Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) 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. This photon supposedly can't have mass because as we know the current set "speed limit" for mass in any frame of reference is "<C". In later posts I will prove with specific examples that mass does reach and exceed light speed in a given frame of reference, there are several examples obviously where it can be demonstrated using hard data. (Have patience and try not to derail the subject!) 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.. 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 a property of mass in relative motion to a frame of reference, for instance a bullet leaving the muzzle of a gun had kinetic energy relative to the shooter. This kinetic energy is 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. The paradox of the photon is that it possesses kinetic energy while lacking a basic component necessary for it to exist, mass. 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 wave-forms 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 wave-forms 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 described 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. (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. However, if you ask banal questions, post ad hominems or personal attacks, they will be ignored categorically as they were used as a pretext to close and block responses to a similar thread I posted earlier and I see no purpose in entertaining them. I will do my best to answer any questions pertaining directly to the subject matter. Edited September 12, 2017 by Anonymous Participant
Strange Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 When you raised this before, we got as far as establishing that you agree that light is quantised but that the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the electron and not the photon. Is that correct? If so, I guess my first question would be: why isn't light charged? Why isn't its path changed by the presence of charge or a magnetic field? 16 minutes 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. This also sounds as if you are suggesting the velocity is dependent on the wavelength? Or have I misunderstood? 17 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: 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". And does this mean that you don't think of a waveform being somehow associated with the electron, but that it is actually moving in a sinusoidal path? This raises more questions: 1. What causes the electron to move sinusoidally? That would require a force to change its velocity (direction of motion) wouldn't it? 2. We know a charged particle radiates when it is accelerated, so why doesn't the electron lose energy and come to a halt?
Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Author Posted September 12, 2017 T Just now, Strange said: When you raised this before, we got as far as establishing that you agree that light is quantised but that the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the electron and not the photon. Is that correct? If so, I guess my first question would be: why isn't light charged? Why isn't its path changed by the presence of charge or a magnetic field? This also sounds as if you are suggesting the velocity is dependent on the wavelength? Or have I misunderstood? 1 minute ago, Strange said: The particle of light is an electron. Electrons have different properties in different states, for instance a free electron traveling through a CRT tube doesn't "look" like one flowing through a conductor or in the electron cloud around an atom, and they have different properties. The direction of light isn't altered by a magnetic field but it is deflected by gravity or passing through matter. The reason it isn't deflected by a magnetic field is because having a charge (-) isn't a property it possesses in that state, moving at C and oscillating passively to a vibrating magnetic field. I will attempt to explain why this is later but I would rather stay in a predetermined sequence of my own choosing in presenting my hypothesis. There are examples where light can be "captured" and converted to electrical energy and a flow of "normal" electrons, also explained by rather dubious theories. IN ALL EXAMPLES where light energy comes in contact with matter, the result is light is emitted in different frequencies from the incident light, for instance sunlight on the hood of a car causes a reflection in various "colors" as well as low frequency infrared. The only case where it is not emitted it DOES cause a charge to exist, for instance a photo voltaic cell. The energy of light is dependent on it's frequency because it is following a waveform, with higher frequencies it has to travel father to go the same linear distance. Draw two sine waves on a sheet of paper one with half the wavelength of the other and the same amplitude and it is easy to see how a particle following that wave travels farther with higher frequencies, and thus is in reality moving faster. If light energy is composed of electrons, why does it not possess a charge? This seems like an instant disqualification for my hypothesis because if the light component electron had a charge i would be deflected by powerful magnetic fields even though it is moving at a very high velocity. The reason it isn't is actually quite simple, because the "light electron" has different properties than the ordinary free electron because it has another component and thus property absent in "normal" electrons. We know light possesses the property of electromagnetism, in fact it is referred to in scientific nomenclature as "electromagnetic energy" because it exhibits the qualities of a vibrating magnetic field. If it was not continuously shifting in magnetic polarity it would have a negative charge, and removing the vibration results in a charge,and that is what a photo voltaic material does. In other words light energy shifts millions of times per second between electron and positron but emits from the electron cloud of an atom.
beecee Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: 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. Sorry, personally I'm not going through your very lengthy post in any detail, rather I'll just make some observations.... [1] The symbol for the speed of light is "c" not C . [2] Your speculative hypothetical is just that, and if you really had anything concrete based on evidence, or invalidating the current incumbent model, you would not be here. You would write up a proper scientific for peer review. [3] You seem to have a beef with many areas of scientific endeavour: What are your qualifications, taking into account the error in point [1] Edited September 12, 2017 by beecee
studiot Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 19 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: IN ALL EXAMPLES where light energy comes in contact with matter, the result is light is emitted in different frequencies from the incident light I have come to expect unsupportable all embracing statements from you. Have you not heard of Flourescence?
Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Author Posted September 12, 2017 Just now, beecee said: Sorry, personally I'm not going through your very lengthy post in any detail, rather I'll just make some observations.... [1] The symbol for the speed of light is "c" not C [2] Your speculative hypothetical is just that, and if you really had anything concrete based on evidence, or invalidating the current incumbent model, you would not be here. You would write up a proper scientific for peer review. [3] You seem to have a beef with many areas of scientific endeavour: What are your qualifications, taking into account the error in point [1] 1) Pardon me for the typo. I guess it disqualifies my hypothesis in your mind but that's alright. 2) I am here to test my hypothesis to criticism and "tune it up" , hoping for at least few intelligent contributors to allow for it before I do present a peer reviewed paper. 3) My qualifications are an aptitude in science in the top tenth of the 99th percentile based on comparative testing with people like you and others on this forum and a similar result in repeated intelligence testing , "IQ" test in top tenth of 99th as well. . I also have a life long love of science and 50 years of dedicated independent study, as well as a "formal education" in the subjects of physics, chemistry, biology, comparative religion, and geology.
beecee Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.06867.pdf Abstract : In the year 1900 Max Planck was led by experimental observations to propose a strange formula for the intensity as a function of frequency for light emitted by a cavity made in a hot substance such as a metal. lPlanck provided a derivation based on peculiar properties to be obeyed by the emitters and absorbers in the cavity. I attempt to point out some nuts and bolts reasoning that could have provided a clue to the physical reasoning. In 1905, Einstein made the bold hypothesis that under certain circumstances, radiation could be absorbed and emitted as packets of energy and also propagated without spreading out like waves. Einstein was able to predict the formula for the photoelectric effect based on his hypothesis. While the formula was experimentally verified by 1913, his peers seem to have rejected its interpretation in terms of light quanta. Einstein himself was aware of its inherent contradictions. The first part of this article goes over this period of struggle with the photon concept, and sets the stage for the entry of S N Bose’s critical contribution in 1923.
Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Author Posted September 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, studiot said: I have come to expect unsupportable all embracing statements from you. Have you not heard of Flourescence? Yes, fluorescence is the emission of usually shorter wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation resulting from the incidence of low frequency electromagnetic or particle radiation on certain materials. This phenomenon is supported by and described by my hypothesis . if you are not interested in what I have to say, why are you here? there are plenty of other threads to reply to! 2 minutes ago, beecee said: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.06867.pdf Abstract : In the year 1900 Max Planck was led by experimental observations to propose a strange formula for the intensity as a function of frequency for light emitted by a cavity made in a hot substance such as a metal. lPlanck provided a derivation based on peculiar properties to be obeyed by the emitters and absorbers in the cavity. I attempt to point out some nuts and bolts reasoning that could have provided a clue to the physical reasoning. In 1905, Einstein made the bold hypothesis that under certain circumstances, radiation could be absorbed and emitted as packets of energy and also propagated without spreading out like waves. Einstein was able to predict the formula for the photoelectric effect based on his hypothesis. While the formula was experimentally verified by 1913, his peers seem to have rejected its interpretation in terms of light quanta. Einstein himself was aware of its inherent contradictions. The first part of this article goes over this period of struggle with the photon concept, and sets the stage for the entry of S N Bose’s critical contribution in 1923. Theories do not disqualify hypothesis in science, not that these do
beecee Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: 1) Pardon me for the typo. I guess it disqualifies my hypothesis in your mind but that's alright. If you did it once I would believe it was a typo: You did it numerous times. Quote 2) I am here to test my hypothesis to criticism and "tune it up" , hoping for at least few intelligent contributors to allow for it before I do present a peer reviewed paper. Like I said, I have observed you unjustly, illogically and amateurishly disputing much of science in your posts: All with plenty of gusto and bravo, but none with any real empirical evidence. Quote 3) My qualifications are an aptitude in science in the top tenth of the 99th percentile based on comparative testing with people like you and others on this forum and a similar result in repeated intelligence testing , "IQ" test in top tenth of 99th as well. So you have no qualifications to invalidate any incumbent theory, in conjunction of course with the lack of any real evidence to invalidate them? Quote I also have a life long love of science and 50 years of dedicated independent study, as well as a "formal education" in the subjects of physics, chemistry, biology, comparative religion, and geology. So have I. But I also realise that I have much more to learn and I certainly have no delusions re my qualifications or ability to try and debunk current scientific knowledge all from my armchair in front of a computer, on a science forum, open to any Tom, Dick and Harry. I could though refer you to some really good reputable science books.
studiot Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 Note the first three lines of this reference. If you said sometimes the frequency is the same, sometimes it is different I could agree with you. But you chose to shout the all embracing "IN ALL EXAMPLES", despite your 'formal education in chemistry. 7 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: if you are not interested in what I have to say, why are you here? there are plenty of other threads to reply to! At least you had the courtesy to reply me this time, unlike in the science & religion thread earlier today.
beecee Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 8 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: Theories do not disqualify hypothesis in science, not that these do And unsupported hypothesis from an unqualified source on a science forum, most certainly do not disqualify recognised scientific theories.
Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Author Posted September 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, beecee said: If you did it once I would believe it was a typo: You did it numerous times. Like I said, I have observed you unjustly, illogically and amateurishly disputing much of science in your posts: All with plenty of gusto and bravo, but none with any real empirical evidence. So you have no qualifications to invalidate any incumbent theory, in conjunction of course with the lack of any real evidence to invalidate them? So have I. But I also realise that I have much more to learn and I certainly have no delusions re my qualifications or ability to try and debunk current scientific knowledge all from my armchair in front of a computer, on a science forum, open to any Tom, Dick and Harry. I could though refer you to some really good reputable science books. I am not going to allow you to derail this thread as you did before, if you have something on topic to present I will response to it. I see nothing of value or that needs response in your post, just the same old nonsense 59 minutes ago, Strange said: When you raised this before, we got as far as establishing that you agree that light is quantised but that the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the electron and not the photon. Is that correct? If so, I guess my first question would be: why isn't light charged? Why isn't its path changed by the presence of charge or a magnetic field? This also sounds as if you are suggesting the velocity is dependent on the wavelength? Or have I misunderstood? And does this mean that you don't think of a waveform being somehow associated with the electron, but that it is actually moving in a sinusoidal path? This raises more questions: 1. What causes the electron to move sinusoidally? That would require a force to change its velocity (direction of motion) wouldn't it? 2. We know a charged particle radiates when it is accelerated, so why doesn't the electron lose energy and come to a halt? 1) a vibrating electromagnetic field 2) because it has a net charge of 0 in the form of electromagnetic energy. 5 minutes ago, beecee said: And unsupported hypothesis from an unqualified source on a science forum, most certainly do not disqualify recognised scientific theories. It is supported by empirical evidence, some of which has already been presented. That you do not perceive this or acknowledge it neither concerns me nor surprises me.
beecee Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: I am not going to allow you to derail this thread as you did before, if you have something on topic to present I will response to it. I see nothing of value or that needs response in your post, just the same old nonsense What nonsense? That you claim your C was a typo, and I showed good evidence that it was more ignorance?, or that I'm offering more observations as to the unsupported rhetoric and nonsensical, all encompassing claims that you make. I smell an agenda afoot...religious?
Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Author Posted September 12, 2017 10 minutes ago, studiot said: Note the first three lines of this reference. If you said sometimes the frequency is the same, sometimes it is different I could agree with you. But you chose to shout the all embracing "IN ALL EXAMPLES", despite your 'formal education in chemistry. At least you had the courtesy to reply me this time, unlike in the science & religion thread earlier today. "IN ALL EXAMPLES where light energy comes in contact with matter, the result is light is emitted in different frequencies from the incident light " The fact that it CAN be emitted at the same frequency does not disqualify the statement, but you do make a valid observation. I am aware it can be reflected or re emitted at the same wavelength, 1 minute ago, beecee said: What nonsense? That you claim your C was a typo, and I showed good evidence that it was more ignorance?, or that I'm offering more observations as to the unsupported rhetoric and nonsensical, all encompassing claims that you make. I smell an agenda afoot...religious? Again, when you have a meaningful contribution to make which I doubt will ever happen, I will respond to it.
studiot Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: IN ALL EXAMPLES where light energy comes in contact with matter, the result is light is emitted in different frequencies from the incident light " The fact that it CAN be emitted at the same frequency does not disqualify the statement, but you do make a valid observation. I am aware it can be reflected or re emitted at the same wavelength, Seem pretty plain to me. Allow some suitable light energy to come in contact with suitable matter and that some of that matter flouresces, as per textbook.
Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Author Posted September 12, 2017 20 minutes ago, beecee said: And unsupported hypothesis from an unqualified source on a science forum, most certainly do not disqualify recognised scientific theories. No contributor to science was known before he made a significant contribution that garnered such noteworthiness. The fact that you judge me unqualified is irrelevant, it is an unqualified assertion unsupported by facts. 1 minute ago, studiot said: Seem pretty plain to me. Allow some suitable light energy to come in contact with suitable matter and that some of that matter flouresces, as per textbook. Yes, but the point is the phenomenon is empirical evidence to support my hypothesis. The Bremsstrahlung effect is an example of where high energy electrons produce x radiation (electromagnetic energy) as they are diffused by coming in close proximity to powerful electric fields in high proton count nuclei . In other words electrons in, EMR out
studiot Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: 21 minutes ago, studiot said: Seem pretty plain to me. Allow some suitable light energy to come in contact with suitable matter and that some of that matter flouresces, as per textbook. Yes, but the point is the phenomenon is empirical evidence to support my hypothesis. The Bremsstrahlung effect is an example of where high energy electrons produce x radiation (electromagnetic energy) as they are diffused by coming in close proximity to powerful electric fields in high proton count nuclei . In other words electrons in, EMR out Your reply has nothing to do with the fact that your original claim goes too far or even with the instances where it is factually correct. Your original claim was simply incorrect. So correct it and move on, because there are further significant issues with your hypothesis. I would agree that many sources of light are associated with electron activity, but how do you explain thermally generated light emitted by a hot body? Edited September 12, 2017 by studiot
Anonymous Participant Posted September 13, 2017 Author Posted September 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, studiot said: Your reply has nothing to do with the fact that your original claim goes too far or even with the instances where it is factually correct. Your original claim was therefore incorrect. So correct it and move on, because there are further significant issues with your hypothesis. I would agree that many sources of light are associated with electron activity, but how do you explain thermally generated light emitted by a hot body? I'm not going to argue with you about whether the original statement was correct or not, but it was. In all cases where electromagnetic energy comes in contact with matter, wavelengths of electromagnetic energy different from the incident radiation ARE emitted. In some cases the same wavelength is also emitted. How does heat produce electromagnetic energy? How do you heat matter up? All matter emits light energy unless it reaches a temperature of absolute zero because it is absorbing and remitting electromagnetic energy
studiot Posted September 13, 2017 Posted September 13, 2017 12 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: How does heat produce electromagnetic energy? How do you heat matter up? All matter emits light energy unless it reaches a temperature of absolute zero because it is absorbing and remitting electromagnetic energy That is what I asked you, so why are you asking me?
Anonymous Participant Posted September 13, 2017 Author Posted September 13, 2017 1 minute ago, studiot said: That is what I asked you, so why are you asking me? Rhetorical question, it seems to me I already answered the question, which I did. You just didn't realize it apparently.
studiot Posted September 13, 2017 Posted September 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: Rhetorical question, it seems to me I already answered the question, which I did. You just didn't realize it apparently. Nonsense. I asked you what does thermally generated light have to do with electrons, since you seem to think they have some fundamental connection to light. You have not answered this question.
Anonymous Participant Posted September 13, 2017 Author Posted September 13, 2017 Just now, studiot said: Nonsense. I asked you what does thermally generated light have to do with electrons, since you seem to think they have some fundamental connection to light. You have not answered this question. Well, no you didn't actually but now that you have,,,,How do you heat something? I asked that before because the answer is in the question. When electromagnetic energy impacts matter if is either reflected or absorbed and then re emitted. The exact same amount of energy goes in as comes out eventually. This is because atoms can only hold so many electrons in their electron shells.Thermally generated light is simply a result of electromagnetic energy being absorbed into the matter and re emitted. The hotter matter is the higher frequencies it emits because electrons are being forced out of higher energy level shells. I don't think you realize it but this question has already been answered, you just don't seem to understand how.
studiot Posted September 13, 2017 Posted September 13, 2017 James Prescott Joule was the first to show that you can heat something by doing Mechanical work on it, many hundreds of years ago.
beecee Posted September 13, 2017 Posted September 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Anonymous Participant said: I am not going to allow you to derail this thread as you did before, if you have something on topic to present I will response to it. I see nothing of value or that needs response in your post, just the same old nonsense You're on a science forum, and you will be judged by your adherence to the scientific method or lack thereof, more likely. The fact that I raise issues and points that question your sincerity and the real probability you have an agenda of sorts[religious?] and having you avoid answering them, along with previous episodes, points to you being the purveyor of nonsense. Quote Again, when you have a meaningful contribution to make which I doubt will ever happen, I will respond to it. Evidence in this and other threads show that your responses are no more then cop outs in many instances. Quote Yes, but the point is the phenomenon is empirical evidence to support my hypothesis. The point is that you have failed to invalidate the incumbent model. A model that has stood for a century with ensuing greats adding further insights and making successful predictions AS PER THE FOLLOWING. http://acme.highpoint.edu/~atitus/phy221/lecture-notes/10-1-energy-quantization.pdf Photon model of light There are two models of light that are useful to explain various experiments. One model of light describes it as an electromagnetic wave made up of a propagating wave made up of an oscillating electric field and oscillating magnetic field (in a plane perpendicular to the electric field). The color of light depends on its wavelength (or frequency where λf = c in a vacuum). Light can be made up of many electromagnetic waves of various colors giving you what is called a spectrum. White light is made up of equal amounts of all of the colors of the visible spectrum. Another model of light describes it as a collection of particles called photons. These photons have no rest mass but do have energy (kinetic energy). The energy of a photon is E = hf where h is Planck’s constant and f is the frequency of the light. Thus the “color” of a photon depends on its energy. Visible light is a small region of the entire range of possible energies of photons. The entire range is called the electromagnetic spectrum which ranges from gamma rays with very high energy to radio with very low energy. The range of energies of the spectrum is shown on pg. 214 of your textbook. The visible range of the spectrum is from 1.8 eV (red) to 3.1 eV (violet). The unit of energy most often used for light is the electron-Volt. Note that 1 eV= 1.6 × 10−19 J :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: When your speculative hypothetical can improve on that model, then you may have ssomething worthwhile...In the meantime.....
Anonymous Participant Posted September 13, 2017 Author Posted September 13, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, beecee said: You're on a science forum, and you will be judged by your adherence to the scientific method or lack thereof, more likely. The fact that I raise issues and points that question your sincerity and the real probability you have an agenda of sorts[religious?] and having you avoid answering them, along with previous episodes, points to you being the purveyor of nonsense. Evidence in this and other threads show that your responses are no more then cop outs in many instances. The point is that you have failed to invalidate the incumbent model. A model that has stood for a century with ensuing greats adding further insights and making successful predictions AS PER THE FOLLOWING. http://acme.highpoint.edu/~atitus/phy221/lecture-notes/10-1-energy-quantization.pdf Photon model of light There are two models of light that are useful to explain various experiments. One model of light describes it as an electromagnetic wave made up of a propagating wave made up of an oscillating electric field and oscillating magnetic field (in a plane perpendicular to the electric field). The color of light depends on its wavelength (or frequency where λf = c in a vacuum). Light can be made up of many electromagnetic waves of various colors giving you what is called a spectrum. White light is made up of equal amounts of all of the colors of the visible spectrum. Another model of light describes it as a collection of particles called photons. These photons have no rest mass but do have energy (kinetic energy). The energy of a photon is E = hf where h is Planck’s constant and f is the frequency of the light. Thus the “color” of a photon depends on its energy. Visible light is a small region of the entire range of possible energies of photons. The entire range is called the electromagnetic spectrum which ranges from gamma rays with very high energy to radio with very low energy. The range of energies of the spectrum is shown on pg. 214 of your textbook. The visible range of the spectrum is from 1.8 eV (red) to 3.1 eV (violet). The unit of energy most often used for light is the electron-Volt. Note that 1 eV= 1.6 × 10−19 J :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: When your speculative hypothetical can improve on that model, then you may have ssomething worthwhile...In the meantime..... "One model of light describes it as an electromagnetic wave made up of a propagating wave made up of an oscillating electric field and oscillating magnetic field (in a plane perpendicular to the electric field). The color of light depends on its wavelength (or frequency where λf = c in a vacuum" Correct. Now when you get an education where you can actually understand what you are reading perhaps you will see how this foundation and Maxwells equations support my hypothesis. Edited September 13, 2017 by Anonymous Participant
Recommended Posts