The entropy of systems

Thanks Stoat!

I went to the bottom of the article:
"what do maxwell's equations describe?" by Ph.M. Kanarev.

"As Maxwell's equations are postulated and have no analytical conclusion, they should be used carefully. As it is clear, they are differential equations in partial derivatives. It means that automatically they contradict the Space-Matter-Time Unity Axiom. Let us explain the essence of this contradiction.
In reality, electric field intensity and magnetic field intensity are changed synchronously. Besides, time passes synchronously with the changes of intensities of both fields. It means that the change processes of intensities of electric field and magnetic field are time functions. It is stipulated by the fact that intensities of electric field and magnetic field are changed simultaneously; that's why the coordinates of points of space where field intensity is changed should be time functions. In Maxwell's equations (53)-(56) they, r and t , are independent variables."


Page 3 of the paper:

"9. Why are the energies of the photons of the whole scale of the electromagnetic emissions determined by product of Planck constant by emission frequency?
10. What law governs Planck constant consistency?
11. Why does Planck constant, which determines energy of the photon, possess dimensional-ity of moment of momentum and is a vector value?"

Page 4 of the paper:

"34. Why is Compton effect registered only in case when X-rays are used?...
...Maxwell's equations fail to give answers to these questions."


I will have to read this more closely. The "space-matter-time unity" would agree partially to what I have been saying.

I would have been under the impression that if you would add The "space-matter-time unity axiom" to James Maxwell's theory, that one would get it right!

For example: add <i>increasing entropy with time </i>in maxwell's equations!

Stoat,

You will like this one:

www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/photoelectric2.html

I think there is still quite alot of confusion about what light is.

Here is some more on Robert Andrews Milliken: (Taken from Wikipedia)

"When Einstein published his seminal 1905 paper on the particle theory of light, Millikan was convinced that it had to be wrong, because of the vast body of evidence that had already shown that light was a wave. He undertook a decade-long experimental program to test Einstein's theory, which required building what he described as "a machine shop in vacuo" in order to prepare the very clean metal surface of the photo electrode. His results confirmed Einstein's predictions in every detail, but Millikan was not convinced of Einstein's radical interpretation, and as late as 1916 he wrote, "Einstein's photoelectric equation... cannot in my judgment be looked upon at present as resting upon any sort of a satisfactory theoretical foundation," even though "it actually represents very accurately the behavior" of the photoelectric effect."


Why does a body radiate energy? (<i>change of energy state with time?)</i>

Hi GD,
yeah, well that's about the state of play. I remember reading one "explanation" which said a man can be married and be a scientist. Jolly good but that doesn't really answer the question. I don't know anybody that could, hand on heart, say that they were completely happy with the idea of a "probability" wave either. I think we have to think of properties of the vacuum that enable photons to be built where needed. Order a table say, and the crazy company that supplies it, knocks on your door a week later with the table. They made the table, then took it apart, moved it a metre, put it back together then did that all the way to your house. Why worry, it arrived in a reasonable time as per the delivery date. One might think, an odd way to do business, and one might wonder if the cost would be less if they just slung the thing onto a lorry but what the hey!

Hello Stoat,

I read that it is not necessarily Milliken's experiments which toppled the wave theory of light.
It seems the Compton scattering experiment did it.

From wikipedia:

"In physics, Compton scattering or the Compton effect is the decrease in energy (increase in wavelength) of an X-ray or gamma ray photon, when it interacts with matter...
...The effect is important because it demonstrates that light cannot be explained purely as a wave phenomenon. Thomson scattering, <i>the classical theory of an electromagnetic wave scattered by charged particles, cannot explain any shift in wavelength.</i>"

Was this shift in theory, because of the "ultra violet catastrophe"
(because infinities were involved)

--A decrease in energy can very well be explained in non-equilibrium systems.--

Yes, the problem is, that if we increase the frequency we get infinities, because the entropy graph is a hyperbola. So think of space as containing an infinity of frequencies. These superpose to create an energy pulse, or packet. The higher the frequency the more concentrated this packet becomes i.e. particle like. Here I have to admit to being pretty thick, the photon has momentum due to its high velocity but it has zero rest mass. I simply don't understand that. It can't be due to a relativistic increase in mass, as multiplying zero by anything gives zero. As i say, I'm pretty much of a moron when it comes to physics but i suspect there's lots more to be discovered about the nature of light.

On the Compton wavelength, bash two of these photons together and we get a electron positron pair. if we make the radius of an electron equal to the Compton wavelength, we get for its angular momentum vmr, where we take its velocity as the speed of light, we get h.

Hello Stoat,

Quantum theories seem to generate infinities of their own. The tendancy is to remove these infinities simply through observation by what we conceive is the state of the universe <i>today</i>.
The article below tries to address this:



arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9409/9409171v1.pdf

" Quantum electrodynamics cannot itself be expected to fully resolve the infinity problems of that theory...We are thus now compelled to ask what non-electromagnetic phenomena might place a finite limit on the electromagnetic contribution to the electron mass..."

Einstein's / Stern's "zero point energy" removes some of these infinities.
I think the one law which removes all infinities is the <i>law of conservation of energy</i>.

The amount of energy in the universe will always remain the same, but its state will vary with time.
The non-equilibrium state of the universe still holds.