about frequency shift? Blue light travels in shorter wavelengths than the average wavelength of visible light. Red light has longer wavelengths. Wavelength can be thought of as separation between photons within a stream. Wavelength relative to motion gives the frequency of arrival. Red light photons arrive less frequently than average. Red shift theories often focus on the concept of energy. Less frequent arrival of photons means less energy. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This work is a good illustration of the absurdities brought by the concept of photon: the author tries to solve absurdities of this concept introducing a new type of photon which has not an intrinsic frequency.
The standard theory of the photon is absurd because a photon cannot be monochromatic ( monochromatic means during the infinite time of a sinus of time), and else is it a type of photon bound to each spectrum?
The author suggests implicitely that at any frequency, a period brings a constant energy (proportional to h). Unhappily, with this hypothesis, the energy absorbed by an electron would be proportional to the intensity and to the frequency. No fundamental explanation of Planck's hypothesis E=hf., up to now.
<br />
What do we know about frequency shift? Blue light travels in shorter wavelengths than the average wavelength of visible light. Red light has longer wavelengths. Wavelength can be thought of as separation between photons within a stream. Wavelength relative to motion gives the frequency of arrival. Red light photons arrive less frequently than average. Red shift theories often focus on the concept of energy. Less frequent arrival of photons means less energy. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This work is a good illustration of the absurdities brought by the concept of photon: the author tries to solve absurdities of this concept introducing a new type of photon which has not an intrinsic frequency.
The standard theory of the photon is absurd because a photon cannot be monochromatic ( monochromatic means during the infinite time of a sinus of time), and else is it a type of photon bound to each spectrum?
The author suggests implicitely that at any frequency, a period brings a constant energy (proportional to h). Unhappily, with this hypothesis, the energy absorbed by an electron would be proportional to the intensity and to the frequency. No fundamental explanation of Planck's hypothesis E=hf., up to now.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 6 months ago #20181
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Maybe a review of a few facts would be useful here. We have two ways to look at the photon: 1)E=E & 2)mc^2=hf. The first shows all photons have equal energy(E=E). The second shows how photons gain force as the frequency increases(mc^2=hf). Try it and see what you think about how Planck's Constant has been and is being used.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 6 months ago #19999
by pshrodr
Replied by pshrodr on topic Reply from paul schroeder
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by JMB</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pshrodr</i>
<br />
What do we know about frequency shift? Blue light travels in shorter wavelengths than the average wavelength of visible light. Red light has longer wavelengths. Wavelength can be thought of as separation between photons within a stream. Wavelength relative to motion gives the frequency of arrival. Red light photons arrive less frequently than average. Red shift theories often focus on the concept of energy. Less frequent arrival of photons means less energy. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This work is a good illustration of the absurdities brought by the concept of photon: the author tries to solve absurdities of this concept introducing a new type of photon which has not an intrinsic frequency.
The standard theory of the photon is absurd because a photon cannot be monochromatic ( monochromatic means during the infinite time of a sinus of time), and else is it a type of photon bound to each spectrum?
The author suggests implicitely that at any frequency, a period brings a constant energy (proportional to h). Unhappily, with this hypothesis, the energy absorbed by an electron would be proportional to the intensity and to the frequency. No fundamental explanation of Planck's hypothesis E=hf., up to now.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I view the photon as a term of convenience. A continuous straight line transmission of radiation would not arrive with any impact we call energy. It is the varying amplitude which we label as transverse waves that provides impact. The repeating amplitude of the waves is motion perpendicular to the direction the beam travels and it therefore can impact mass upon arrival. A side issue is that I see the beam as traveling in a cylinder creating 360 degrees of amplitude perpendicular to its transmission.
We can label some point on the repeating wave to represent the photon and apply commonly to all forms of radiation. It is the number of waves arriving over time that give the frequency in E=hF. An electron may remove one specific wave thus changing the overall frequency but not the underlying concept of the photon. In any case, it is the existence of wavelength separating waves which gives us something to vary and produce redshift. It is the wavelength that can be modified by gravitational effects. The absorbed energy is thus not proportional to the intensity nor the frequency.
paul schroeder
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pshrodr</i>
<br />
What do we know about frequency shift? Blue light travels in shorter wavelengths than the average wavelength of visible light. Red light has longer wavelengths. Wavelength can be thought of as separation between photons within a stream. Wavelength relative to motion gives the frequency of arrival. Red light photons arrive less frequently than average. Red shift theories often focus on the concept of energy. Less frequent arrival of photons means less energy. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This work is a good illustration of the absurdities brought by the concept of photon: the author tries to solve absurdities of this concept introducing a new type of photon which has not an intrinsic frequency.
The standard theory of the photon is absurd because a photon cannot be monochromatic ( monochromatic means during the infinite time of a sinus of time), and else is it a type of photon bound to each spectrum?
The author suggests implicitely that at any frequency, a period brings a constant energy (proportional to h). Unhappily, with this hypothesis, the energy absorbed by an electron would be proportional to the intensity and to the frequency. No fundamental explanation of Planck's hypothesis E=hf., up to now.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I view the photon as a term of convenience. A continuous straight line transmission of radiation would not arrive with any impact we call energy. It is the varying amplitude which we label as transverse waves that provides impact. The repeating amplitude of the waves is motion perpendicular to the direction the beam travels and it therefore can impact mass upon arrival. A side issue is that I see the beam as traveling in a cylinder creating 360 degrees of amplitude perpendicular to its transmission.
We can label some point on the repeating wave to represent the photon and apply commonly to all forms of radiation. It is the number of waves arriving over time that give the frequency in E=hF. An electron may remove one specific wave thus changing the overall frequency but not the underlying concept of the photon. In any case, it is the existence of wavelength separating waves which gives us something to vary and produce redshift. It is the wavelength that can be modified by gravitational effects. The absorbed energy is thus not proportional to the intensity nor the frequency.
paul schroeder
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 6 months ago #19998
by pshrodr
Replied by pshrodr on topic Reply from paul schroeder
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Maybe a review of a few facts would be useful here. We have two ways to look at the photon: 1)E=E & 2)mc^2=hf. The first shows all photons have equal energy(E=E). The second shows how photons gain force as the frequency increases(mc^2=hf). Try it and see what you think about how Planck's Constant has been and is being used.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Does my reply to JMB convey my idea of the proper way to look at the photon?
Paul
paul schroeder
<br />Maybe a review of a few facts would be useful here. We have two ways to look at the photon: 1)E=E & 2)mc^2=hf. The first shows all photons have equal energy(E=E). The second shows how photons gain force as the frequency increases(mc^2=hf). Try it and see what you think about how Planck's Constant has been and is being used.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Does my reply to JMB convey my idea of the proper way to look at the photon?
Paul
paul schroeder
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 6 months ago #20000
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Pushrod, It seems nature has rules for how energy is transfered and these rules can be observed in lots of events. How any of the events proceed is not yet known for sure so it seems to me any explaination as to what a photon looks like makes no sense. In all chemical reactions a unit of energy is exchanged equal to the charge unit so I think it might be that unit of energy is a photon what ever the frequency of the photon. How the photon interacts with the proton is lost at this time due to modeling errors obscuring real events. So, as you can see I have issues with models.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 5 months ago #20751
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pshrodr</i>
<br />Does my reply to JMB convey my idea of the proper way to look at the photon?
Paul
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No. The big discovery of Planck is that the energy absorbed by an electron depends on the frequency: E=hf. This does not mean that the EM field is quantized.
Quantum electrodynamics sets that the energy of a "normal mode" of the electromagnetic field is equal to the energy of an harmonic quantum oscillator, but nobody knows what a "normal mode" is for an electromagnetic field.
The physicists who have a problem using a meaningless "normal mode" refer to acoustics: the instruments have favoured modes which sound well, but this is true because acoustics is linear only in a first approximation, nonlinearity is needed to define the "normal modes".
Electromagnetism, up to X frequencies (included) obeys Maxwell's equations in the vacuum, extended to equations in matter through Schwarzshild-Fokker trick (replacement of the sources by their advanced field). Therefore, normal modes cannot be defined, the photon cannot exist.
QED has a less fundamental problem: when a laser starts, using quantum electrodynamics, the zero point field is two times more powerful to induce the emissions than the plane waves field which follows. This is corrected by an "ad hoc" field (radiation reaction).This problem does not appear in the classical theory because the atoms are excited by a field they are able to absorb, that is "spherical" (multipolar) fields. The laser starts by induction of its field by a zero point spherical field, then works using the spherical component of a plane wave, losing half of the energy by diffraction.
Lot of demonstrations of the superiority of QED are done using the wrong Planck-Nernst law: 1900 Planck's law appeared quickly false to him, he tried to correct it around 1903 adding hf in the monochromatic modes. In 1916, Planck presented to the academy of Berlin a Paper of Nernst giving the true Planck-Nernst law: in a mode, the energy is hf(1/(exp(hf/kT)-1)+1/2)
The 1/2 cannot be omitted because the energy is a quadratic function of the field: Usually, the used field is not the total field E but E-Z where Z is the zero point field (not well known, only its mean energy is known). A photoelectric cell absorbs EE -ZZ which is not (E-Z)E-Z).
Z is an ordinary field because the field in a mode depends on a single real number, by definition of the modes.
<br />Does my reply to JMB convey my idea of the proper way to look at the photon?
Paul
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No. The big discovery of Planck is that the energy absorbed by an electron depends on the frequency: E=hf. This does not mean that the EM field is quantized.
Quantum electrodynamics sets that the energy of a "normal mode" of the electromagnetic field is equal to the energy of an harmonic quantum oscillator, but nobody knows what a "normal mode" is for an electromagnetic field.
The physicists who have a problem using a meaningless "normal mode" refer to acoustics: the instruments have favoured modes which sound well, but this is true because acoustics is linear only in a first approximation, nonlinearity is needed to define the "normal modes".
Electromagnetism, up to X frequencies (included) obeys Maxwell's equations in the vacuum, extended to equations in matter through Schwarzshild-Fokker trick (replacement of the sources by their advanced field). Therefore, normal modes cannot be defined, the photon cannot exist.
QED has a less fundamental problem: when a laser starts, using quantum electrodynamics, the zero point field is two times more powerful to induce the emissions than the plane waves field which follows. This is corrected by an "ad hoc" field (radiation reaction).This problem does not appear in the classical theory because the atoms are excited by a field they are able to absorb, that is "spherical" (multipolar) fields. The laser starts by induction of its field by a zero point spherical field, then works using the spherical component of a plane wave, losing half of the energy by diffraction.
Lot of demonstrations of the superiority of QED are done using the wrong Planck-Nernst law: 1900 Planck's law appeared quickly false to him, he tried to correct it around 1903 adding hf in the monochromatic modes. In 1916, Planck presented to the academy of Berlin a Paper of Nernst giving the true Planck-Nernst law: in a mode, the energy is hf(1/(exp(hf/kT)-1)+1/2)
The 1/2 cannot be omitted because the energy is a quadratic function of the field: Usually, the used field is not the total field E but E-Z where Z is the zero point field (not well known, only its mean energy is known). A photoelectric cell absorbs EE -ZZ which is not (E-Z)E-Z).
Z is an ordinary field because the field in a mode depends on a single real number, by definition of the modes.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.258 seconds