Jump to content
Anonymous Participant

Can the Properties Of Electromagnetic Energy be Explained Within the Context of Classical Physics?

Recommended Posts

I wasn't sure whether to post this here or in "speculations" , but I chose this section because what I am going to attempt to do is explain the Duality properties of light within the context of classic Newtonian Physics.

While this new idea is certainly not well known to mainstream science, it does meet the criteria for a legitimate hypothesis , and it is not mere speculation because this new idea comes much closer to explaining the properties of light without defying known conventional physics, creating contradictions in logic or paradoxes, I.E. kinetic energy without mass. As most of us here  know I would hope, Kinetic energy is a property of a mass in relative motion to a given point or as we often refer to it, frame of reference. Kinetic energy varies within different frames of reference. Light is no different and I will explain why, the Doppler shift does not apparently cause a change in the velocity of light, only it's wavelength. So a light source emitting a given frequency and moving away from us has a lower frequency that the same light source has moving towards us, the kinetic energy is higher in the latter case because the frequency is. In this way light obeys the classic Newtonian qualities of kinetic energy, though the light is not moving faster or slower linearly.

The qualities of light have always been rather mysterious, as  we know it has the qualities of both a particle and a waveform.  The photon is the accepted particle component of light, it is defined basically as a mass-less particle that has the ability to transmit kinetic energy across distance. Higher frequencies have higher energies. The photon can't have mass because as we know the "speed limit" for mass in any frame of reference is "<C". 

What I am going to attempt to prove is the most logical conclusion, light appears to be a particle with actual mass propagating in a waveform because that is exactly what it is. As you shall see, if a particle is moving at "light speed" and following a high frequency wave pattern it is actually moving much faster than "C". Consider the following thought experiment:

Two cars leave Los Angeles for New York City. One takes the "interstate" which has few curves or deviation in direction and the other takes "the back roads", which have many more curves and deviations in direction. Both arrive in New York City at precisely the same time and travel the same linear distance between two points on the Earths surface in exactly the same amount of time, but one of the cars must move faster and thus have a higher kinetic energy to reach it's destination at the same time. When and if this is acknowledged and understood I will begin to explain what light is and why it exhibits the properties of both a wave and a particle, and why shorter wavelengths/higher frequencies possess greater energy levels. I will accept any rational critique of what I have written thus far, but I remind you a hypothesis is not disqualified simply because it disagrees with a theory. What I intend to do is present a better explanation for what light actually is that explains all of the properties it exhibits..

[cont shortly]

 

 

 

Edited by Anonymous Participant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

explain the Duality paradox of light

What paradox?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is accepted as fact and confirmed by innumerable experiments that protons, electrons and neutrons exist, and these particles are the components that make up the vast majority of the mass of the matter around us. Though electrons have a very small mass, the energy stored in their motion is significant, because their apparent velocities in the 'electron cloud" around the nucleus are substantially high. Each orbital shell of an atom possesses what is called an "energy level", this energy level being effected by the electrons distance from the nucleus and its velocity. So electrons in a "low energy shell" possess less energy than one in a "high energy shell". In conventional electromagnetic theory, electromagnetic radiation is emitted in the form of a mass-less particle known as a photon when an electron "drops" from a higher energy to a lower energy, This photon is represented in conventional theory as not only a mass-less particle, but one that possesses and can transmit kinetic energy in the form of a wave. There are several conflicts with conventional physics in this theory. Up until this point kinetic energy had been described as mass in motion. represented by the simple formula:

K.E. = 1/2 m v2

As we all know, the theoretical (and that's what it is) photon defies this well proven formula by possessing Kinetic energy, while at the same time it has momentum and inertia (it resists a change in it's direction) but no physical mass.

According to this new hypothesis, the photon as described by mainstream physics does not exist. The fact that this photon does not exist. is evident it has never been isolated or described or defined in a logical fashion that is in agreement with conventional and proved physics.

 This paradoxical definition of a photon itself is dependent on a dubious theory, and this new hypothesis doesn't rely on any such unproved theory for its conclusions..

 

                                                                                         What Is Electromagnetic radiation?


In conventional theory, electromagnetic radiation is defined as mass-less particles emitted from atoms when electrons move from a higher to a lower energy level.

                      ::This energy is radiated moving in waveforms of variant frequencies, the shorter wavelengths possessing the higher energy levels.::

   Make a mental note for future reference that the highlighted sentence above is NOT a theory, but proved, undisputed fact . The preceding paragraph, however, is unproven, though all of the empirical evidence does support it, and none of the observations disqualify it..


The wave form frequency and energy level relationship are important to this new theory, as will become apparent. With electromagnetic energy, the higher the frequency, the more energy a given flux density of electromagnetic radiation can transmit through space(and matter).
In conventional ways, we can observe that other physical manifestations of waveforms do not obey the same energy/frequency relationship as electromagnetic waves, with energy transmitted by a specific wave dependent mainly on amplitude , and this is simply because the ordinary wave is just energy traveling through a medium, like a wave on the ocean or sound waves moving through matter. . With light the matter follows the waveform moving with it.

Electromagnetic energy is best and moist succinctly defined as oscillating , coupled electric and magnetic fields that travel freely through space at the speed of light. Notice the word electric and the word magnetic, the accepted (coupled)components of electromagnetic waves.
Other forms of waves cannot pass through open space in the absence of a medium to propagate itself or in the absence of matter,, only the electromagnetic wave is capable of this phenomenon
                                                                                                                     Quantifying the Energy Of Electron Orbits

Though is seems a giant leap of faith at this point to consider the electron as a particle moving in a waveform  just to explain a stable orbit, observations do bear out this likelihood,as shall later be explained.

                                                                                                    Integer( wavelength )=2pi(radius of orbit)


                                                                                                                                                 Energy levels Explained
When a mass is moving around a given point (like for instance an electron around the nucleus of an atom) , the velocity of a given mass is directly related to the force applied outward (centripetal acceleration) , and therefor the force required to hold it in place. It is necessary that a force exists because the direction of motion is constantly changing.
                                                                  

                                                                          This force being released is the energy electromagnetic energy.


                                                                          Note that none of what I have stated thus far does not in any way conflict with Bohrs model of the atom.

   
The wavelength of the electromagnetic wave is related to the velocity of the associated particle, in this hypothesis it's not some mysterious "particle" with superstitious, illogical and paradoxical qualities, it is simple an electron.
This force is the " force of attraction" between the electron and proton, in turn depends on the radius of the orbit. In this way it could be desceibed as an electro-mechanical model.


                                                   The "orbitals" are energy levels and they occur in steps.

                                                          Let us assign the variable Y to given orbital(integer)

                                                          energy of "Y" orbital= -13.6/(Y)(Y) electron volts


                                                                               1 electron Volt = 1.6 x 10-19 Joules
                                            This represents the amount of energy gained when an electron is accelerated by 1 electron volt.
                       This includes the electrical and kinetic energy of the electron. Higher energy states have larger values of Y.

[cont]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

What paradox?

  I am referring of course to the paradox of special relativity with regard to light, the contention that the velocity of light is the same in any inertial frame creates an obvious paradox that all 1st year students of high school physics are familiar with.

 

I will not entertain ignorant provocation. if you have something meaningful to contribute I will be glad to address it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Two cars leave Los Angeles for New York City. One takes the "interstate" which has few curves or deviation in direction and the other takes "the back roads", which have many more curves and deviations in direction. Both arrive in New York City at precisely the same time and travel the same linear distance between two points on the Earths surface in exactly the same amount of time, but one of the cars must move faster and thus have a higher kinetic energy to reach it's destination at the same time. When and if this is acknowledged and understood

Before wasting your time on lengthy typing sessions I suggest you clean up and clarify this premise statement since it appears self contradictory to me as it stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, studiot said:

Before wasting your time on lengthy typing sessions I suggest you clean up and clarify this premise statement since it appears self contradictory to me as it stands.

Perhaps you should spend your time on a minecraft forum.  What is contradictory about it? The fact that you can't understand such a simple concept that a kid on a bicycle riding to school can reveals your lack of raw intelligence.

LMAO!

Edited by Anonymous Participant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

  I am referring of course to the paradox of special relativity with regard to light, the contention that the velocity of light is the same in any inertial frame creates an obvious paradox that all 1st year students of high school physics are familiar with.

I am not aware of this paradox. Could you explain it or provide a reference, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Strange said:

What paradox?

Bohr described another paradox involving light as well , Bohr referred to the fact that a given kind of particle like light will appear as a wave or a particle  in different situations or observations as the duality paradox, which is also well know to all students of physics .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. So you are using "paradox" to mean something that is unintuitive but not actually contradictory?

If not, could you answer my question please?

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

I am not aware of this paradox. Could you explain it or provide a reference, please.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Strange said:

I am not aware of this paradox. Could you explain it or provide a reference, please.

I am not here to hold your hand, I suggest you learn to do simple websearches on your own ( I removed the last part of my comment because it didn't actually apply to you).

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. So you are using "paradox" to mean something that is unintuitive but not actually contradictory?

If not, could you answer my question please?

 

A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently sound reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion. A paradox involves contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time.

Edited by Anonymous Participant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I am not here to hold your hand, I suggest you learn to do simple websearches on your own 

I can search for paradoxes related to special relativity but I can't be sure that what I find will be the same thing that you are talking about. Why is it so hard for you to answer the question? You obviously have a specific paradox in mind.

I guess a couple of the more famous so-called paradoxes are the "barn door paradox" and the "twins paradox". Is it either of these you are thinking offer something else? (Neither of these are actually paradoxes, of course. There cannot be paradoxes in special relativity because it is mathematically consistent.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. So you are using "paradox" to mean something that is unintuitive but not actually contradictory?

If not, could you answer my question please?

 

If anyone here has any questions about what has been said thus far or can or will attempt to disqualify anything I have thus far , let him contribute. I cannot infuse intelligence into an unintelligent mind. If you pretend to understand quantum physics and theoretical physics and cannot understand what has been said thus far, you need to find a another hobby.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I can search for paradoxes related to special relativity but I can't be sure that what I find will be the same thing that you are talking about. Why is it so hard for you to answer the question? You obviously have a specific paradox in mind.

I guess a couple of the more famous so-called paradoxes are the "barn door paradox" and the "twins paradox". Is it either of these you are thinking offer something else? (Neither of these are actually paradoxes, of course. There cannot be paradoxes in special relativity because it is mathematically consistent.)

 

 

I am attempting to describe the nature of light within the context of conventional physics. What paradoxes do you think I am referring to? Logically?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

What paradoxes do you think I am referring to? Logically?

I have no idea. Why do you think I am asking?

(And would it be possible to drop the insults?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Strange said:

I can search for paradoxes related to special relativity but I can't be sure that what I find will be the same thing that you are talking about. Why is it so hard for you to answer the question? You obviously have a specific paradox in mind.

I guess a couple of the more famous so-called paradoxes are the "barn door paradox" and the "twins paradox". Is it either of these you are thinking offer something else? (Neither of these are actually paradoxes, of course. There cannot be paradoxes in special relativity because it is mathematically consistent.)

 

 

I would actually appreciate an intelligent attempt to disqualify the material I have thus far presented. I see no useful purpose in off topic side tracking or derailment of the subject. Paradoxes involving light should be well understood by everyone here. Whether you choose to define them as such is really not relevant to the conversation.

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

I have no idea. Why do you think I am asking?

(And would it be possible to drop the insults?)

If you can read look at the responses already made, the two paradoxes I refer to have been described already. I am beginning to see a pattern on this forum, one that I have seen before. 

11 atheistic pseudo-scientists gave me a negative rating on this forum for no other reason than I insulted their religion by suggesting it has no place in science and proving it never has before. I don't feel I have to show such people any more respect than they have myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:
39 minutes ago, studiot said:

Before wasting your time on lengthy typing sessions I suggest you clean up and clarify this premise statement since it appears self contradictory to me as it stands.

Perhaps you should spend your time on a minecraft forum.  What is contradictory about it? The fact that you can't understand such a simple concept that a kid on a bicycle riding to school can reveals your lack of raw intelligence.

LMAO!

 

Post reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, studiot said:

 

Post reported.

Report it all you like, it is a simple statement of fact. If you can't understand what I wrote and when you said it was contradictory it definitely means you can't, you're not smart enough to discuss physics.I wrote in in a way that a small child could easily understand intentionally so that everyone would understand it exactly the same way.

It's not an opinion or an insult, it's simply an observation of an obvious fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Manticore said:

Look up Dunning Kruger Effect.

Right back atcha! Given our "exchange" last night I'd say you're the last person who should be citing the Dunning Kruger effect.

Intelligence is self evident, it's not something that can be faked. The moment you claimed racists were knuckle dragging subhuman, you defined The Dunning Kruger effect. You don't even know what a racist is, and you deny the races are unequal. Why would we have to describe a race if it was equal to another? Anyway, keep your off topic insults off my threads. if you have an intelligent contribution let's hear it. I'd love to see you try to disqualify anything I've said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Right back atcha! Given our "exchange" last night I'd say you're the last person who should be citing the Dunning Kruger effect.

Intelligence is self evident, it's not something that can be faked. The moment you claimed racists were knuckle dragging subhuman, you defined The Dunning Kruger effect. You don't even know what a racist is, and you deny the races are unequal. Why would we have to describe a race if it was equal to another? Anyway, keep your off topic insults off my threads. if you have an intelligent contribution let's hear it. I'd love to see you try to disqualify anything I've said.

Not easy to disqualify anything you've said, for the simple reason that you haven't said anything meaningful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Manticore said:

Not easy to disqualify anything you've said, for the simple reason that you haven't said anything meaningful.

Are you aware of the psychological phenomenon known as projection? From my perspective it is easy to see what you're about, just looking at the photograph you use for an avatar reveals a hell of a lot more about you than you know. "There is only one race, the human race"....well, there goes the entire discipline of anthropology shot to hell, might as well burn the books and declare us all the same. Emotion has no place in science, superstition and faith based ideas that defy logic and rational thought belong elsewhere. You're displacing logic with irrational emotions, you know damn well I'm right about the races and you come onto a thread to attack me simply because I made you face it.

You have no idea about what is being discussed here because you're not a person with a scientific mindset. Is it meaningful to you? Probably not. Does that mean it's not the most meaningful thing you've ever read? It could be and you'd never realize it. You are incapable of judging either way because it takes true intelligence to perceive true intelligence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I would actually appreciate an intelligent attempt to disqualify the material I have thus far presented. I see no useful purpose in off topic side tracking or derailment of the subject. Paradoxes involving light should be well understood by everyone here. Whether you choose to define them as such is really not relevant to the conversation.

Two things. 

I think it is important to establish/clarify the basics of your idea. If you think that there are real paradoxes (i.e. contradictions) in existing theory then that needs to be corrected before going further. 

If you can't answer a simple question (I am guessing a one word answer would have done) without getting defensive (and offensive) then it doesn't bode well for further discussion of the details. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Are you aware of the psychological phenomenon known as projection? From my perspective it is easy to see what you're about, just looking at the photograph you use for an avatar reveals a hell of a lot more about you than you know. "There is only one race, the human race"....well, there goes the entire discipline of anthropology shot to hell, might as well burn the books and declare us all the same. Emotion has no place in science, superstition and faith based ideas that defy logic and rational thought belong elsewhere. You're displacing logic with irrational emotions, you know damn well I'm right about the races and you come onto a thread to attack me simply because I made you face it.

You have no idea about what is being discussed here because you're not a person with a scientific mindset. Is it meaningful to you? Probably not. Does that mean it's not the most meaningful thing you've ever read? It could be and you'd never realize it. You are incapable of judging either way because it takes true intelligence to perceive true intelligence.

 

My avatar is a photograph of myself and my lady - hardly aimed at concealing anything.

As for science, I studied Astrophysics at University.

I have written aerodynamics software for aircraft design (and built my own aircraft).

(I was also lead singer & songwriter in a punk rock band many years ago - though that is totally irrelevant.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Perhaps you should spend your time on a minecraft forum.  What is contradictory about it? The fact that you can't understand such a simple concept that a kid on a bicycle riding to school can reveals your lack of raw intelligence.

LMAO!

!

Moderator Note

The insults must stop, or your continued presence here is in jeopardy. Follow the rules, or we will boot you out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Let's assume, despite your evasiveness, that you agree that there are no contradictions in relativity or quantum theory, and move on.

1 hour ago, Anonymous Participant said:

According to this new hypothesis, the photon as described by mainstream physics does not exist.

Can you clarify whether you mean that electromagnetic radiation is not quantised, or just that the quanta of electromagnetic radiation is something other than a photon?

1 hour ago, Anonymous Participant said:

The wavelength of the electromagnetic wave is related to the velocity of the associated particle, in this hypothesis it's not some mysterious "particle" with superstitious, illogical and paradoxical qualities, it is simple an electron.

Are you saying that the quantum of the electromagnetic fields the electron? Or have I misunderstood this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Strange said:

Two things. 

I think it is important to establish/clarify the basics of your idea. If you think that there are real paradoxes (i.e. contradictions) in existing theory then that needs to be corrected before going further. 

If you can't answer a simple question (I am guessing a one word answer would have done) without getting defensive (and offensive) then it doesn't bode well for further discussion of the details. 

The two basic logical contradictions in conventional theory are the velocity of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference and light can be both a wave and a particle . These are well know paradoxes , at least i though so. 

The first is a logical contradiction because in all other known examples in physics velocity changes with the frame of reference, call it relative velocity.

It is impossible to logically conclude that light emanating from a source moving relative to one frame of reference moves away from that source at the speed of light as measured from the moving source and yet from the stationary reference moves at the speed of light as well. The two cannot be both true at the same time and yet they are. What we would logically expect is the light would move away from the moving source at light speed and from that reference be measured as such, but from the observational stationary frame of reference it should be moving at the velocity of the source plus the velocity it was emitted. Because it is light and light creates a paradox, it doesn't.

The APPARENT paradox is if the source was moving  in relation to a frame of reference, from that "stationary" position the light should also be moving away from the source at the speed of light, so if the source is itself moving from the observational frame of reference, the  velocity of the light it is emitting from the stationary reference should be it's velocity plus the speed of light but it's not, its the speed of light. What this forces us to accept is that two observations which are mutually contradictory are true at the same time in two different frames of reference, a contradiction, a paradox.  The speed of light is measured as the same in both frames, which defies logic and that in my estimation is a paradox. What I can and will do is explain why that "paradox" is not a paradox at all..

 

18 minutes ago, Manticore said:

My avatar is a photograph of myself and my lady - hardly aimed at concealing anything.

As for science, I studied Astrophysics at University.

I have written aerodynamics software for aircraft design (and built my own aircraft).

(I was also lead singer & songwriter in a punk rock band many years ago - though that is totally irrelevant.)

"My avatar is a photograph of myself and my lady - hardly aimed at concealing anything."

I figured that, although it is impossible to ascertain the sex of the person in the photo. The point is you motivated by your emotional involvement to form an opinion in science, a no no.

 

20 minutes ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

The insults must stop, or your continued presence here is in jeopardy. Follow the rules, or we will boot you out.

 

As I recall you insulted me last night in much the same manner, as did a few others. Are you saying the rules apply selectively depending upon your personal opinions and whims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

To all: Stick to discussing the subject of the OP and stop bringing up irrelevant discussions. No side comments, no insults, no discussion of avatars, or projection.

 
16 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

 As I recall you insulted me last night in much the same manner, as did a few others. Are you saying the rules apply selectively depending upon your personal opinions and whims?

!

Moderator Note

Provide a link where I decried your lack of intelligence. Otherwise, stop going off-topic by responding to modnotes

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.