Jump to content

A Planks formula, a moderators formula and a lay-man -- confused.


Kramer
 Share

Recommended Posts

A Planks formula, a moderators formula and a lay-man -- confused.

In a thread about “quanta of time” the moderator exposed a formula about intensity of power of photon depending by frequency and temperature:

I ( v,T) = (2*h*v^3) / (C^2 * (e^((h*v) / (k*T)) –1))
In the Plank formula we have another version for the same issue:

I (λ,T) = (2*π*h*C^2) / (λ^5 * (e^((h*C) / (λ*k*T)) –1))

I am confused because it seems to me that they differ in amount and in concept. Any explanation please where I am wrong, especially in link between (λ, ν, C)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The relation is c = λν

 

The forumlas are also distributions, so one is per frequency interval and the other is per wavelength interval. You would need to account for this as well if you want to equate the two, i.e. the first multiplied by dv and the second by dλ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if we can use the formulas for individual cases. For example in the process of “annihilation” of electron, I mean for the moment, when a mass particle transformed in a photon.
I think that the two formulas, if used for the same mono-color photons, must give the same result, nevertheless we calculate them with wavelength or frequency, because they must be convertible to each other.
It not happens. And this I see strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if we can use the formulas for individual cases. For example in the process of “annihilation” of electron, I mean for the moment, when a mass particle transformed in a photon.

 

No, we can't. The formula applies to a blackbody at a temperature T.

 

I think that the two formulas, if used for the same mono-color photons, must give the same result, nevertheless we calculate them with wavelength or frequency, because they must be convertible to each other.

It not happens. And this I see strange.

 

They are equivalent, you just have to do the math to show it. Why is that strange?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Planks formula, a moderators formula and a lay-man -- confused.

In a thread about “quanta of time” the moderator exposed a formula about intensity of power of photon depending by frequency and temperature:

I ( v,T) = (2*h*v^3) / (C^2 * (e^((h*v) / (k*T)) –1))

In the Plank formula we have another version for the same issue:

 

I (λ,T) = (2*π*h*C^2) / (λ^5 * (e^((h*C) / (λ*k*T)) –1))

I am confused because it seems to me that they differ in amount and in concept. Any explanation please where I am wrong, especially in link between (λ, ν, C)

See here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we can't. The formula applies to a blackbody at a temperature T.
---- A categorical response for not continuing debate of Plank law in "particular view point" with curious lay-man.

XYZt

----- Thanks for the link. Now i have some time to scratch my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we can't. The formula applies to a blackbody at a temperature T.

---- A categorical response for not continuing debate of Plank law in "particular view point" with curious lay-man.

 

 

Excuse me? What debate? What point of view? You asked a question, and I answered. If this an inquiry by a curious layman perhaps you could adopt the stance of one by continuing to ask questions to expand your knowledge. A debate implies you have a certain background and competence with the material, but your reaction to my response indicates you don't, and also implies there is some middle ground to be hashed out — there isn't.

 

The law doesn't apply — the conditions for which it applies is not met: the law applies to the spectrum electromagnetic radiation emitted from a blackbody at some temperature — a blackbody emits radiation because it's hot — and pair annihilation is very different. Annihilation is not in thermal equilibrium, there is no defined temperature with two particles; there are only two photons with energies defined by the mass energy of the particles. There is no continuous spectrum of emission, so it is not described by a distribution function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we can't. The formula applies to a blackbody at a temperature T.

---- A categorical response for not continuing debate of Plank law in "particular view point" with curious lay-man.

XYZt

----- Thanks for the link. Now i have some time to scratch my head.

I simply pointed you to a source that answered your questions. I promise not to do it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

XYZt

I simply pointed you to a source that answered your questions. I promise not to do it again.
I sincerely thanked you for the link. Believe me. For me was a new source for feeding my curiosity, and find some valuable data about the issue. So again thank you.
As for “scratch my head” this was a remark for my slow understanding in learning.
Sensei
Kramer, do you even know what is black body radiation?

---- No ser. Now I am trying to understand. Do you think you have a complete understanding? I am afraid that your remark is a self opinionated problem.
Swanson

Excuse me? What debate? What point of view? You asked a question, and I answered. If this an inquiry by a curious layman perhaps you could adopt the stance of one by continuing to ask questions to expand your knowledge. A debate implies you have a certain background and competence with the material, but your reaction to my response indicates you don't, and also implies there is some middle ground to be hashed out — there isn't.
------Please, try to understand me. Maybe, my beg for a debate, seems ridiculous, take in consideration that you are a specialist and I am a lay-man “ without the background and competence” for a debate. Let consider it a conversation of student of negative quotes with the teacher.
So, I have some nudge with the theme of this thread.
1--- I used those formulas in the case of electron particle, in the moment of creation of photon.

I take in consideration that gamma photon in moment of creation must have a temperature, after De Wien, for about 1194310863 K. In this context, I may consider the gamma photon as “a black body”. As such, gamma photon must have a power of:
I(T,v) = 2,781426942*10^10 joule /m^2 and
I(T,λ) = 4,44852127*10^42 ( joule / m^2) * Hz/m
Those mind blowing amount of energies, are confusing me and astonish.
2--- If gamma photon is in fact a black body, in what way go its specter of radiation ? Is it there some kind of disintegration in low frequencies? How?
3--- The power of radiation was the biggest puzzle that didn’t fit with my idea that:
all laws of physic have the same place in the structure of hypothetic particles by unique sub particles. I am trying to find, why? Am I in wrong path? Let it be.
4--- I am puzzled too, with “a law” that “forces” equilibrium between mass particles and bosons, by means of “creations” or “annihilation”…….How, this “law”, apply what kind of “force”?
Upon what: Between mass and mass-les particles? What is the role of space, as pure space, and what is space determined by “wave length”?

The law doesn't apply — the conditions for which it applies is not met: the law applies to the spectrum electromagnetic radiation emitted from a blackbody at some temperature — a blackbody emits radiation because it's hot — and pair annihilation is very different. Annihilation is not in thermal equilibrium, there is no defined temperature with two particles; there are only two photons with energies defined by the mass energy of the particles. There is no continuous spectrum of emission, so it is not described by a distribution function.
------ Hum, But distribution function is about what is distributed. And what is distributed, are bosons and mass particles. Are they that create substrate, of “distribution function”. Are their “wave length”, that posses temperature. Are their “wave length” that fill the ideal space between particles. They are fundamentals. How can we neglect their individual role?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kramer, do you even know what is black body radiation?

---- No ser. Now I am trying to understand. Do you think you have a complete understanding? I am afraid that your remark is a self opinionated problem.

 

You might consider trying to rectify that. I will even be so bold as to suggest that you should have investigated that matter before posing your question.

 

Swanson

Excuse me? What debate? What point of view? You asked a question, and I answered. If this an inquiry by a curious layman perhaps you could adopt the stance of one by continuing to ask questions to expand your knowledge. A debate implies you have a certain background and competence with the material, but your reaction to my response indicates you don't, and also implies there is some middle ground to be hashed out — there isn't.[/size]

------Please, try to understand me. [/size]Maybe, [/size]my beg for a debate, seems ridiculous, take in consideration that you are a specialist and I am a lay-man “ without the background and competence” for a debate. Let consider it a conversation of student of negative quotes with the teacher.

So, I have some nudge with the theme of this thread.

1--- I used those formulas in the case of electron particle, in the moment of creation of photon.

I take in consideration that gamma photon in moment of creation must have a temperature, after De Wien, for about 1194310863 K. In this context, I may consider the gamma photon as “a black body”. As such, gamma photon must have a power of:

I(T,v) = 2,781426942*10^10 joule /m^2 and

I(T,λ) = 4,44852127*10^42 ( joule / m^2) * Hz/m

Those mind blowing amount of energies, are confusing me and astonish.

2--- If gamma photon is in fact a black body, in what way go its specter of radiation ? Is it there some kind of disintegration in low frequencies? How?

3--- The power of radiation was the biggest puzzle that didn’t fit with my idea that:

all laws of physic have the same place in the structure of hypothetic particles by unique sub particles. I am trying to find, why? Am I in wrong path? Let it be.

4--- I am puzzled too, with “a law” that “forces” equilibrium between mass particles and bosons, by means of “creations” or “annihilation”…….How, this “law”, apply what kind of “force”?

Upon what: Between mass and mass-les particles? What is the role of space, as pure space, and what is space determined by “wave length”?

No, a single photon does not have a temperature, nor is it a blackbody. Wien's displacement law doesn't apply here either. You're grabbing equations that you you have no idea how to use and, unsurprisingly, getting nonsense results. GIGO

 

You need to start with the basics and work up. I've lost count of how many times this has been pointed out to you.

 

 

The law doesn't apply — the conditions for which it applies is not met: the law applies to the spectrum electromagnetic radiation emitted from a blackbody at some temperature — a blackbody emits radiation because it's hot — and pair annihilation is very different. Annihilation is not in thermal equilibrium, there is no defined temperature with two particles; there are only two photons with energies defined by the mass energy of the particles. There is no continuous spectrum of emission, so it is not described by a distribution function. [/size]

-[/size]----- Hum, But distribution function is about what is distributed. And what is distributed, are bosons and mass particles. Are they that create substrate, of “distribution function”. Are their “wave length”, that posses temperature. Are their “wave length” that fill the ideal space between particles. They are fundamentals. How can we neglect their individual role?

 

No, that's bunk.

 

It's a power distribution function for a blackbody, i.e. it tells you the the "amount of energy it gives off as radiation of different frequencies. It is measured in terms of the power emitted per unit area of the body, per unit solid angle that the radiation is measured over" in terms of wavelength or frequency (depending on which formula you pick) of the photons emitted.

 

The quoted part comes from the wikipedia link that xyzt provided. You had this information easily available to you. There's nothing about massive particles being emitted or any of that other nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kramer, do you even know what is black body radiation?

---- No ser. Now I am trying to understand. Do you think you have a complete understanding?

Understanding of black body radiation doesn't require knowing everything (anything?) about quantum physics.

But yes, I think, I do.

 

You should start from reading this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

 

And then this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation

 

I have right now turned on "black body radiation" device, namely light bulb.

 

I am afraid that your remark is a self opinionated problem.

 

Sorry, I don't understand what do you mean..

I didn't mention any problem.

 

------Please, try to understand me. Maybe, my beg for a debate, seems ridiculous, take in consideration that you are a specialist and I am a lay-man “ without the background and competence” for a debate.

 

Kramer, when somebody mentions something unknown to you, enter that phrase to google search tool and read articles about it. Simple enough?

 

 

Those mind blowing amount of energies, are confusing me and astonish.

 

 

These equations are from 1900. Before any quantum physics.

Simply take light bulb, turn it on, split light coming from it on prism, and measure each wavelength independently (in practice couple points, red, green, blue, and couple in between). And you will receive result similar to black body radiation graph.

Anybody can do that at home.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Swanson
You might consider trying to rectify that. I will even be so bold as to suggest that you should have investigated that matter before posing your question.

Rectify what? The aphorism of Socrates, that for sure we know nothing? As for your suggestion,--- I consulted official books of physic and I didn’t find the version of Plank law in terms of frequency.
If I rush to understand more, this was because, as I explained in previous post, it was a puzzle that didn’t fit in my scheme. And I hopped to find --- why?

No, a single photon does not have a temperature, nor is it a blackbody. Wien’s displacement law doesn’t apply here either. You’re grabbing equations that you you have no idea how to use and, unsurprisingly, getting nonsense results. GIGO

----- Now I am really disappointed. Aren’t microwaves (of cosmic background waves, or microwaves in oven, the only source of temperature? Do you means that needs more than one to have temperature?

Maybe I am wrong, but Wien’s displacement law, doesn’t rule out to find the maximum of intensity for a concrete single wavelength, and this means for a single photon or groups of monochromatic photons.
Speculation
Sure you don’t admit that photon can have a structure, can have an own surface created by square of “wave-length”. And in this structure we may have:
P = σ*A*e’*T^4

Here “P” = power in watts radiated or absorbed by a black body. “σ” = Boltzman constant “A” = surface of the black body. “ e’ ” =constant of emissivity or absorbity of the surface . “T” = temperature in Kelvin.
Now here is my “speculation” for gamma photon in the moment of creation by two different sub particles, from collision of electron mass particle, with it’s anti matter positron particle.

Both electron and positron have Compton wave length “ λ” = 2,42631021518 10^-12 m
the same must have” gamma photon”.
Then A = 4*pi* λ^2 And T = (2.897768651*10^-3) / λ K by DeWien
“σ” = 5.6704*10^-8 W m^-2 K^-4 is Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

So P / e’ = (5.6704*10^-8) * (4*pi* λ^2 )* ((2.897768651*10^-3) / λ )^4 = 8534801,111 watt or joule / Hz.
And Eph’.= ( P/e’) * (T sec) or Eph’. = (P/e’) / (ν ph Hz). The frequency of photon is the same as of electron or positron that is ν = 1.235589976*10^20 Hz

So Eph’. = 8534801,111 / (1.235589976*10 ^20) = 6. 90740339 * 10^-14 joule.
but Eph is 8.18710414510^-14 joule.
Results emmisivity or absorbity constant “ e’ “ = 1.185253605 = Eph / Eph’
This is some what disturbing for me, because a black body has e’ = 1
I have calculated for all particles that have ability to transform in photons, and found the same value of e’

 

You need to start with the basics and work up. I've lost count of how many times this has been pointed out to you.
----I have not time in disposition.

No, that's bunk.
--
Thanks, very encouraging.

 

It's a power distribution function for a blackbody, i.e. it tells you the the "amount of energy it gives off as radiation of different frequencies. It is measured in terms of the power emitted per unit area of the body, per unit solid angle that the radiation is measured over" in terms of wavelength or frequency (depending on which formula you pick) of the photons emitted.
-----What is known is known. I am eager to satisfy my curiosity, over the gaps of unknown, trying to fill them with speculative assertions. This doesn’t means that my speculation must have any value, nor on other hand to be a sin for anathema.

 

The quoted part comes from the wikipedia link that xyzt provided. You had this information easily available to you. There's nothing about massive particles being emitted or any of that other nonsense.
----- First that I began to read the link given by XYZt (I liked XYZT), the author gave me satisfaction that I was right to see both formulas as something that cause disarray. I will continue to study. But what was really interesting to dispute, you call it nonsense. It was just what I am eager to understand: in a closed volume, filled with bosons and mass particles, if there is not equilibrium imposed by law of temperature, this equilibrium realized by the means of “creation” or “annihilation” of particles. Why, how?….

Sensei
Thanks for explanation of things that I “don’t know”.
What I want by you is: “a little more modesty moderatore”. Try to understand that my curiosity is not about issues that every body knows. My curiosity is unsatisfied by issues that I gave question but not have any satisfying answering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swanson

You might consider trying to rectify that. I will even be so bold as to suggest that you should have investigated that matter before posing your question.

Rectify what? The aphorism of Socrates, that for sure we know nothing? As for your suggestion,--- I consulted official books of physic and I didn’t find the version of Plank law in terms of frequency.

If I rush to understand more, this was because, as I explained in previous post, it was a puzzle that didn’t fit in my scheme. And I hopped to find --- why?

You could have looked up what a blackbody is, instead of blindly forging ahead

 

 

No, a single photon does not have a temperature, nor is it a blackbody. Wien’s displacement law doesn’t apply here either. You’re grabbing equations that you you have no idea how to use and, unsurprisingly, getting nonsense results. GIGO

----- Now I am really disappointed. Aren’t microwaves (of cosmic background waves, or microwaves in oven, the only source of temperature? Do you means that needs more than one to have temperature?

Maybe I am wrong, but Wien’s displacement law, doesn’t rule out to find the maximum of intensity for a concrete single wavelength, and this means for a single photon or groups of monochromatic photons.

No, microwaves are not the only source of temperature. You have a temperature, your computer has a temperature. Anything in thermal equilibrium has a temperature. And they all emit radiation that's dependent on temperature. Something around 300K emits strongly at around 10 microns, which is in the infrared. The sun's surface has a temperature of about 6000K, which is why we get visible light from it — the spectrum of emission depends on the temperature. We even have a name for things that are hot enough to emit visible light: incandescent.

 

Wien's displacement law only applies to a blackbody, i.e. something that is emitting radiation owing to its temperature. It does not apply to a monochromatic source. Put another way, monochromatic radiation is not from a thermal source. There is no maybe: you are wrong.

 

This is some what disturbing for me, because a black body has e’ = 1

I have calculated for all particles that have ability to transform in photons, and found the same value of e’

 

Which has no meaning at all, because you are using a formula in a way that it doesn't apply. Garbage in, garbage out.

You need to start with the basics and work up. I've lost count of how many times this has been pointed out to you.

----I have not time in disposition.

That's disappointing. We just posted some guidelines for posting in speculations, and one of the items is that posters need to be familiar with the science they are discussing (part 4)

 

It's a power distribution function for a blackbody, i.e. it tells you the the "amount of energy it gives off as radiation of different frequencies. It is measured in terms of the power emitted per unit area of the body, per unit solid angle that the radiation is measured over" in terms of wavelength or frequency (depending on which formula you pick) of the photons emitted.

-----What is known is known. I am eager to satisfy my curiosity, over the gaps of unknown, trying to fill them with speculative assertions. This doesn’t means that my speculation must have any value, nor on other hand to be a sin for anathema.

 

 

These "gaps of unknown" are gaps in your knowledge, not in others'. You could fill those gaps with knowledge based on well-tested science.

 

The quoted part comes from the wikipedia link that xyzt provided. You had this information easily available to you. There's nothing about massive particles being emitted or any of that other nonsense.

----- First that I began to read the link given by XYZt (I liked XYZT), the author gave me satisfaction that I was right to see both formulas as something that cause disarray. I will continue to study. But what was really interesting to dispute, you call it nonsense. It was just what I am eager to understand: in a closed volume, filled with bosons and mass particles, if there is not equilibrium imposed by law of temperature, this equilibrium realized by the means of “creation” or “annihilation” of particles. Why, how?….

 

You're disputing well-established science. What you're posting is nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Swanson

You could have looked up what a blackbody is, instead of blindly forging ahead
----- I knew quite well what is a black body. I was unaware about expression of Plank law, in terms of frequency. I asked to use thread for deeper learning.

No, microwaves are not the only source of temperature. You have a temperature, your computer has a temperature. Anything in thermal equilibrium has a temperature. And they all emit radiation that's dependent on temperature. Something around 300K emits strongly at around 10 microns, which is in the infrared. The sun's surface has a temperature of about 6000K, which is why we get visible light from it — the spectrum of emission depends on the temperature. We even have a name for things that are hot enough to emit visible light: incandescent.
----- Maybe here stand my confusion: “microwaves are not the only source of temperature”
When I say that “waves are the only source of temperature, I means that they are “the only carriers” of temperature, because I think that photons of waves (of whatever frequency) are “the only possessors and carriers” of energies---of all kind of them.
You say that I am wrong, and bring as argument that bodies with different temperature, emits photons with different wave-lengths. This is not a convincing argument, and seems to me like rubber stamp, without explanation how body possess temperature without waves.
I think that temperature of whatever of bodies in your examples, is the result of photons that take “initial there” or “that fall on there”, and not the opposite that you say: photons are created by temperature.

Wien's displacement law only applies to a blackbody, i.e. something that is emitting radiation owing to its temperature. It does not apply to a monochromatic source. Put another way, monochromatic radiation is not from a thermal source. There is no maybe: you are wrong.
----- I prefer not wrong, as to conforms with your notion that temperature is something independent by wave.
I insist that temperature is property of waves about the possession of amount of thermo energy (the Wiens law may used to calculate this amount).
The same manner as quanta of energy of this wave is calculated by using frequency.
The same manner as Coulomb law is used to calculate electric inter-action of sub-particles from electron and positron mass particles, in creation of this wave using its wave length….. etc.
The meaning : Energy of a particle may calculated in different mode, about how is used. It is the same.

Which has no meaning at all, because you are using a formula in a way that it doesn't apply. Garbage in, garbage out.
Maybe is a "discovery" of this constant. Ha? It can’t be coincidence that work in all other cases.

You're disputing well-established science. What you're posting is nonsense
----- It is called conformism. To speculate means to not conform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

----- I knew quite well what is a black body. I was unaware about expression of Plank law, in terms of frequency.

 

That means that you didn't know what a black body is. (It isn't just a body that is black!)

 

When I say that “waves are the only source of temperature, I means that they are “the only carriers” of temperature

 

There are two problems with this. Firstly, it isn't clear what you mean by "carrier". Heat can be transferred by conduction, convection or radiation. Only the last of of those involves photons.

 

Secondly, you are misusing the word "temperature". Temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy of atoms in a material. It does not apply to individual particles, and especially not photons.

 

without explanation how body possess temperature without waves.

 

The temperature depends on the velocity of the atoms in the body. No need for any waves.

 

I think that temperature of whatever of bodies in your examples, is the result of photons that take “initial there” or “that fall on there”, and not the opposite that you say: photons are created by temperature.

 

And you would be wrong.

 

I insist that temperature is property of waves about the possession of amount of thermo energy

 

Then you need to (a) provide some evidence to support this and (b) show why all known thermodynamics is wrong.

 

----- It is called conformism. To speculate means to not conform.

 

It is still nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're disputing well-established science. What you're posting is nonsense

----- It is called conformism. To speculate means to not conform.

Speculation involves taking a mix of established facts, validated observations, uncertain observations, plausible alternatives and the like, and then contemplating possibilities. This totally conforms with scientific practice.

 

Misinterpreting established facts, ignoring validated observations, imagining non-existent observations and considering impossible alternatives, then mixing this in an incoherent fashion is also a kind of conforming. It conforms to the concept mentioned by swansont of garbage in - garbage out.

 

I have observed several members trying to help you on this thread. I have seen you resolutely insist upon maintaining your ignorance. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have observed several members trying to help you on this thread. I have seen you resolutely insist upon maintaining your ignorance. Why?

 

The more he will learn, the more he will see his model/theory is not matching Universe that we know. And I gave him values that would match 9 months ago in PM, ignored..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could have looked up what a blackbody is, instead of blindly forging ahead

----- I knew quite well what is a black body. I was unaware about expression of Plank law, in terms of frequency. I asked to use thread for deeper learning.

My mistake. You said you didn't know what blackbody radiation is. And yet you went forward with assertions about laws describing it.

 

No, microwaves are not the only source of temperature. You have a temperature, your computer has a temperature. Anything in thermal equilibrium has a temperature. And they all emit radiation that's dependent on temperature. Something around 300K emits strongly at around 10 microns, which is in the infrared. The sun's surface has a temperature of about 6000K, which is why we get visible light from it — the spectrum of emission depends on the temperature. We even have a name for things that are hot enough to emit visible light: incandescent.

----- Maybe here stand my confusion: “microwaves are not [/size]the only source of temperature”

When I say that “waves are the only source of temperature, I means that they are “the only carriers” of temperature, because I think that photons of waves (of whatever frequency) are “the only possessors and carriers” of energies---of all kind of them.

You say that I am wrong, and bring as argument that bodies with different temperature, emits photons with different wave-lengths. This is not a convincing argument, and seems to me like rubber stamp, without explanation how body possess temperature without waves.

I think that temperature of whatever of bodies in your examples, is the result of photons that take “initial there” or “that fall on there”, and not the opposite that you say: photons are created by temperature.

Nope. This is pretty much all based on a lack of familiarity with the basic physics and the terminology that goes along with it.

 

Wien's displacement law only applies to a blackbody, i.e. something that is emitting radiation owing to its temperature. It does not apply to a monochromatic source. Put another way, monochromatic radiation is not from a thermal source. There is no maybe: you are wrong.

----- I prefer not wrong, as to conforms with your notion that temperature is something independent by wave.

I insist that temperature is property of waves about the possession of amount of thermo energy (the Wiens law may used to calculate this amount).

The same manner as quanta of energy of this wave is calculated by using frequency.

The same manner as Coulomb law is used to calculate electric inter-action of sub-particles from electron and positron mass particles, in creation of this wave using its wave length….. etc.

The meaning : Energy of a particle may calculated in different mode, about how is used. It is the same.

Then you are obliged to come up with a model that has temperature being a property of waves, or evidence in support of that insistence.

 

Which has no meaning at all, because you are using a formula in a way that it doesn't apply. Garbage in, garbage out.

Maybe is a "discovery" of this constant. Ha? It can’t be coincidence that work in all other cases.

Then the burden of proof is on you to establish that it is a discovery, and that there is some framework where this all works out.

 

You're disputing well-established science. What you're posting is nonsense

----- It is called conformism. To speculate means to not conform.

 

Meaningless. Science has to agree with what we observe in nature. Nonconformism just for the sake of being different, or just because it sounds plausible to the untrained ear, has no value.

 

You have to show that your idea accurately models reality. If you had a model, that is, instead of just commandeering equations. Do you you have a model, or evidence, for these things you insist are right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange

That means that you didn't know what a black body is. (It isn't just a body that is black!)
---- The same I am sure for you.

There are two problems with this. Firstly, it isn't clear what you mean by "carrier". Heat can be transferred by conduction, convection or radiation. Only the last of of those involves photons.
---- And all of those are realized by means of “fields” (or me by photons), nevertheless they are binding mass particles or go out free.

Secondly, you are misusing the word "temperature". Temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy of atoms in a material. It does not apply to individual particles, and especially not photons.
---- The energy display herself only in form of photons. Energy in whatever form is “marriage” of mass with anti mass subparticless.

The temperature depends on the velocity of the atoms in the body. No need for any waves.
----- The velocity of atoms is consequence of photons.

I think that temperature of whatever of bodies in your examples, is the result of photons that take “initial there” or “that fall on there”, and not the opposite that you say: photons are created by temperature.

And you would be wrong.
------ I say for you the same

I think that temperature of whatever of bodies in your examples, is the result of photons that take “initial there” or “that fall on there”, and not the opposite that you say: photons are created by temperature.

And you would be wrong.
---- The same I say for you

I insist that temperature is property of waves about the possession of amount of thermo energy

Then you need to (a) provide some evidence to support this and (b) show why all known thermodynamics is wrong.
---- It is not wrong thermodynamics, it is wrong idealistic interpretation.

Ophiolite
Speculation involves taking a mix of established facts, validated observations, uncertain observations, plausible alternatives and the like, and then contemplating possibilities. This totally conforms with scientific practice.

----- Short conform with whatever others say, as those saying are sacra saint true. And come afterwards that some or most of previous saying are not true, are not exact true, are flawed are wrong invented, are wrong interpreted with certain premeditated aim or with sincerity ……etc…. etc…

 

Misinterpreting established facts, ignoring validated observations, imagining non-existent observations and considering impossible alternatives, then mixing this in an incoherent fashion is also a kind of conforming. It conforms to the concept mentioned by swansont of garbage in - garbage out
---- I am not offended by Swansont valuation. The only doubt I have is that you moderators, when see that thread take a turn that don’t fit with your aim?, duty?, conviction,?….. it angers you, and this anger is caused by ignorance of author of thread, or by lack of your arguments to convince auditorium, ( I don’t say an obstinate chap like me).

.Ophiolite. I dare to ask you a conundrum. Please don’t use the authority of somebody high authority to convince me:
How is possible that with three fish you may feed 5000 people? I means how is possible that three, quarks accelerated near C velocity, when collide, create 5000 others?
This conundrum is for all moderators.

I have observed several members trying to help you on this thread. I have seen you resolutely insist upon maintaining your ignorance. Why?
-----My grass is eaten. I am curious to see how deep is ignorance of others, compared with my lay-mans.

Sensei
The more he will learn, the more he will see his model/theory is not matching Universe that we know. And I gave him values that would match 9 months ago in PM, ignored..

----- Now tell me something about “ puppetry”.
Swanson
My mistake. You said you didn't know what blackbody radiation is. And yet you went forward with assertions about laws describing it.

----To know “ is a broader issue. I know such as to come in conclusion that statistics is the summa or summas of some basic equation, with many variables, giving some conditions, etc… In a trivial way you may give me a statistical equation about movement:

S(a,Vo,t) = Σ Σ ( vo +- (a*t^2) / 2) for a cars competition.
I am interested only about basic formula S = ( vo +- (a*t^2) / 2)
So what wrong with me going forward with an assertion? I don’t discard anything scientifically approved.
But…. I have the right to ask specialist about:
Quantum theoretical explanation of Planck's law views the radiation as a gas of massless, uncharged, bosonic particles, namely photons, in thermodynamic equilibrium. Photons are viewed as the carriers of the electromagnetic interaction between electrically charged elementary particles. Photon numbers are not conserved. “Photons are created or annihilated in the right numbers and with the right energies to fill the cavity with the Planck distribution” WHY? HOW?
----------

Nope. This is pretty much all based on a lack of familiarity with the basic physics and the terminology that goes along with it.
------ The same stereotype answer, you had about mass and electric charge of photons when they create electron particles.

Then you are obliged to come up with a model that has temperature being a property of waves, or evidence in support of that insistence.
----Very simple: without microwaves you will eat cold soup. If you forget fork in oven and incidentally put on microwaves, you see tips of fork to spark.

Then the burden of proof is on you to establish that it is a discovery, and that there is some framework where this all works out.
----- Well. Take this formula that is derived from thermal constants;
Ephx = (1.986445442*10^-25) / λx
And use it with Compton wavelength of whatever particle, ( that interacting with its antiparticle creates two photons), will have the same energy.
Meaningless. Science has to agree with what we observe in nature. Nonconformism just for the sake of being different, or just because it sounds plausible to the untrained ear, has no value.
----- I don’t hope for any value, and not looking that somebody to approve me. It’s not for sake of being different. It is that you didn’t give any satisfying argument about many questions. My speculation is a try.



You have to show that your idea accurately models reality. If you had a model, that is, instead of just commandeering equations. Do you you have a model, or evidence, for these things you insist are right?
----- Nope.

 

For all.
[i am astonished and ask myself what kind of “blunt” have I expressed in my previous post, that to have a “honor” for such a rush of so many distinguished moderators.
Is it “mine convincing” (I stress “mine”) that the reality is structured “only” by mater– antimatter particles?
That matter elementary particles, (created by two mater sub-particles) display material gravitational reality?
That mater “subs” with “liaison” with anti mater “subs” create all kind of photons? Both those that runaway from material object (so called photons), or that bind leptons with barions (so called bozons) ?
That antimatter subs are unable to create elementary particles but fills space with disorganized subs of antimatter (antigravity?)?
I admit that this is a different view point for many aspects with contemporary physic, which give fields priority toward particles.
I am convinced in myself (I, very sad, that only I) that different fields are ability of sub-particles (those pink unicorns derided by Swansont), and not the opposite that they create particles.]
or was :
[My assertion that “ Speculation means to not conform”?]


Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Kramer, your attempt to circle into discussions you've already had in other threads is not appreciated.
Your original question has been asked and answered. The discussion about matter/antimatter, etc., has been discussed elsewhere and you don't get to have multiple threads on it. This thread is closed.

And for the love of everything, learn how to use the quote function

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.