Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why Planck's Formula For Black Body Radiation Is Used To Measure The Cbr?


  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

#52 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2906 posts

Posted 11 May 2019 - 09:48 AM

IF Planck's formula for perfect black body cavity fits perfectly COBE's measurements of CBR spectra, which are the emitters and the absorbers of radiant energy, in order to correctly assimilate CBR to Planck's enviroment?

The charged particles that form the plasma.

 

The radiation became "frozen" at the time of the so-called "surface of last scattering", estimated in the model to have occurred about 380,000yrs after the big bang itself. It became frozen because that was the time at which the adiabatic cooling due to expansion first allowed neutral atoms to form.

 

Once the matter was in the form of neutral atoms, the emission and absorption would obviously have taken the form of line spectra, rather than a continuum, so it would no longer have followed the black body continuum curve. At all wavelengths other than those at which line emission or absorption took place, the universe would have been, for the first time, transparent to radiation. Hence the radiation simply travelled round and round the universe from that point onward, being gradually shifter to longer wavelength as the universe expanded. 


Edited by exchemist, 11 May 2019 - 09:51 AM.


#53 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2906 posts

Posted 11 May 2019 - 09:49 AM

It's not a mathematical function at all!

 

It's a final expression of 41 years of research for the Kirchoff's theorem for thermodynamics, which occupied

the most privileged minds in that period, and that merge results from electromagnetism, statistical mechanics,

theory of radiant heat and the second law of thermodynamics. Planck himself invested six years developing it!

 

 

You can read the entire historical development of the black body radiation formulae at this link:

 

https://physictheories.blogspot.com/

 

Another thing is that you didn't identify which elements work as emitters and which ones work as absorpters of EM radiation.

Don't forget that only primordial radiation has to apply, as this is the proof that CBR is the remain of energy that wasn't transformed

into matter, after the initial blast.

None of that stops it being a mathematical function: a function that happens to be followed very exactly by the CMBR spectrum.



#54 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1240 posts

Posted 11 May 2019 - 10:55 AM

No, exchemist.

 

The primordial plasma soup is gone long time ago, with its charged particles that formed primordial atoms.

 

The CBR is (according to current interpretations, with which I disagree) the remnant of radiation that couldn't be transformed

into matter when the temperature of the Universe descended from millions °K up to 3,000 °K.

 

By the, at 3,000 °K and a much smaller Universe, the remnants had a peak wavelength of about 1 micrometer, which is the

region of FAR INFRARED, just below the visible light.

 

When the Universe cooled off and expanded, the 3,000 °K CBR elongated its wavelength up to 1 mm peak, which correspond

to the current 3° K radiation.

 

And this radiation is present everywhere (according to current understanding), with an energy density of radiant modes equal to:

 

         N = 8.Pi.f2.c-3 , in units of number of resonance modes per unit volume per unit frequency.

 

having each mode the average energy:

 

        Eavg = hf/(ehf/(kT) - 1)  , in units erg-seconds

 

and this is the final work of Planck: The spectral distribution of energy in a black body cavity under thermal equilibrium is:

 

       u = N . Eavg = 8.Pi.h.f3.c-3 (ehf/(kT) - 1)-1

 

http://hyperphysics....ase/hframe.html

 

So, CBR photons are everywhere at the current Universe, with a calculable amount of photons per cubic meter per Hertz.

 

 

 
Space is a perfect absorber of radiation fact, which matches a black body mathematical function. 
 
Photons are emitted from ions as they recombine with electrons. Photons are emitted when elementary particles form with unstable properties for example a Muon decays to a electron and a photon. In the theoretical Big Bang what random properties might particles have. These also would decay like Muons to become stable particles giving of excess radiation. 


#55 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2906 posts

Posted 11 May 2019 - 11:30 AM

No, exchemist.

 

The primordial plasma soup is gone long time ago, with its charged particles that formed primordial atoms.

 

The CBR is (according to current interpretations, with which I disagree) the remnant of radiation that couldn't be transformed

into matter when the temperature of the Universe descended from millions °K up to 3,000 °K.

 

By the, at 3,000 °K and a much smaller Universe, the remnants had a peak wavelength of about 1 micrometer, which is the

region of FAR INFRARED, just below the visible light.

 

When the Universe cooled off and expanded, the 3,000 °K CBR elongated its wavelength up to 1 mm peak, which correspond

to the current 3° K radiation.

 

And this radiation is present everywhere (according to current understanding), with an energy density of radiant modes equal to:

 

         N = 8.Pi.f2.c-3 , in units of number of resonance modes per unit volume per unit frequency.

 

having each mode the average energy:

 

        Eavg = hf/(ehf/(kT) - 1)  , in units erg-seconds

 

and this is the final work of Planck: The spectral distribution of energy in a black body cavity under thermal equilibrium is:

 

       u = N . Eavg = 8.Pi.h.f3.c-3 (ehf/(kT) - 1)-1

 

http://hyperphysics....ase/hframe.html

 

So, CBR photons are everywhere at the current Universe, with a calculable amount of photons per cubic meter per Hertz.

I quote, from https://en.wikipedia...e_background :-

 

"CMB is landmark evidence of the Big Bang origin of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral hydrogen atoms. Unlike the uncombined protons and electrons, these newly conceived atoms could not absorb the thermal radiation, and so the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog.[3]"

 

So my explanation is correct, unless you are challenging the Wiki article, in which case I can easily find another saying the same thing.

 

And if you do not consider that 380,000years after the big bang i.e. about 14bn years ago, is a long time ago, I don't what would be. 

 

I don't understand why you are trying to work all this "radiant modes" stuff into the discussion when the black body that emitted the radiation ceased to exist 14bn years ago.  


Edited by exchemist, 11 May 2019 - 11:33 AM.


#56 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2906 posts

Posted 11 May 2019 - 03:13 PM

Color by color:

 

1) The "radiant modes" stuff has to be with the DENSITY of BB energy per unit volume that permeates the ENTIRE SPACE.

    I just wrote the Planc's formula with his two constituents:

 

      1.1) The density per unit volume (N/m3) of radiating modes that exist within an arbitrarily sized black body cavity.

      1.2) The individual energy per mode, Eavg, which had two acceptions:

 

             1.2.1)   Eavg = kT (which correspond to the June 1900's Rayleigh solution).

             1.2.2)   Eavg = hf/(ehf/(kT) - 1) , which correspond to the December 1900's Planck solution.

 

2) In a perfect black body cavity, the energy stay in there FOREVER. It's emitted, then absorpted, then emitted again, and so on.

    This occurs IF the black body cavity is in thermal equilibrium.

 

    Theorists say (and also said that they proved it with COBE) that the Universe behaves as a perfect black body cavity.

    NOT ME, AS I DISAGREE WITH THIS!

 

    They also affirm that the Universe WAS BEHAVING as a BBC when it cool off, reaching 3,000 °K.

 

    So, scientists state that the Universe was behaving as a perfect BBC 13.5 billion years ago AND that is behaving as a perfect BBC

    RIGHT NOW, while the Universe average 2.75 °K.

 

    Then, blame them and not me for these interpretations.

   

 

3) I don't challenge that Wiki excerpt. I just remark to you that such excerpt doesn't explain how the remnant of

    the Big Bang appeared, once the Universe cooled off.

 

    Maybe you forgot to copy and paste another part of the Wiki's article.

You are still missing the point. The universe has not been a black body since 14bn years ago. It ceased to be one when the plasma condensed into neutral atoms. So there is no calculation of radiant modes to be done. It's irrelevant. There are no radiant modes, of anything, radiating or absorbing. 

 

And yes the explanation does explain why the remnant is there. Once the universe became transparent to radiation, it stopped absorbing it. That is what transparent means. So the radiation just persists, everywhere, as a......cosmic background.  


Edited by exchemist, 11 May 2019 - 03:14 PM.


#57 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1240 posts

Posted 12 May 2019 - 03:36 AM

Flummoxed, you are not correct with the statement that I remarked in red.

 

What I stated is correct , space does not reflect radio waves, it is transparent. What goes on inside a Hertzian cavity which has resonance does not affect this statement. A blackhole can be regarded as a black body, it absorbs light, and is not transparent, it may also give off black body radiation according to Hawking.

 

When a hot plasma consisting of ions with one proton, and maybe a neutron depending on isotope, combines with electrons, giving off radiation. That early plasma would have been mainly ionized hydrogen. Those protons would have formed from quarks, the quarks would have formed from likely virtual particles during the inflationary stage of the universe. It is possible that the quarks might have given off radiation as they became stable particles.   

 

That early plasma was not transparent to light, like space is today. 

 

I must say you do have an interesting thread going here, I am quite enjoying reading it.


Edited by Flummoxed, 12 May 2019 - 03:37 AM.


#58 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2906 posts

Posted 12 May 2019 - 05:59 AM

exchemist, you have to read this short article from NASA, of which I'll extract an excerpt.

 

There, you'll find ground for your position and I find ground for my position (and maybe we just have

a communication problem, and that's the basis of our differences).

 

https://map.gsfc.nas..._tests_cmb.html

 

I extracted from the article this picture, as I found it very didactical, among the complexities we are dealing here.

 

990053sb.jpg

 

 

What I found as extraordinary is that this article is the first one from NASA (or ESA) that has the courage

to risk numbers about the size of the universe when CBR started to permeate it, from a site different from

academic places, where I found more daring and precise numbers.

 

 

Excerpt from the link provided above: Tests of Big Bang: The CMB ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Origin of the Cosmic Microwave Background

 

One of the profound observations of the 20th century is that the universe is expanding. This expansion implies the universe was smaller,

denser and hotter in the distant past. When the visible universe was half its present size, the density of matter was eight times higher

and the cosmic microwave background was twice as hot. When the visible universe was one hundredth of its present size, the cosmic

microwave background was a hundred times hotter (273 degrees above absolute zero or 32 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature at

which water freezes to form ice on the Earth's surface). In addition to this cosmic microwave background radiation, the early universe

was filled with hot hydrogen gas with a density of about 1000 atoms per cubic centimeter. When the visible universe was only one

hundred millionth its present size, its temperature was 273 million degrees above absolute zero and the density of matter was

comparable to the density of air at the Earth's surface. At these high temperatures, the hydrogen was completely ionized into free

protons and electrons.

 

End of excerpt --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As far as I researched about theories for black bodies being used currently in astrophysics (as sacred dogmas), I found that

the three main theories (converted in laws, actually) were originated between Kirchoff's theorem (1859) and Planck's theory (1900).

 

During those 41 years, three theories (two of them with a Nobel Prize awarded to their authors) are:

 

1) Stefan's Law (or Stefan-Boltzmann Law): It is applied since 1877 to perfect black body surfaces (watts per square meter units).

2) Wien's Displacement Law: It is applied since 1893 to perfect black body cavities (peak micrometers . °Kelvin units).

3) Planck's Black Body Cavity Radiation Law: It is applied since 1901 to perfect black body cavities (Joules per cubic meter per Hertz units).

 

1. Part of this post using the Wien's Displacement Law:

 

   Using NASA's article data:

 

   Peak wavelength of CBR (380,000 years after the BB)     = 2,900/3,000 micrometers = 0.9667 micrometers.

   Peak wavelength of CBR (13.7 billion years after the BB) = 2,900/2.75 micrometers = 1.05 millimeters.

 

   So, peak wavelength of the CBR has increased almost 1,000 times since it appeared. Explanations that are

   given, relate this displacement to the expansion of the universe.

 

 

 

2. Part of this post using the Stefan-Boltzmann's Law:

  

 j = T4

   where is 5.67x10-8 Watt.m-2.K-4

 

   At this link:  https://physictheories.blogspot.com/    , there is a complete explanation of the three theories.

 

   As j is power per unit area, it allows to calculate (astrophysics and industrial applications) the total power emitted by a perfect BB surface.

 

   So, j = P/A and, in the case of the inner surface of an spherical shell, j = P/(4.PI.r2),  where r is the radius of the spherical shell.

 

   It can be derived that

 

                                                   P = (4.PI.r2),.T4

 

  and a quotient between two different values is (dividing side by side)

 

                                                   PM/PN = (rM/rN)2 . (TM/TN)4

 

From NASA's article, we can write down the given data in a different form:

 

1) Visible universe (r1: 13.7.109 yl):  density 10-5 atoms/cm3 and T1 = 2.73 ºK

2) Visible universe (r2: 6.85.109 yl):  density 8.10-5 atoms/cm3 and T2  = 5.46 ºK

3) Visible universe (r3: 137.106 yl):  density: 1000 atoms/cm3 and T= 273 ºK

4) Visible universe (r4: 137 yl):         density: 2.53 x 1031  atoms/cm3 and T4 = 273 millions ºK

 

 

In this way, using Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, we can calculate (for the entire Universe):

 

P1/P2 = (r1/r2)2 . (T1/T2)4 = 22 . 0.54 = 0.25              (It means decrease in CBR energy, in joules per second units)

Atomic density decrease (per cm3): 1/8

Missing parameter: Time elapsed between 1) and 2). If expansion was linear, the value is 6.85 billion years.

 

P1/P3 = (r1/r3)2 . (T1/T3)4 = 1002 . 0.014 = 10-4        (It means decrease in CBR energy, in joules per second units)

Atomic density decrease (per cm3): 10-8

Missing parameter: Time elapsed between 1) and 3).  If expansion was linear, the value is 13.56 billion years.

 

P1/P4 = (r1/r4)2 . (T1/T4)4 = (108)2 . (10-8)4 = 10-16  (It means decrease in CBR energy, in joules per second units)

Atomic density decrease (per cm3): 3.95 . 10-37

Missing parameter: Time elapsed between 1) and 4).  If expansion was linear, the value is almost 13.7 billion years.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

CONCLUSION: According to data supplied by NASA at the above link, the total energy of the initial CBR is  NOT A CONSTANT.

Apparently, this energy is dissipating as time passes by, so the conclusion is: The Universe doesn't behave as a perfect

black body cavity.

 

Maybe I'm wrong in my extrapolation of power into energy along the time passed, but the application of two out of the

three fundamental laws for perfect black bodies is correct as they are widely used in astrophysics and cosmology.

 

The third law for BBR (Planck's one) could be applied in the form of a double integral of the spectral flux density (first in spheric space

units and then in Hertz units). The result has to be equal to the Stefan-Boltzmann's law (area under Planck's curve and over 4PI radians).

 

Lʋ(ʋ,T) = (c/4).Wu(ʋ,T) = 2hʋ3c-2(ehʋ/kT-1)-1    [unitsWatt.m-2.Hz-1.sr-1]

 

Anyone can check this on the section Radiometric Quantities of the given blog link, which is unrelated with astrophysics or cosmology,

and deals only with theories of classic thermodynamics applied to black bodies.

Maybe what you and I are saying is starting, very slowly, to converge. 

 

You are of course perfectly right that the universe today is not a black body. But that is not what what the Big Bang model contends. The model proposes that the universe WAS a black body, but only for the first 380,000 years of its existence.

 

At that point atoms formed and so it became generally transparent to radiation for the first time. Once it was generally transparent to radiation (i.e stopped absorbing and re-radiating at most wavelengths), clearly matter and radiation could no longer be in thermal equilibrium with one another, which is a requirement for a black body. 

 

So the situation at that point was that the whole universe was filled with black body radiation which was, suddenly, no longer being absorbed. What would have happened to it? It could not be absorbed and it could not disappear, seeing as the universe is closed. A photon going in one direction would just go all the way round the universe and get back to where it started. There is no escape.  

 

So it just continued to exist, throughout space. However, since the metric of space continued to expand, the wavelength of the radiation got longer and longer, shifting the energy distribution to lower and lower frequencies while still maintaining the characteristic black body profile it had from the surface of last scattering.  


Edited by exchemist, 12 May 2019 - 06:03 AM.


#59 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1180 posts

Posted 12 May 2019 - 06:27 AM

 

 

From NASA's article, we can write down the given data in a different form:

 

1) Visible universe (r1: 13.7.109 yl):  density 10-5 atoms/cm3 and T1 = 2.73 ºK

2) Visible universe (r2: 6.85.109 yl):  density 8.10-5 atoms/cm3 and T2  = 5.46 ºK

3) Visible universe (r3: 137.106 yl):  density: 1000 atoms/cm3 and T= 273 ºK

4) Visible universe (r4: 137 yl):         density: 2.53 x 1031  atoms/cm3 and T4 = 273 millions ºK

 

 

In this way, using Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, we can calculate (for the entire Universe):

 

P1/P2 = (r1/r2)2 . (T1/T2)4 = 22 . 0.54 = 0.25              (It means decrease in CBR energy, in joules per second units)

Atomic density decrease (per cm3): 1/8

Missing parameter: Time elapsed between 1) and 2). If expansion was linear, the value is 6.85 billion years.

 

 

 

 

A couple of things you might want to consider:

  1. The presently accepted radius of the observable universe is about 46 billion lyr, not 13.7 billion lyr.
  2. The expansion of the universe is not linear, but accelerating.


#60 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1180 posts

Posted 12 May 2019 - 12:52 PM

I'm aware of the concept of "observable" universe, which is explained at many sites (Wikipedia included) as a theoretical observable

universe, and is conceived as the universe that we COULD observe today IF we had the technology, and that is caused by expansion.

 

As it's explained, within the observable universe, with the radius that you wrote, there is the VISIBLE universe. This one is the universe

that we, using  our current state of the art technology, can observe and even register with instruments. The visible universe has a radius

of 13.77 billion ligth-years, which is almost the maximum reach of the Hubble's telescope.

 

Don't blame me, because I don't understand how come the concept of "observable" universe appeared, and astronomers insist that it could

be measured at the edge IF we had the proper technology. For me, this is an utter nonsense. It involves not only the BBT but also the GTR,

co-moving and proper distances and a lot of denominations with which I don't agree.

 

NASA talks about visible universe, and that is the reason by which I adopted the 13.7 billion ly as a radius.

 

Excerpt from Wikipedia: Observable universe, at https://en.wikipedia...rvable_universe

 

The word observable in this sense does not refer to the capability of modern technology to detect light or other

information from an object, or whether there is anything to be detected. It refers to the physical limit created by

the speed of light itself. Because no signals can travel faster than light, any object farther away from us than light

could travel in the age of the Universe (estimated as of 2015 around 13.799±0.021 billion years[5]) simply

cannot be detected, as the signals could not have reached us yet.

 

Sometimes astrophysicists distinguish between the visible universe, which includes only signals emitted since

recombination (when hydrogen atoms were formed from protons and electrons and photons were emitted)—

and the observable universe, which includes signals since the beginning of the cosmological expansion

(the Big Bang in traditional physical cosmology, the end of the inflationary epoch in modern cosmology).

 

End of excerpt -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As you can read about, weird concepts for me but not for BBT, Inflation and GTR believers.

 

This image is from:  The Observable Universe, at the site: http://theuniverse.i...vable-universe/

 

 

The-Observable-Universe-375x250.jpg

 

I suggest you read the Wiki page again and this time don't allow cognitive dissonance to block out any part you do not want to see!

 

Here, I will help you.

 

 From the same link you quoted from:

 

"Sometimes astrophysicists distinguish between the visible universe, which includes only signals emitted since recombination—and the observable universe, which includes signals since the beginning of the cosmological expansion (that is, the end of the inflationary epoch in modern cosmology). The radius of the visible universe, is about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light years), while the comoving distance to the edge of the observable universe is about 14.3 billion parsecs (about 46.6 billion light years),[2] about 2% larger"

 

As much as you want the radius of the visible universe to be 13.799 lyr, that is not correct! That is the AGE of the universe, not the size.

 

Since you used the same Wiki page to support your claim, will you now use it to concede your mistake?



#61 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2906 posts

Posted 12 May 2019 - 02:03 PM

I hope so.

 

But there are many issues that even scientists are discussing and contradicting themselves by today. So, what if left for us, then.

 

Greetings,

 

Richard

Well that's where science differs from engineering :) .At the leading edge there is always a lot of uncertainty and rival hypothesis. What is left for us is to follow the evolution of these ideas, as new observations come in that enable science to start to discriminate between the rival hypotheses. I am currently quite intrigued by dark matter. The astronomical evidence for it is considerable but the particle physicists seem stumped. Dark energy strikes me as a lot more hypothetical. I'll take more of an interest in that when there are more observations to tie down what it might be.



#62 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2906 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 09:19 AM

Thanks to OceanBreeze, who provided me this link:

 

 

New Aspects of Photon Propagation in Expanding Universes

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.05609.pdf

 

I can see that not only scientists at NASA and ESA used Planck's formula for their COBE, WMAP and PLANCK

missions.

 

I can see that Cosmologists are totally lost without using the formulae developed by Planck and, before him,

Stefan and later Boltzmann. We are talking about theories for the BB Cavity Radiation that are, to the least,

120 years old and that are the CORE of any speculation of what happened after the BB with CMB radiation

(which is the strongest radiation out there, in terms of energy density and unknown origin).

 

Even when they mix a little of GTR (mandatory in the BB aftermath), they are lost without a planckian world.

 

Meanwhile, a NON-RELATIVISTIC and undisputable formula is eating their bodies from inside out, and is the

simple relationship with the Hubble's constant that gives the radius of the visible universe:

 

As simple as this:   R(Hubble's universe) = c/H0

 

and nobody know squat what happens BEYOND this limit.

 

Yet more, none of the thousand of theories for behavior BEYOND this frontier can be measured (proved).

 

Conclusion: They (cosmologists) know nothing. NOTHING!

I expect they are "lost" without Newton's laws of motion and Mendele'ev's Periodic Table, too. Why is that a criticism of them?  



#63 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2906 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 10:38 AM

They are. This are the modified Laws of Motion from Newton:

 

Definition of law of motion

1 : a body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion remains in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.

 

    New: a body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion remains in uniform motion in a geodesic line unless it's affected by accelerations

             produced by the curvature of space-time, under the presence of a massive body.

 

2: the acceleration of a body is directly proportional to the applied force and is in the direction of the straight line in which the force acts.

 

   New: the acceleration of a body is somehow proportional to the curvature of space-time due to the presence of a massive body and is

           in the direction of the geodesic line traced in the curved space-time.

 

3: for every force there is an equal and opposite force or reaction.

 

    New: for every acceleration that a body suffers due its motion in the curved space-time, there is a change in the curved space-time that

             induce opposite accelerations in such a developed gravitational field that is carried by gravitons.

 

4th postulate (new): Mass is what used to be m = F/a since the dawn of life on Earth. It holds true until it be found what really mass is.

 

:spin: :spin: :spin:

Yeah yeah, but they still use Newton's laws for orbital mechanics etc, just as we all do to build bridges.

 

 

You seem to have some sort of bee in your bonnet about c.19th science, as if it is somehow significant whether or not concepts from that era are still used today. I do not understand why. We make use a of  lots of concepts from a variety of eras. If they are good models for the situation at hand, we use them. 



#64 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1240 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 10:57 AM

 

4th postulate (new): Mass is what used to be m = F/a since the dawn of life on Earth. It holds true until it be found what really mass is.

 

:spin: :spin: :spin:

 

mass has changed over the years https://cds.cern.ch/...es/0103008.pdf 

 

Maybe a 5th postulate will be included some day,

 

for amusement.

 

5)  A body moving through free space will accelerate if not acted upon by an external force due to blue shift in the direction it is moving through the CMB.

 A body moving through free space will accelerate if not acted upon by an external force due to dark energy (limited by c) 



#65 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2906 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 02:35 AM

Physics desintegrated as a science between 1912 and 1929 (Rutherford's proton, Le Maitre`s Big Bang, Schrodinger's wave function and Hubble's constant).

 

Today is a compartmentalized body of knowledge with more than 100 different disciplines, many of which contradict others, and there is not a Master

to correct it.

 

As a building, it's broken because it's allowed that false knowledge spread with a speed given by the Bradford's law of dispersion 1:n:n2 (and I would add n3).

 

It's said that the amount of available information doubles every 2 years and it's accelerating, like galaxies' speed with the Hubble constant.

Today, it's calculated that the information being around is in excess of 800 exabytes (1020 bytes) and grows without control or sense.

 

I'd like a reset at physics, technology and at the industry of multimedia, but....................

 

We are doomed to live towards Idiocracy.

 

I find your reply interesting, psychologically speaking. c.20th physics does seem to be hard to take, for some older engineers. I was in fact taught physics in the 1st yr 6th form by a man who claimed to be agnostic about the existence of molecules!  He had read Engineering at Cambridge. He was actually an excellent teacher and very solid on c.19th "classical" physics (optics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics etc.) But for the 2nd year we needed a different teacher of course.

 

You remind me of that comment by Richard Feyman: "You don't like it? Go somewhere else! To another universe! Where the rules are simpier, philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy."  This seems to me to be exactly what you are trying to do.  

 

Best of luck with that. 


Edited by exchemist, 16 May 2019 - 02:37 AM.


#66 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2906 posts

Posted 17 May 2019 - 11:52 AM

:wave2: Always using the "downplaying card" as a last resort, exchemist. I've made a living working with state of the art electro-optical and electromagnetic systems

until 2011, at large national and international telecomm systems. And I kept informed on these fields since then.

 

The duality wave-particle is essential at long range fiber optic systems that encircle the globe at Terabits/sec, with repeaters that are separated almost

1,000 Km, Light travel as a wave, is codified in spectral slots (DWDM) and amplified as if it behave as photons.

 

Do you know something about light amplification using EDFA and nextgen amplifiers?

 

And, by the way, I only see you criticizing other's people posts.

 

When are you going to post an original thought of yours, if you have one? :sorry:

If you look back in the history of topics on the forum, to the days when there were more people who were not cranks posting, you will see what I am like when there is genuine science to discuss. At the moment, though, a large proportion of the active posters here are cranks. Such original thoughts as I have are mostly issues I have realised I do not understand, as I do not as a rule go in for putting forward half-arsed notions that claim well-established science is wrong. There is no point in asking my questions here, obviously, though I do so on some of the other forums I belong to.  


Edited by exchemist, 17 May 2019 - 11:53 AM.


#67 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3494 posts

Posted 17 May 2019 - 08:07 PM

I would like to clear something up, at some point I marked that it was possibly Lorentz that discovered the energy mass equivalence, but my memory appears to be not working as well as I thought, it was in fact Poincare.



#68 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2906 posts

Posted 18 May 2019 - 03:21 AM

Thanks for your sincere explanation. I believe you and it is obvious that you somehow mutated from a good thinker to a troll.

 

I'm good with my intuition, by which I profiled you since day 1.

 

What I wonder is why do you troll here and are a serious poster at other forums, but it's OK with me. It's part of your character

and your private jokes.

 

I propose you that you rise your trolling level by using emoticons according to the depth of your hidden sarcasm or fine irony,

so the lesser aware can decide if they reply to you or not.

 

This would be a decent thing to do, instead of using this forum as a social laboratory for your intelligence, while dragging

naive but intelligent people behind your trail. Maybe you can enlight people over here as you do at more "serious" forums,

and contributing in that way to make this place "better" for you and for the rest of us.

 

I'll show you just a little sampling of your character: It's impossible for you, when there is a thread, not to have the last word.

In you are engaged in any thread, it's just something that you can't do. Your nick has to be the last one at the listing of threads

at which you have posted some distorted opinion. It's compulsive on your nature.

 

I believe, and always did, that everyone deserves respect as a person. I also believe that if someone, who believe himself being

intelligent in some degree, reply to other person who's posting something which is genuine but wrong (for you), this person deserve

either a decent reply. If you can't do it, because the post violates your beliefs, then the most decent attitude is TO BE SILENT and

not playing with that other person for your little joy.

 

I invite you to reply this assertion of mine, well connected with my OP here.

 

IF there is true and valid that Planck's formulae (the final one and derivatives like Stefan-Boltzmann's)

can be applied to the almost initial Universe, then it's valid only for the surface of the Hubble's Sphere.

 

Otherwise, if the CBR measured today belongs to the edge of the OBSERVABLE universe, then it would

imply that the speed of light in such universe is 3.77  times the known value of c0.

 

This is because the acceptable age of the universe is 13.77 Byears, while the "accepted" radius of the

"observable" universe is 46.5 Bly, so the CMB reached satellite's instrument after travelling at 3.77 c0.

 

But, being the radius of the VISIBLE universe (Hubble's radius) 13.5 Bly and the CMB originated as a

left over of the Big Bang, 0.27 By AFTER this event, then the real c0 involved is 13.5 Bly/13.5 Byears,

what results in the known universal c0.

 

So, the question is: did the CMB background source is located today at the edge of the Hubble's Sphere

or at the edge of the OBSERVABLE universe?

 

In adition to a selection of the second choice: If true, then can we observe today stellar objects at (say)

19 Byl far away or not?

 

I hope that these questions may fit within your range of selective choice of well-established science.

 

Please, enlight me before shinning of wisdown elsewhere.

OK. Your question assumes that there is a "source", somewhere in the universe, for the CMBR.

 

There isn't.

 

The CMBR pervades the whole of the universe. 

 

That is why it is called "background" radiation. 

 

I have already explained earlier that it was left behind, rattling round the universe, when the universe first became transparent to radiation and ceased to behave like a black body. 

 

I find it extraordinary that you still cannot understand this.