Quantized redshift anomaly

<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 />QM and Planck's law are moot on the detail of temperature and it would be a good thing to remember temperature is a quality of matter and not quality of energy.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
For EM waves, there are two parameters: the mode and the amplitude in the mode. For a monochromatic mode, Planck's law relates the mode (its frequency) and the amplitude, to define the temperature of a body which cannot exchange energy with the mode. In thermodynamics, by definition, two things which cannot exchange energy have the same temperature.

From the point of view of thermodynamics, (the geometrical characteristics of the mode being not interesting), the density of energy corresponds to energy (Joules), the temperature to...temperature.

The led is exchanging energy from a electric source to visible light and no temperature change is involved-no heat is involved and it the process has nothing to do with thermodynamics. The same is true for a plant using photons from the sun to transform water and carbon dioxide into sugar. These are energy exchanges that are not a part of the thermodynamic view.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy

I believe that all matter is actually a field, and a field is something that forms from a relationship.

[JMB]
The relationships are the ways we are able to understand more easily physics by the use of mathematics. For me, a particle is a soliton, a nonlinear field. As Maxwel's equations are linear, the photon does not exist.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<hr noshade size="1">

[Tommy] Relationships are ubigitious in mathematics and human relations, but virtually unknown to science as a whole. Relationships operate in the real actual world too.

I have no idea what a photon is/was, so I have no qualms about letting it go. Lots of other people might not agree. To me a nonlinear field is a system. A system has constituents which are in a relationship such that they are formed as a whole. This whole would have properties of its own. So what does this mean here and now? It means, it seems, that light is made of something that is not like light at all.

I think a photon, or bit of light, is a ball of light. A ball of light is what is being used to describe plasma balls. THe key word here is plasma, or ionized atoms. Plasma is a state of matter which differs from the norm in that both electrons and protons flow together as a plasma current without a conducor as in ordinary electron current flows. A plasma ball has been observed countless times appearing as a faint ball of light. Usually they are basketball sized and bigger. At the very small size, "plasmoids" have been observed creating over unity energies. I think light is a smaller scaled version of the basketball sized ball of light which is usually described as inexplicable.

If we can't explain a ball of plasma, how can a photon be explained?

Here's a well constructed web site which favors the Aether viewpoint, I wonder how right he is...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

www.glafreniere.com/sa_aether.htm

THE AETHER

" The material Universe is purely made out of Aether "

Gabriel LaFreniere,

Bois-des-Filion in Québec


René Descartes (1596-1650).

"Dubium sapientiae initium".

(Doubt is the origin of wisdom).



Aether, from the Greek mythology, and according to Hesiod, Aiqhr, which is pronounced "ai-t-hair", was the son of Erebos (darker place in Underworld) and Nyx (the Night). He was the personification of the clear upper air breathed by the Olympus Gods and Goddesses.

This site does not explain how aether works. Any medium capable of transmitting longitudinal waves could do the job. In order to maintain things simple, one should postulate that aether is perfectly homogeneous, and that it can preserve energy without any loss. Then it would transmit sinusoidal waves which speed is constant. This is c, the speed of light, but it also is the speed of all forces transmitted by aether waves.

The aether, as a lossless medium, should also allow the existence of electrons as spherical standing waves systems, which can vibrate eternally. Such systems constantly radiate spherical waves and need replenishment. This is why aether must also have been filled with energetic waves since its beginning in order to perform the electrons' amplification.

René Descartes.

This great scientist postulated that the light as waves should be carried by a medium, the aether. This web site shows that aether exists and that the light is made of waves.

So Descartes was right. His pupil Christiaan Huygens described aether as "subtle air spheres in contact" in order to explain the way such waves could be transmitted.

You are not entitled to think that aether does not exist.

You must admit that you are unable to fully explain any physical phenomena..

You cannot explain the true nature of particles such as electrons, protons or neutrons. You cannot explain the so-called photon. You cannot explain how magnetic an electrostatic fields really work. Up to now, Descartes' explanation about the light remains the only one which is acceptable. The light behaves as waves, and those waves need an aether. The light does not behave as particles as far as its quantum properties are allotted to electrons.

You cannot explain how gravity works, either. So, unless you furnish an acceptable explanation, you must admit that you are dealing with the unknown, and that forces such as gravity or light could work using waves. If you think that gravity "is bending space", then you must explain how and why gravity is capable of such a wonder.

Actually you cannot, because Einstein's explanation is simply absurd.

It is an insult to our intelligence.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Waves?
means
Something that is waving?
or
What is a wave waving?
Electromagnetic waves move
Matter waves do not move
Standing waves do not move
Matter waving is not EM waving
EMF is not made of EMF

What is a matter wave made of?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />
If we can't explain a ball of plasma, how can a photon be explained?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It is extremely difficult to study the nonlinear fields. Recently, they were studied enough to explain the properties of the light filaments (if a laser beam propagates in a medium whose index of refraction increases with the electric field for instance by Kerr effect or if the medium is photorefractif), as the field is larger at the centre of the beam, the index of refraction is larger, so that the beam concentrates until it gets the shape of a filament). A light filament has a core in which the field is very nonlinear, and a surrounding evanescent wave. Through their evanescent wave, two beams interact, may be bent. This is observed and computed.

Supposing that a medium has permeability and permittivity increasing with the field, the linear shape of the filament becomes unstable, so that the filament becomes a torus: it is a three dimensional soliton which is stable if there is no loss of energy and no interaction (therefore, it is theory). This torus has a well defined centre, a well defined energy: it is a particle. If this particle crosses one of two Young holes, its evanescent field crosses both producing interferences whose maxima attract the torus.

This shows an example of solution of non-linearised Maxwell's equations, this solution depends on parameters, and there are very probably other types of solutions. It is possible that the plasma balls are such solutions.

In the vacuum, Maxwell equations do not work at high energy, because it may appear electron pairs. Therefore it is not absurd that some particles result from a building of solitons of EM vaves...

At usual frequencies, Maxwell's equations are linear and homogenous, so that it cannot be solitons, it cannot be particles, the photon does not exist.

More: A photon is defined from a "mode" of the EM field. But there are infinite ways to define the modes (in physics, they are not monochromatic), so that there are an infinity of types of photons. Completely absurd.

I think that nonlinearity can be found in the original Maxwell equations. If so, then it is the mathematics which is telling us that there is something else going on in the Universe, something else than the physical. The physical is not all of it.

What this means for cosmology is simply that there is a indicated source for energy in places we can't yet see. If this is so, then matter didn't have to be created all at once at some beginning, it is being created right now, the Universe in front of our faces right now is an active creation event that is an ongoing sustaination of fields.

And THAT means the center of galaxies are pushing matter/energy OUTWARD. This contradicts the standard theory that matter is flowing INWARD.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">PHYSICAL SPACE AS A QUATERNION STRUCTURE - I:
MAXWELL-EQUATIONS: A Brief Note.
by Peter Michael Jack




ABSTRACT: We show how to write Maxwell's Equations in Hamilton's Quaternions. The fact that the quaternion product is non-commuting leads to distinct left and right derivatives which must both be included in the theory. Then, a new field component is discovered, which reduces part of the degree of freedom found in the guage, but which can then be used to explain thermoelectricity, suggesting that the theory of heat has just as fundamental a connection to electromagnetism as the magnetic field has to the electric field, for the new theory now links thermal, electric, and magnetic phenomena alltogether in one set of elementary equations. This result is based on an initial hypothesis, named "The Quaternion Axiom," that postulates physical space is a quaternion structure.

JUMP TO
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">CONCLUSION. The non-commuting algebra of the quaternions introduces a sgnificant change in the meaning of the derivative of a function from the usual familiar ideas found in the more common commuting algebra. One can no longer ignore the fact that the left and right derivatives are distinct, one cannot justify arbitrarily employing one and dismissing the other in the formulation of theory, and one cannot ignore the consideration of the corresponding alternative forms of symmetric and antisymmetric derivatives.



When James Clerk Maxwell(4) wrote the second edition of his Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism he included a quaternion representation of his electromagnetic equations, but he did not include both left-hand and right-hand derivatives, and so his work is fundamentally different from that presented here. Indeed, the calculus of quaternions was constructed by adopting the ideas from the already familiar calculus derived from commuting algebra, and thus the differential operator always appears on the left acting towards the variable on the right. And even though, Charles Jasper Joly(5) notes the distinction in his book A Manual of Quaternions, the importance of the idea goes unnoticed, unexplored, and unused. As a consequence of this, an important field component went missing in Maxwell's Equations, and all of modern physics has developed from there perpetuating one of the consequences of this oversight, namely, that the electromagnetic field posesses six components, whereas, as we have shown, there should be seven.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">