Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by martillo

  1. Electrons jump to a lower level of energy and the difference of energy is to the energy of a emitted photon. This is the balance of energy. Now, In my model there is another fundamental particle involved: neutrinos. In my model there are abundance of both in the universe and they can convert in each other. In absorption a photon converts into a neutrino and in an emission a neutrino converts into a photon. There are always available neutrinos near the atoms for the emission process take place.
  2. In my model, any material body in thermal equilibrium with the environment has a stable temperature T. There are photons in in both the body and the environment and they continuously interchange photons establishing a dynamical equilibrium between them. It is assumed that to reach any temperature greater than the 0º K the body absorbed photons from the environment or from from other body before and so on for all the other bodies and environments in the Universe. If you are asking how all that photons appeared in the universe it depends on which theory you have for the origin of the Universe. In my case I don't really know how.
  3. Where are you considering generated photons? in the bodies or in the conductor. I don't get your point. Right, that equivalence is wrong then. Seems you are right. I was wrong in something. Let me summarize. I arrived at : µ(f,T) = [8.π.K3/(h2.c3.(e - 1))].T3 [constant] = 8.π.K3/(h2.c3.(e-1) = 1,01660413x102 in SI units: K-1.kg-1.s (precision of 8 digits) and: Q/V = µ(f,T) = [constant].T3 So the units verify: J.m-3 = [(J.K-1)3/((J.s)2.(m.s-1)3)]K3 = (J.K-1)3.(J.s)-2.(m.s-1)-3 = J.m-3.s Simplifying I reach: J = J.s what is wrong You are right. Please let me some time to review everything now...
  4. The concept of photons as a model for light (and heat and whatever EM radiation) appeared with Einstein. It didn't exist before and the classic Newtonian mechanics was valid with instantaneous fields. Maxwell validated the concept of light as an EM wave with his equations but Einstein introduced the concept light as photons particles travelling at the same velocity c. Then Einstein came with his Relativity Theory imposing the constraint that nothing, absolute nothing can travel at higher velocities even any field which all where treated as instantaneous before. At the same time Hertz experiment on EM waves demonstrated the existence of EM signals travelling at velocity c and validating the EM waves and also the EM fields propagating at c. All the fields were assumed to propagate at c then. In the particles' Physics surged the concept of force carriers and "virtual photons" as mediators for the fields. So they came with Relativity Theory.
  5. It is assumed a contact surface between the bodies and the conductor through which the photons can pass. The units in both sides of the equation perfectly match now. You must consider the equivalence of the units of Joules and Kelvin in the MKS: J -> kg.m2.s-2 K -> kg.m2.s-2 I have found the equivalence for Joule just in a google search and for Kelvin at: https://metricsystem.net/si/base-units/kelvin/ This means MKS unities of Joule and Kelvin are the same: kg.m2.s-2 Yes, unfortunately you are very right in this.
  6. In any hot body there are photons present in the interior of the body. I have already said that this is ignored in Kinetic Theory. It is assumed a body that is transmitting thermal energy ("heat") by conductivity through a unidirectional conductor to another colder body. The hotter body has enough energy stored internally as to be able to provide photons for the heat transmission. I still made a second correction, didn't you see it?
  7. I consider the subject of this thread of high priority in Physics because it profound implications in both the theoretical areas as in the applications in the practical areas. It must be analyzed by real physicists (not an Electric Engineer as I am) and channelized in Physics Science in the appropriated way. The problem is in the formulation of the 2nd Newton's law. It is found that the real equation of force is F= ma and not F = dp/dt even for thee case of variable mass. I have already begun to treat the problem threads here at the SFN forum in 2019 and in 2023: A new evidence surged from the reference of a book published by Dr. Cowan (London University). The participant @studiot posted a photo with the passage of the book involving the subject: I have to abandon the thread because of the lot of days discussing with several ones at the same time without sleeping properly. now I return to the subject with some more expertise and renewed energies. I present the problem in a small manuscript I post here now: The real equation of force is F = ma Today's Physics is stating that the Equation of Force is F = dp/dt. We will analyze the equation of motion of rockets to see that the real Equation of Force is: F = ma A rocket has variable mass in its trajectory and it's important to see its motion equation. Let m be its variable mass at any instant in its movement composed by the mass of the rocket plus the mass of its contained fuel. I have made a search in the internet about rocket motion equations and all the sites agree in the equation: (6) F = m(dv/dt) = –ve(dm/dt) where ve is the speed of the expelled fuel relative to the rocket. They all agree that the force acting on the rocket is due to the expelled mass and is F = –ve(dm/dt) and that the equation of motion is F = m(dv/dt) = ma. I assume the equation has been completely verified experimentally with enough precision from a long time ago. It is evident that in the development it is used covertly the equation: F = ma for the force and not: F = dp/dt By definition p = mv and dp/dt = m(dv/dt) + v(dm/dt). They derive the rocket's equation of motion based on the principle of conservation of momentum but considering the momentum of the rocket with the totality of the fuel (the contained plus the expelled fuel) at any moment and stating dp/dt = 0. After that they derive the equation of motion of the rocket as: m(dv/dt) = –ve(dm/dt) and specifically say that the force on the rocket is: F = m(dv/dt) = –ve(dm/dt) m(dv/dt) = ma then it is clear that what is finally applied to the rocket to determine its movement is the equation F = ma and not F = dp/dt. This indicates that today's Physics is wrong stating the Equation of Force as F = dp/dt. The right Equation of Force is F = ma even when mass varies. Note that the natural derivation of the famous equation E = mc2 by Relativity Theory has no sense since it is based in the wrong relation F = dp/dt. Relativity Theory becomes a wrong theory since it is based on a wrong law. By definition: p = mv With partial derivatives: dp/dt = m(dv/dt) + v(dm/dt) Now as: F = m(dv/dt) Then, the valid Equation of Momentum and Force is dp/dt = F + v(dm/dt) Then, the principle of conservation of the momentum p = mv must determine that dp/dt = 0 when no forces are applied and when there's no variation on the considered mass. It can be observed that this principle can be applied to the rocket as was applied in the cited cases giving the same result. Considering the mass m' of the composed body of the rocket and the total fuel (the contained plus the expelled fuel) which does not vary: F’ = 0 and dm'/dt = 0 Then, the thrust equation can be derived (as below): m(dv/dt) = –ve(dm/dt) where m is the mass of the rocket with its contained fuel. Finally: F = ma = m(dv/dt) = –ve(dm/dt) is the force exerted on the rocket. F = –ve(dm/dt) Rocket thrust force derivation The thrust equation of the rocket is derived here considering the approximation that the mass of the expelled fuel of the rocket is negligible compared with the mass of the mass of the rocket plus the mass of its contained fuel: Momentum and Force equations: p = mv, F = ma = mdv/dt dp/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt = F + vdm/dt Considerations: a) masses equations: m = mass of the rocket with its contained fuel me = mass of the expelled fuel m’ = m + me = constant = total mass of the system rocket with total fuel dm’/dt = dm/dt + dme/dt = 0 Then: dme/dt = -dm/dt b) velocities equations (one dimension): v = absolute velocity of the rocket ve = velocity of the expelled fuel in relation to the rocket assumed constant u = absolute velocity of the expelled fuel ve = v – u = constant dve/dt = dv/dt – du//dt = 0 Then: du/dt = dv/dt Derivation: Total momentum of the system rocket with total fuel: p’ = mv + meu dp’/dt = d(mv + meu)/dt = mdv/dt + v/dm/dt + medu/dt + u/dme/dt Considering: du/dt = dv/dt and dme/dt = -dm/dt dp’/dt = (m + me)dv/dt + (v-u)dm/dt As v – u = ve and considering me << m (m + me ≈ m) then: dp’/dt ≈ mdv/dt + vedm/dt and as dp’/dt = 0 then: mdv/dt ≈ -vedm/dt Finally F = ma = mdv/dt ≈ -vedm/dt under the approximation me << m Then, the rocket thrust force is: F ≈ -vedm/dt
  8. I have read the article at arxiv (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0008009.pdf) and it talks about the invariance of the constants with time but I don't see anything about that as a consequence of this the fields (particularly the E and B fields) must propagate at the finite velocity c. This is a different thing. As I already said to you some time ago the unique experiment that seems to prove the finite velocity of propagation of the fields is Hertz experiment on the EM waves. The experiment seems to prove a finite velocity propagation of the Em waves and the EM fields. I have a new interpretation of the experiment showing how antennas could actually emit photons and not waves and all our communication systems could be actually based on absorption, emission and transmission of photons and not waves. This way the experiment could demonstrate the existence of "electromagnetic particles" the photons and not "electromagnetic waves". It could be the case of instantaneous E and B fields and an EM particle (the photon) travelling at velocity c. I find interesting that Einstein also disagreed with the EM waves concept of light. At Planck's law page at Wikipedia can be found: "Thus Einstein was contradicting the undulatory theory of light held by Planck. In 1910, criticizing a manuscript sent to him by Planck, knowing that Planck was a steady supporter of Einstein's theory of special relativity, Einstein wrote to Planck: "To me it seems absurd to have energy continuously distributed in space without assuming an aether."[135]"
  9. Well, then I must review that. Please, can you give me some link o reference about the subject? This subject is something of major importance to me.
  10. But isn't that a consequence of Relativity Theory? If I disprove Relativity that constraint would not apply anymore.
  11. But it would be because information is actually carried by photons and photons are particles that do have their velocity limited on c. Not because of the fields that could be instantaneous.
  12. Instantaneous action at a distance forces was something considered in all the development of Physics Science before the apparition of Relativity Theory. It is a central point in Newtonian dynamics. Now I see everything on my models and all my work stucked by Relativity Theory. I think I could make a try in disproving Relativity Theory here in the Speculations Forum. It is based on a review on the formulation of Newton 2nd Law. I have already tried this here in a thread in this forum ( ) and I think I quite reached the goal but I had to abandon the thread because of the lot of days discussing with several ones at the same time the entire day without sleeping properly. I couldn't continue going on that way. I think I could return now with the same approach presenting my same argumentation and experimental evidence and an excellent new evidence that surged in the discussion and with more expertise and renewed energies. May be I start a new thread soon.
  13. Thanks very much for the comment. +1. I will try arxiv, something I have never done. May be I could have some luck... I mean instantaneous action at a distance of forces. May be this is actually experimentally inobservable at subatomic scales, I'm not sure. The model unavoidably ends assigning mass to photons for them to have separated internal energy and kinetic energy. I have thought, in the same kind of reasoning for considering virtual particles, to assign an hypothetical mass but this will be easily disproved by some relativistic experiments I think. I think those experiments can actually be interpreted in a different way providing a new way to explain them but is something not so easy. Too much things to be explained at the same time. A huge task...
  14. There is still another error: the units given for the [constant]. The right thing is: [constant] = 2.π.K3/(h2.c3.(e-1) = 1,01660413x102 in SI units: K-1.kg-1.s (precision of 8 digits) My apologies... I want to mention other thing. The model I was working on the enthalpy of the systems stucked now. The discussion we had about have let me know that the model to propose unavoidably needs two main assumptions that I cannot prove and will not be accepted by you for the model to be taken into consideration: _ Instantaneous Electric and Magnetic fields and forces. _ Strong disagreement with Relativity Theory. I would need to provide some experimental evidence on them, something I don't have and so it is a proposition unfortunately not suitable to discuss here in the forum. Who knows if in some future I could, I don't know. I have just realized that this model I provided for the conduction process in solid conductors transmitting photons involves some calculation based on the enthalpy so it will also suffer the same limitations.
  15. The hotter body continuously provides photons. Yes, something is wrong. Actually in the model: H = Q = µ(f,T) = [constant].T3 where [constant] = 2.π.K3/(h2.c3.(e-1) = 1,01660413x102 in SI units: K-1.kg-1.s-5 (precision of 8 digits) So [constant] is well approximated by 300 Actually is H = Q = V.[constant].T3 Heat capacity at constant volume V is defined as: C = dQ/dT = dH/dT at constant volume V for for dT = 1º K C is approximately = 300V(dT)2 And so strictly: CV is approximately = 300 much greater than in the Debye model. Can this be right? Something I don't understand is why this capacity is independent of the kind of the material in the conductor but in the Debye model is the same thing.
  16. The photons incoming from the hotter body at one side of conductor leave it to the colder body at the other side. In the model H = Q = VT3 Heat capacity at constant volume V is defined as: C = dQ/dT = dH/dT at constant volume V for for dT = 1º K C = 3V(dT)2 Then the capacity per unity of volume CV = C/V = 3(dT)2 for dT= 1º K CV = 3 the same as in the Debye model
  17. Here is proposed a model for the conduction process in a solid conductor transmitting photons in one degree of freedom only which is the direction of the flux of photons. The derivation of the model has been summarized in a very concise way this way: The assumptions made are: _ There is a constant flux of photons along the conductor. _ The energy density of the flux is derived from Planck law having a non linear variation in T. The model determines an energy density Ec/V in the conduction given by the relation: Ec/V = µ(f,T) = [constant]xT3 where [constant] = 2.π.K3/(h2.c3.(e-1) = 1,01660413x102 in SI units: K-1.kg-1.s-5 (precision of 8 digits) based on the constants' table below The variation is proportional to T3 and so can compete with Debye model. Derivation made: Agreeing with Planck distribution of the energies of the photons in the conductor: µ(f,T) = (8.π.h.f3/c3).(exp(hf/KT) - 1)-1 = (8.π.h.f3/c3).(exp(1) - 1)-1 Considering hF = KT and doing some algebra: µ(f,T) = [8.π.K3/(h2.c3.(e - 1))].T3 Finally: µ(f,T) = [constant].T3 I apologize for haven't used Latex notation. I have found this a convenient notation anyway. I ask to everybody in the thread to take the appropriated time in answering your comments and criticisms. I need some time to have some rest now. PS: I must comment the used relation hf =KT (where f is the mean statistical average value of the frequencies of the photons in the considered flux in the conductor) as described at Wikipedia Planck's law on the section "Trying to find a physical explanation of the law": Referring to a new universal constant of nature, h,[108] Planck supposed that, in the several oscillators of each of the finitely many characteristic frequencies, the total energy was distributed to each in an integer multiple of a definite physical unit of energy, ϵ, characteristic of the respective characteristic frequency.[95][109][110][111] His new universal constant of nature, h, is now known as the Planck constant. Planck explained further[95] that the respective definite unit, ϵ, of energy should be proportional to the respective characteristic oscillation frequency ν of the hypothetical oscillator, and in 1901 he expressed this with the constant of proportionality h:[112][113] Planck did not propose that light propagating in free space is quantized.[114][115][116] The idea of quantization of the free electromagnetic field was developed later, and eventually incorporated into what we now know as quantum field theory.[117]
  18. It's your guess but you don't know what I have already done in about 30 years working in Physics' subjects.
  19. Thanks. +1 The model is progressing too. Applying some adjustments and developing it further now. I need time for some calculations (quantification) now. I consider all the comments and criticisms in the thread as contributing to the model so this is a collaborative model between all the participants. If it works it could be called the SFNM model. Science Forums .Net Model. We are going to make it work, I'm sure.
  20. You are wrong in this. T is not defined as T = dU/dS. T is defined as T = dH/dS. So you are also wrong in this: I'm not violating 2nd law at all. You are applying a wrong definition.
  21. Heat conduction increases temperature. That is well known in electronics. Entrophy increases with temperature and so the entrophy in the conductor increases. Fine for me. What I don't get is that this "would cause an overall system entropy decrease". What "overall" system are you considering?
  22. I'm applying enthalpy because I think we are considering systems on which we can apply it. Do you think I cannot apply it? I have studied the temperature definition for a while. It begun to be defined by Kelvin years before the concepts of enthalpy and entropy. It was defined with the concepts of heat and the Carnot cycle. The definition in terms of entropy came long after and as it is related to enthalpy by dH = TdS, then H and T can be related. I assume both definitions are totally compatible, am I wrong in that? I took a look on Debye's approach. At Wikipedia: "In thermodynamics and solid-state physics, the Debye model is a method developed by Peter Debye in 1912 to estimate phonon contribution to the specific heat (heat capacity) in a solid.[1] It treats the vibrations of the atomic lattice (heat) as phonons in a box" So Debye's approach is to explain the atomic vibrations in atoms/molecules as applied in heat transmission. I have a concept of those vibrations without the need to involve any virtual particle but who knows I would need to replace the behavior described by phonons someway. I will go a little further to see if I would need to do that or not. I'm considering conduction as defined at Wikipedia (): "Conduction is the process by which heat is transferred from the hotter end to the colder end of an object. The ability of the object to conduct heat is known as its thermal conductivity, and is denoted k." This doesn't match with your concept of heat transfer "not through a material" as you said. When I touch hot water conduction takes place. S-B law does not apply in conduction, it only applies in radiation, I know.
  23. I was wrong in that statement and I admitted it well correcting the thing. I after said that conductivity is actually accomplished in solid metal conductors by the absorption with posterior emission of photons in a process that has a time delay involved and so on and we have a long discussion about. I'm wondering why you aren't you considering all that now. By the way, I know I make mistakes sometimes but always try to correct them.
  24. You know, you are wasting our times with silly questions what shows you really don't take enough attention in what we are discussing. The discussion is becoming useless now this way. I never said there is no conduction. I agree in heat transferring by conduction, convection and radiation. I think your idea about what I think is wrong in something. I maintain total agreement with the mathematical definitions of those concepts. If the cup is filled with hot coffee it doesn't stay cool, it warms with T superior to the environment T. Depending on the cup considered it warms more or less but it warms and if the cup is not a so good insulator its radiation can be sensed by finger or face at some proper distance.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.