Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is The Bohr's Model Of Atoms Still Used To Analyze Emission And Absorption Of Em Energy?


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#18 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts

Posted 04 May 2019 - 10:07 AM

E=hf, frequency in these equations is like a gain factor, E= (a constant with appropriate units) x k . k can be anything as long as the units balance, and your constant is selected to give the right results. hf appears an unnecessary complication. 

 

de Broglie wrote some other interesting papers with Bohm, ref pilot waves explaining the double slit experiment results. Plausible perhaps, and do away with the need for wave particle duality. 

 

I think I mentioned somewhere on a previous thread. spin and polarization of photons, I just neglected to post it here.

 

But when focusing on a photon, what shape of field can be inferred from its known characteristics. It is polarized and has spin, that suggests a disc shaped field. It has spin 1, can the spin rate/frequency increase ?  

 

If a photon is viewed as a half wave blip in a field travelling at c, then you could ascribe it that frequency? rhertz was complaining about the harmonic picture he had, with oscillations which clearly it is not.

 

I dont think assuming a photon has no oscillating frequency, is a problem, and gives one a clearer picture of a photon. I might be wrong, I often am. 

 

Can anyone recommend a good book on QFT covering in particular QED. My old text books are a bit out of date. 

 

One of the seemingly strong factors supporting a wavelength for photons might be doppler shift.  Most galaxies are red shifted and assumed moving away from us and a small number are blue shifted indicating they are moving towards us. Could blue shift be explained by Zwickys tired light, it would appear not. 

 

http://www.astronomy...hifted-galaxies

 

Is there any other way blue shift could be explained? via increased spin rate / altered polarisation angle, variable speed of light, blackholes interfering with the photons and giving them additional energy. Are the measurements wrong and all galaxies are moving away from us, with the blue shifted ones moving only slowly away. Andromeda is coming this way at 0.3c according to its blue shift. Andromeda is massive, might it just give out more intense light than smaller galaxies.

 

Is there any relativistic effect that might cause blue or red shift, due to increasing or decreasing distance to the object observed. https://en.wikipedia..._Doppler_effect

 

Does anyone have a recommendation for a good book on QFT with a good section on QED.?



#19 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2975 posts

Posted 04 May 2019 - 02:15 PM

One of the seemingly strong factors supporting a wavelength for photons might be doppler shift.  Most galaxies are red shifted and assumed moving away from us and a small number are blue shifted indicating they are moving towards us. Could blue shift be explained by Zwickys tired light, it would appear not. 

 

http://www.astronomy...hifted-galaxies

 

Is there any other way blue shift could be explained?

 

In my model of fluid dynamics in the unified theory linking it to Friedmann cosmology, the imbalance would not ensure all galaxies have to move away from us, its a complicated situation where many galaxies had bombarded in the early universe and either move parallel towards us, showing a blue shift, but they are much fewer than those observed through the redshift implying itself, a massive preference in which may a universe should expand.

 

Recall, the Friedmann equation is a fluid equation. So is Bernoulli's equation, but what we learned from united the two, was a mechanical reason. Before then, we have attributed it to

 

1. Vacuum pressure and/or various pressure interacting

2. A constant of integration from Einsteins equations

3. Vacuum energy resulting in an accelerated phase...

 

But keep in mind, if we want to look for mechanical reasons, the simplest should be sought out first. Very clever men, scientists no less, have provided wonderful and speculative models. Model's should not be too speculative and the main goal of a scientist should not be concerned with pure math but how they manifest theoretical implications in mechanical and simple ways.

 

Einstein was right, ''a theory should be no more complicated than it has to be.''


Edited by Dubbelosix, 04 May 2019 - 02:18 PM.


#20 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2975 posts

Posted 04 May 2019 - 02:16 PM

Something is wrong with this value. According to it, we only have about 6 million years before a full collision.

 

And the effects, being Andromeda 10 times more massive than the Milky Way, would start to affect everyone

of the 100 million stars of the Milky Way much sooner that that, perhaps in 2 or 3 million years,

 

Not too much time, in cosmic scales.

 

I thought it was 7 but hey devils in the details and not all our memories and faculties are always around :P But yeah, you are right, there is a massive redshifted galaxies that dwarfs the blue-shifted types.



#21 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1047 posts

Posted 04 May 2019 - 03:13 PM

Something is wrong with this value. According to it, we only have about 6 million years before a full collision.

 

And the effects, being Andromeda 10 times more massive than the Milky Way, would start to affect everyone

of the 100 million stars of the Milky Way much sooner that that, perhaps in 2 or 3 million years,

 

Not too much time, in cosmic scales.

 

 

 

Yes, that figure is way off. The exact closing speed is difficult to measure so these are just estimating:

 

The two galaxies are closing at over 100 km/sec, less than one thousandth the speed of light.

 

Andromeda is presently more than 2 million light years away, so it will take roughly 4 Billion years to collide with our Milky Way galaxy.

 

The experts figure it will be unlikely for any two stars to collide, but things will definitely get moved around, with some stars being ejected altogether.

 

However, there is nothing to worry about! In about 3 billion years our sun is expected to begin the process of going into red giant phase. When it reaches a 40% increase in brightness, in 3.5 billion years, the oceans will be boiled away and Earth will be reduced to a lifeless dry world.

 

But, by that time, if humans still exist, their technology should be advanced enough for them to find, and move to any planet they like in the new super galaxy of over a trillion stars.

 

(I thought somebody said they wanted science fiction)



#22 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2975 posts

Posted 04 May 2019 - 04:05 PM

Yes, that figure is way off. The exact closing speed is difficult to measure so these are just estimating:

 

The two galaxies are closing at over 100 km/sec, less than one thousandth the speed of light.

 

Andromeda is presently more than 2 million light years away, so it will take roughly 4 Billion years to collide with our Milky Way galaxy.

edit

The experts figure it will be unlikely for any two stars to collide, but things will definitely get moved around, with some stars being ejected altogether.

 

However, there is nothing to worry about! In about 3 billion years our sun is expected to begin the process of going into red giant phase. When it reaches a 40% increase in brightness, in 3.5 billion years, the oceans will be boiled away and Earth will be reduced to a lifeless dry world.

 

But, by that time, if humans still exist, their technology should be advanced enough for them to find, and move to any planet they like in the new super galaxy of over a trillion stars.

 

(I thought somebody said they wanted science fiction)

 

Am I wrong in recollecting that a complete submergence will occur around 10 billion years? It's like throwing snooker balls from a very large snooker table, to find only some will interact... but that could be devastating to our galaxy, depending on how violent systems are thrown out of their orbits by Andromeda, even in respect of it being a slight smaller galaxy? 

 

edit: including bodies thrown out of our galaxy and towards more vital parts... I hope it does not distrupt us, or that is the day of Armageddon.


Edited by Dubbelosix, 04 May 2019 - 04:07 PM.


#23 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2975 posts

Posted 04 May 2019 - 04:08 PM

Just to add, that's plenty years to become a fully space dwelling race. Can we get there? Save our own asses just in case?

 

I hope so. 



#24 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2975 posts

Posted 04 May 2019 - 04:26 PM

I have just realized a third complication, the sun only has around 10 billion years before it becomes a red giant, so maybe the new question should be, which will come first to our destruction? Perhaps a mesh of both. So 5 billion years, hopefully, we will have become advanced enough to avoid these issue to the best of our abilities... but Earth will not live, whether it be Andromeda or Earth. Time is coming to an end... unless of course, we mistreat our planet so badly, we will not find our way in the dark path we have already set. 


Edited by Dubbelosix, 04 May 2019 - 04:26 PM.


#25 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 04 May 2019 - 04:31 PM

Any one of you geniuses going to explain why my statements are incorrect, see post #19, #15

"your wrong" and "your wrong because we have observational evidence that supports our argument" is not an explanation.

 

There were three claims about light that I said were not correct.

they were:

1. light IS a particle

2. light IS a wave

3. light IS a wave particle packet thingy

 

I gave brief explanation as to why these claims cant be correct.

 

Please explain why I'm wrong.

 

 


#26 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 05 May 2019 - 03:02 AM

 

Great history lesson, but that did NOT actually solve the problems I outlined.

 

1.  My statement was typically framed, "it is incorrect to say that light IS a particle..." with the emphasis on the word IS.

 

The REASON why light can never be a particle is because of the well proven and established Laws of Physics say it cant.  Which Laws? Well the ones that says that a "thing" ( the photon) that has no dimensions, and possess no Mass, and cant be detected until it causes an effect, can NOT be an OBJECT.

 

It can only be a property of an object, like heat is a property of a burning log. Heat is not an object, neither is a photon. 

 

Moreover, the photon as a Mass-less, dimensionless concept, so its impossible that it can be a physical entity.

 

"Light IS a photon" would defy the definition of the word "exists". 

 

Only things that have a physical size and the resulting property of some Mass are particles.

 

Light can not be considered by anyone's standards to be a "Particle", unless you want to rewrite all of known physics.

 

A particle is a small chunk of something that exists.  Definition of Particle: "In the physical sciences, a particle (or corpuscule in older texts) is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties such as volume, density or mass."

 

Definition of "exists: VERB: to have objective reality or being."  This is not a Photon.

 

A photon is a concept only and exclusively. Therefore Light cannot be just a concept, its real enough., but a photon  is not.

 

2.  Light does indeed give results, exhibit or mimic, if you like, the phenomena we call the "wave". But is light really a "wave" itself? Or is a wave that thing that light is DOING? The wave is the RESULT of what light does, it cannot be what light IS.

Light can not consist of an action anymore than skipping can be a noun.

 

3. Light is not going to be a two headed monster, as this is irrational. Particles and waves as one combined entity are mutually exclusive concepts. One is a verb, the other is a concept. "Wave/packets" is  an irrational idea, and therefore is has nothing to do with a rational study of Physics.

And I have already shown that light is neither a concept called a photon nor an action called a wave, so its hardly going to be a unholy marriage of the two is it?

 

More thoughts on this please...


Edited by marcospolo, 05 May 2019 - 03:03 AM.


#27 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1047 posts

Posted 05 May 2019 - 10:15 AM

Everything you ever wanted to know about photons (that is not in the Bible) :edevil:


  • exchemist and Flummoxed like this

#28 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 05 May 2019 - 10:57 AM

Thanks for this, an excellent reference document! I have copied the link and made it one of my bookmarks. :) 



#29 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 05 May 2019 - 05:03 PM

This is the oldest definition of light:

 

Genesis 1:3

The First Day

 

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

And seeing that the light was good, God separated the light from the darkness.

God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.”

And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

 

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

You can't deny God's wisdom: At the beggining it was dark, and God created light

by separating it from the darkness.

 

If there is light, you can see. If there is darkness, you can not see.

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

 

So, this served well for more than 3,000 years: Light is what allow you to see things.

 

This is a simplified anatomy of any human eye. Something similar is built into most

of the million or more species on Earth that CAN see.

 

cornea.jpg

 

You have the retina, which covers most of the inner surface of the eye, which is

sensitive to small amounts of light (night vision) but has no resolution or color

detection capabilities. It's responsible for peripherical vision. It has a resolution

higher than 500 Megapixels.

 

You have the macula, a small area of about 4 mm2, at which the eye system focus

light, and is responsible for fine resolution and color sensitivity. You see, observe,

watch what is projected into this small surface. It's similar to a CCD sensor at a digital

camera, and has an equivalent resolution of 52 Megapixels over 60º wide and 30º high

window of fine resolution, but it has a dynamic range of 1:109 (sunny mid-day to night)

and color resolution higher than 1 million color combinations.

 

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

 

So, what is light? Only God knows.

 

But we, humble humans, try to give it a physical interpretation: light is what surround us,

as a kind of energy which excite our eyes and allow us to see. Without light, we are blind.

 

This energy can come from a direct source, which is not good (as our macula saturates)

or from reflections of a source of light, which allow us to see and to OBSERVE.

 

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

 

Natural philosophers (later called physicists) tried for centuries to understand by which

mechanisms such radiation reaches our eyes, either from reflections or from a direct source

(like a star). And they came with the idea that such a radiation travels along the space as

waves, carrying information for our visual system.

 

In the atomistic view of the world, which was developed slowly since 1900, a second concept

of light appeared, and is that the FINAL ACTION of light on our eyes or any atomic constituent

of matter is concentrated into energy packets (photons) which strike our sensors, at a molecular

level, causing electric pulses (ejection of electrons) that our visual system processes. This is

an explanation for the "photoelectric effect" within our eyes.

 

Also, as a complementary theory, it is believed that any source of radiation emits such energy packets

in discrete amounts instead of continuous waves.

 

But photons don't travel along the space, because they don't suffer the law of inverse square of distance

attenuation, so the mathematical explanation is that light travels as waves, which are compliant with this

physical law of decrease of emitted power.

 

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

 

At any case, wave or energy packet, attempts to obtain a mathematical model of light comes from

sciences involved with electromagnetic radiation.

 

Electromagnetic radiation can be lethal to living forms if the energy it carries is too high (UV and above)

 

Any other kind of radiation doesn't constitutes light.

 

And this is how things are today.

Yes, Yes, fascinating story.

But you still failed to address my observations, (being a Natural philosopher) that there are three claimed aspects of light, as you reitterated, but all three cannot be what light IS.

Therefore they are only metaphors that help describe what light seems to be able to do.

If they are recognized as metaphors, then Mathematicians have bark up the wrong trees, in using metaphors as if they were real events and objects in Physics.

This is why Mathematicians have led Physics down the toilet with all those insane theories that flatly contradict each other.

 

So, as you admit that "only god knows" what light is, then we should immediately scrap all equations that try to double guess what only God knows, and use that guess as the base for a whole new religion sometimes called  Scientism.

So bye bye Einstein and Quantum.

 

So either tell me what light really is, or admit that anything based on our ignorance of Light (or electromagnetic waves if you prefer) stands practicaally no chance of fluking it, and actually being correct.  Garbage in- Garbage out is the rule.

 

Incidentally, Maxwell never "proved" that light was part of the electromagnetic spectrum, if there is even such a thing. He never "proved" that an electromagnetic spectrum exists.

What he found, on his math pages, and supported by Faraday, was a correlation between electricity and magenetism. Which does not "prove" that they are one in the same thing.  Electricity given the right conditions, enabled magnetism, and magents, under the right conditions, enable electriicity.

If Light is part of the electromagnetic specrum, (the existance of which I question) then please explain why light is not effected by a magnet, or by electricity?

 

I see water, i see dirt, dirt gets affected by water, and water is affected my dirt. 

 

The two have a relationship, therefore I pronounce that they are but different forms of a new stuff called "mud".  Water is made out of mud, and dirt is made out of mud, therefore mud is the real stuff that produces water and dirt.

 

This is Maxwell's thinking applied to the question of what is water, and what is dirt?

Maxwells conclusions are still only his intepretation about whats going on. They are not necessarily correct.

The fact that his math failed if there was motion involved, and prompted Lorentz to develop his crazy work around, the Lorentz Transformationis, is evidence that Maxwell is simply incorrect. Applying fudges does not make things corrrect does it?

Maxwells equations are ok, giving reasonable results that mimic the observations we make, so are useful for estimating possible outcomes.

But they are not a explanation for anything.



#30 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1047 posts

Posted 06 May 2019 - 12:08 AM

marcopolo, I want you to know that I know that you are a troll.

 

 

 

 

You are not the only one who has made that observation; and an arrogant troll as well.

 

 


 can give you more examples, so you troll about it over here or another physics forum.

 

 

 

Preferably some other forum; we are getting a little tired of him here.


  • exchemist likes this

#31 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts

Posted 06 May 2019 - 04:44 AM

.

 

Einstein was right, ''a theory should be no more complicated than it has to be.''

 

My memory is Andromeda is blue shifted I got the approach rate wrong, that is a minor point, but it was not the point I was trying to make.

 

The reason I was trying to discuss the red and blue shift of galaxies is that it had dawned on my powerful intellect that rhertz doesn't think the universe is expanding, and doesn't believe CBR is anything to do with any hot big bang, and does not believe wave particle duality explanations.

 

Arguably red shift could be explained via tired light, but not blue shifted galaxies, which demolish the concept of tired light.

 

By discussing relativistic effects on a photon/quantum fluctuation moving through space, I was thinking perhaps, I could avoid discussing planck and frequency of photons and focus on another way of proving red and blue shift are due to galaxies moving away from and towards us.

 

In the beginning there was light  the HUP therefore photons were created by interactions between virtual particles, and unstable particles decaying to produce radiation and stable particles. ie spontaneous emission of photons from the vacuum of space was not caused by god, it is caused by virtual particle interactions.  :sherlock: