Quantized redshift anomaly

More
18 years 9 months ago #14736 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 Tommy</i>
JMB says that the ZPE is just noise. I don't believe him either.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I do not believe. My point is that, having chosen a mode, <b>the electromagnetic field depends only on a real coefficient</b>. It is elementary mathematics.

In the classical theory, the absorption of an EM field is the addition of an opposite field. It is impossible to absorb EM fields radiated by small sources using small sources : it remains a stochastic field.

Planck showed that the spectrum of the blackbody is explained supposing that the energy in a monochromatic electromagnetic mode is hf/(exp(hf/kT)-1)+K. Thermodynamics says that the energy in a mode must tend to kT for T-&gt; infinity: K=hf/2. It gives an average value of the stochastic field.

I worked 30 years in quantum mechanics (theoretical and spectroscopic) and concluded that its postulates are absurd and happily useless. These postulates are dangerous: with the concept of photon, all specialists of QM consulted by Townes said : it will not work. The same wrong concept prevented the astrophysicists to study the parametric light matter interactions, thus to introduce the CREIL effect.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 9 months ago #14737 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 Michiel</i>
<br />Hmm, I was about to ask Tom his view upon the linearity of the light carrying medium in general.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Maxwell's equations are linear in the vacuum. They remain linear with polarisabilities and permittivities which do not depend on the fields.

But Maxwell's equations do not apply (even in the vacuum) at very high energies: gamma rays may produce electron pairs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 9 months ago #14742 by Michiel
Replied by Michiel on topic Reply from Michiel
JMB:
"But Maxwell's equations do not apply (even in the vacuum) at very high energies: gamma rays may produce electron pairs."

Thank you JMB.
If 'two-photon pair productions' really exist in the absence of matter this would indeed count as a nonlinearity.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 9 months ago #16947 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 Michiel</i>
<br />JMB:
"But Maxwell's equations do not apply (even in the vacuum) at very high energies: gamma rays may produce electron pairs."

Thank you JMB.
If 'two-photon pair productions' really exist in the absence of matter this would indeed count as a nonlinearity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It is what I mean writing that Maxwell's equations do not apply with gamma rays.
But, at lower frequencies, in the vacuum, no linearity is detectable.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 9 months ago #17060 by Michiel
Replied by Michiel on topic Reply from Michiel
Yes, it's out there on the very high energy end of the spectrum. And it's a rather drastic form of distortion too.
Not exactly a suspect to cause (quantized) redshift. Even when you consider multi-photon pair production.

___

Where do photons go when it's dark?
...Have a look in the fridge!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 9 months ago #16949 by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Where do photons go when it's dark?
...Have a look in the fridge!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

A friend of mine called me with his latest brilliant insightfulness. He asked me a question, it was the question that he found profound, the question he asked was "What is the speed of dark?" his reasoning was "Your theory always has opposites, so what is the opposite of the speed of light?"

I don't think anyone ever thought of the question "What is the speed of Dark?

As far as the question asked by Michiel, where do the photons go when it is dark? Well, think about this, when we look up into the night sky, especially when there is no moon, we can see distant stars against a pitch black dark sky. right? "Yet there are billions and billions" and more than that, photons streaming away from the Sun right past us and into the pitch black night sky.

We can't see them. "Light" itself is invisible to us. We don't see the light until it shines on something.

This may be useful.Maybe the INSIDE of the Universe, the Aether, or hyperdimension or elysium so to speak, is like that. It is "invisible" to us until it interacts with something, and then it is that something that we see.

And thus all the attempts to identify this INSIDENESS by attributing this or that characteristic fails to preserve the generallity of Pure Energy. This is the philosophy of it.

The science cannot settle for general principles, and yet cannot turn the general into something specific and still retain generality. I think that the existence of Pure Energy can only be found at the interface. I don't know what that means operationally. Perhaps all we need to know is only that there is an interface going on.

So it is clear to me that light is interfacing, as does electromagnetics. And what it is interfacing with is invisible to us.

JMB writes:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Maxwell's equations are linear in the vacuum. They remain linear with polarisabilities and permittivities which do not depend on the fields.

But Maxwell's equations do not apply (even in the vacuum) at very high energies: gamma rays may produce electron pairs.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This sounds suspiciously like Planck's blackbody problem outside the box. Are you saying that Maxwell's simplified by Heaviside equations do not apply in all instances?

And will you confirm that gamma rays can produce electrons (matter)?

And then can you show me where in Maxwell's equations does the gamma ray become an electron pair?

I've been pondering these questions about the photon and ran across the Enterprisemission site by Hoagland. (It was Hoagland who asked Tom that question about exploding planets, not Bearden)He has onsite the entire history of Maxwell's missing scalar quaternion equations, and he even has Whittiger's papers on the quaternions. They call their approach the hyperdimensional.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The cornerstone of the hyperdimensional model (as applied to the problem of "unexplained" astrophysical energy sources) is that historically, there is a perfectly natural explanation for such "anomalous energy" appearing in celestial bodies ... which, unfortunately, hasn't been seriously considered by Science for over 100 years:

The existence of unseen hyperspatial realities ... that, through information transfer between dimensions, are the literal "foundation substrate" maintaining the reality of everything in this dimension.

The mathematical and physical parameters required for such "information/energy gating" into this spatial dimension from potential "n-dimensions" were primarily founded in the pioneering work of several 19th Century founders of modern mathematics and physics: among these, German mathematician Georg Riemann; Scottish physicist Sir William Thompson (who would eventually be Knighted by the British Crown as "Baron Kelvin of Largs" for his scientific and technological contributions); Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell; and British mathematician Sir William Rowan Hamilton.

In 1867 Thompson, following decades of inquiry into the fundamental properties of both matter and the space between, proposed a radical new explanation for the most fundamental properties of solid objects -- the existence of "the vortex atom." This was in direct contradiction to then prevailing 19th Century theories of matter, in which atoms were still viewed as infinitesimal "small, hard bodies [as] imagined by [the Roman poet] Lucretius, and endorsed by Newton ..." Thompson's "vortex atoms" were envisioned, instead, as tiny, self-sustaining "whirlpools" in the so-called "aether" -- which Thompson and his 19th Century contemporaries increasingly believed extended throughout the Universe as an all-pervasive, incompressible fluid.


Even as Thompson published his revolutionary model for the atom, Maxwell, building on Thompson's earlier explorations of the underlying properties of this "aetheric fluid," was well on the way to devising a highly successful "mechanical" vortex model of the "incompressible aether" itself, in which Thompson's vortex atom could live -- a model derived in part from the laboratory-observed elastic and dynamical properties of solids. Ultimately, in 1873, he would succeed in uniting a couple hundred years of electrical and magnetic scientific observations into a comprehensive, overarching electromagnetic theory of light vibrations ... carried across space by this "incompressible and highly stressed universal aetheric fluid ..."

Maxwell's mathematical basis for his triumphant unification of these two great mystery forces of 19th Century physics were "quaternions" -- a term invented (adopted would be a more precise description) in the 1840s by mathematician Sir William Rowan Hamilton, for "an ordered pair of complex numbers" (quaternion = four). Complex numbers themselves, according to Hamilton's clarifications of long-mysterious terms such as "imaginary" and "real" numbers utilized in earlier definitions, were nothing more than "pairs of real numbers which are added or multiplied according to certain formal rules." In 1897, A.S. Hathaway formally extended Hamilton's ideas regarding quaternions as "sets of four real numbers" to the idea of four spatial dimensions, in a paper entitled "Quaternions as numbers of four-dimensional space," published in the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society [4 (1887), 54-7].

It is obvious from Maxwell's own writings that, even before Hathaway's formalization, his choice of quaternions as mathematical operators for his electromagnetic theory was based on his belief that three-dimensional physical phenomena (including even perhaps the basis of human consciousness itself) are dependent upon higher dimensional realities.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Here's the problem, the Maxwell equations that Maxwell developed are not the Maxwell equations that JMB is talking about.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.319 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum