Hypothesis about temperature (split from Physical mechanism how matter absorbs radiation.)

[martillo]

Instantaneous action at a distance forces was something considered in all the development of Physics Science before the apparition of Relativity Theory. It is a central point in Newtonian dynamics.
Now I see everything on my models and all my work stucked by Relativity Theory. I think I could make a try in disproving Relativity Theory here in the Speculations Forum. It is based on a review on the formulation of Newton 2nd Law. I have already tried this here in a thread in this forum (

) and I think I quite reached the goal but I had to abandon the thread because of the lot of days discussing with several ones at the same time the entire day without sleeping properly. I couldn't continue going on that way. I think I could return now with the same approach presenting my same argumentation and experimental evidence and an excellent new evidence that surged in the discussion and with more expertise and renewed energies. May be I start a new thread soon.

[Mordred]

As to instantaneous action at a distance it's well established the speed of information limit  (c) always applies.

[martillo]

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

As to instantaneous action at a distance it's well established the speed of information limit  (c) always applies.

But it would be because information is actually carried by photons and photons are particles that do have their velocity limited on c. Not because of the fields that could be instantaneous.

Edited April 7 by martillo

[Mordred]

No it also applies to every other field strong, weak, Higgs, gravitational etc.

Edited April 7 by Mordred

[martillo]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No it also applies to every other field strong, weak, Higgs, gravitational Etc. 

But isn't that a consequence of Relativity Theory? If I disprove Relativity that constraint would not apply anymore.

Edited April 7 by martillo

[Mordred]

No it isn't a consequence of relativity. Relativity simply recognizes the limit. It is simply a fundamental constant of nature much like the fine structure constant. In point of detail even the claasical formula for the fine structure constant which was established long before relativity was developed showed the speed limit.

 A great deal many professional physicists have tried disproving relativity. So far they usually end up proving the sheer accuracy of relativity. It's literally one of the most rigorously tested theories we have.

Edited April 7 by Mordred

[martillo]

28 minutes ago, Mordred said:

In point of detail even the claasical formula for the fine structure constant which was established long before relativity was developed showed the speed limit.

Well, then I must review that. Please, can you give me some link o reference about the subject? This subject is something of major importance to me.

[Mordred]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.04397&ved=2ahUKEwiIodbJsq-FAxUYBDQIHSx2AJoQFnoECB0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw054EguS3mqzq8k-KfOkm8o

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/05/25/ask-ethan-what-is-the-fine-structure-constant-and-why-does-it-matter/

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0008009

Last link helps better understand how the fine structure constant relates to c.

There is also numerous articles on precision tests for Lorentz invariance the speed limit is also tested through the Lorentz invariance tests as the two are linked.

Modern tests have gotten us to incredible accuracy. If you think about how particle accelerators work were constantly testing GR.

[martillo]

47 minutes ago, Mordred said:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.04397&ved=2ahUKEwiIodbJsq-FAxUYBDQIHSx2AJoQFnoECB0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw054EguS3mqzq8k-KfOkm8o

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/05/25/ask-ethan-what-is-the-fine-structure-constant-and-why-does-it-matter/

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0008009

Last link helps better understand how the fine structure constant relates to c.

There is also numerous articles on precision tests for Lorentz invariance the speed limit is also tested through the Lorentz invariance tests as the two are linked.

Modern tests have gotten us to incredible accuracy. If you think about how particle accelerators work were constantly testing GR.

I have read the article at arxiv (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0008009.pdf) and it talks about the invariance of the constants with time but I don't see anything about that as a consequence of this the fields (particularly the E and B fields) must propagate at the finite velocity c. This is a different thing.

As I already said  to you some time ago  the unique experiment that seems to prove the finite velocity of propagation of the fields is Hertz experiment on the EM waves. The experiment seems to prove a finite velocity propagation of the Em waves and the EM fields. I have a new interpretation of the experiment showing how antennas could actually emit photons and not waves and all our communication systems could be actually based on absorption, emission and transmission of photons and not waves. This way the experiment could demonstrate the existence of "electromagnetic particles" the photons and not "electromagnetic waves". It could be the case of instantaneous E and B fields and an EM particle (the photon) travelling at velocity c.

I find interesting that Einstein also disagreed with the EM waves concept of light. At Planck's law page at Wikipedia can be found:

"Thus Einstein was contradicting the undulatory theory of light held by Planck. In 1910, criticizing a manuscript sent to him by Planck, knowing that Planck was a steady supporter of Einstein's theory of special relativity, Einstein wrote to Planck: "To me it seems absurd to have energy continuously distributed in space without assuming an aether."^[135]"

Edited April 7 by martillo

[swansont]

10 hours ago, martillo said:

The hotter body continuously provides photons.

How? What mechanism gives you photons?

10 hours ago, martillo said:

Yes, something is wrong.

Actually in the model:

H = Q = µ(f,T) = [constant].T³ 

where [constant] = 2.π.K³/(h².c³.(e-1) = 1,01660413x10² in SI units: K^-1.kg^-1.s^-5 (precision of 8 digits)

So [constant] is well approximated by 300 

Actually is H = Q = V.[constant].T³ 

Units still don’t work. 

 

[martillo]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

How? What mechanism gives you photons?

In any hot body there are photons present in the interior of the body. I have already said that this is ignored in Kinetic Theory. It is assumed a body that is transmitting thermal energy ("heat")  by conductivity through a unidirectional conductor to another colder body. The hotter body has enough energy stored internally as to be able to provide photons for the heat transmission.

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

Units still don’t work. 

I still made a second correction, didn't you see it?

9 hours ago, martillo said:

There is still another error: the units given for the [constant].

The right thing is:

[constant] = 2.π.K³/(h².c³.(e-1) = 1,01660413x10² in SI units: K^-1.kg^-1.s (precision of 8 digits)

My apologies...

I want to mention other thing. The model I was working on the enthalpy of the systems stucked now. The discussion we had about have let me know that the model to propose unavoidably needs two main assumptions that I cannot prove and will not be accepted by you for the model to be taken into consideration:

_ Instantaneous Electric and Magnetic fields and forces.

_ Strong disagreement with Relativity Theory.

I would need to provide some experimental evidence on them, something I don't have and so it is a proposition unfortunately not suitable to discuss here in the forum. Who knows if in some future I could, I don't know.
I have just realized that this model I provided for the conduction process in solid conductors transmitting photons involves some calculation based on the enthalpy so it will also suffer the same limitations.

 

[swansont]

Just now, martillo said:

In any hot body there are photons present in the interior of the body. I have already said that this is ignored in Kinetic Theory. It is assumed a body that is transmitting thermal energy ("heat")  by conductivity through a unidirectional conductor to another colder body. The hotter body has enough energy stored internally as to be able to provide photons for the heat transmission.

Why? What is the mechanism in your model that gives you these photons? 

 

K^-1.kg^-1.s * K^3 does not give units of heat or heat flux. The temperature factors don’t even cancel

 

[Bufofrog]

7 hours ago, martillo said:

If I disprove Relativity that constraint would not apply anymore.

It seems like the whole disproving relativity thing is going to be a rather large obstacle.

[martillo]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Why? What is the mechanism in your model that gives you these photons? 

It is assumed a contact surface between the bodies and the conductor through which the photons can pass.

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

K^-1.kg^-1.s * K^3 does not give units of heat or heat flux. The temperature factors don’t even cancel

The units in both sides of the equation perfectly match now. You must consider the equivalence of the units of Joules and Kelvin in the MKS:

J -> kg.m².s^-2
K -> kg.m².s^-2 

I have found the equivalence for Joule just in a google search and for Kelvin at: https://metricsystem.net/si/base-units/kelvin/

This means MKS unities of Joule and Kelvin are the same: kg.m².s^-2 

 

8 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

It seems like the whole disproving relativity thing is going to be a rather large obstacle.

Yes, unfortunately you are very right in this.

Edited April 7 by martillo

[Mordred]

6 hours ago, martillo said:

I have read the article at arxiv (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0008009.pdf) and it talks about the invariance of the constants with time but I don't see anything about that as a consequence of this the fields (particularly the E and B fields) must propagate at the finite velocity c. This is a different thing.

As I already said  to you some time ago  the unique experiment that seems to prove the finite velocity of propagation of the fields is Hertz experiment on the EM waves. The experiment seems to prove a finite velocity propagation of the Em waves and the EM fields. I have a new interpretation of the experiment showing how antennas could actually emit photons and not waves and all our communication systems could be actually based on absorption, emission and transmission of photons and not waves. This way the experiment could demonstrate the existence of "electromagnetic particles" the photons and not "electromagnetic waves". It could be the case of instantaneous E and B fields and an EM particle (the photon) travelling at velocity c.

I find interesting that Einstein also disagreed with the EM waves concept of light. At Planck's law page at Wikipedia can be found:

"Thus Einstein was contradicting the undulatory theory of light held by Planck. In 1910, criticizing a manuscript sent to him by Planck, knowing that Planck was a steady supporter of Einstein's theory of special relativity, Einstein wrote to Planck: "To me it seems absurd to have energy continuously distributed in space without assuming an aether."^[135]"

You are aware that the E and M fields are mediated by a gauge photon correct ? That article includes the Maxwell equations and is in normalized units. If c is finite and constant as the EM field mediator this also means the E and M field has the same speed limit.

No massless particle including any field gauge boson exceeds c. Every field propagate at maximum c.

[martillo]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

You are aware that the E and M fields are mediated by a gauge photon correct ? That article includes the Maxwell equations and is in normalized units. If c is finite and constant as the EM field mediator this also means the E and M field has the same speed limit.

No massless particle including any field gauge boson exceeds c. Every field propagate at maximum c.

The concept of photons as a model for light (and heat and whatever EM radiation) appeared with Einstein. It didn't exist before and the classic Newtonian mechanics was valid with instantaneous fields. Maxwell validated the concept of light as an EM wave with his equations but Einstein introduced the concept light as photons particles travelling at the same velocity c. Then Einstein came with his Relativity Theory imposing the constraint that nothing, absolute nothing can travel at higher velocities even any field which all where treated as instantaneous before. At the same time Hertz experiment on EM waves demonstrated the existence of EM signals travelling at velocity c and validating the EM waves and also the EM fields propagating at c. All the fields were assumed to propagate at c then. In the particles' Physics surged the concept of force carriers and "virtual photons" as mediators for the fields. So they came with Relativity Theory.

Edited April 7 by martillo

[swansont]

2 hours ago, martillo said:

It is assumed a contact surface between the bodies and the conductor through which the photons can pass.

That’s not a mechanism for generating photons.

2 hours ago, martillo said:

The units in both sides of the equation perfectly match now. You must consider the equivalence of the units of Joules and Kelvin in the MKS:

J -> kg.m².s^-2
K -> kg.m².s^-2 

No. The Kelvin is a fundamental unit. It does not equate to joules.

2 hours ago, martillo said:

I have found the equivalence for Joule just in a google search and for Kelvin at: https://metricsystem.net/si/base-units/kelvin/

This means MKS unities of Joule and Kelvin are the same: kg.m².s^-2 

Your link does not say what you claim here; you have omitted a factor (in the denominator) of the Boltzmann constant, which has units.

[martillo]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s not a mechanism for generating photons.

Where are you considering generated photons? in the bodies or in the conductor. I don't get your point.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

No. The Kelvin is a fundamental unit. It does not equate to joules.

Right, that equivalence is wrong then.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Your link does not say what you claim here; you have omitted a factor (in the denominator) of the Boltzmann constant, which has units.

Seems you are right. I was wrong in something. Let me summarize.

I arrived at :
µ(f,T) = [8.π.K³/(h².c³.(e - 1))].T³ 
[constant] = 8.π.K³/(h².c³.(e-1) = 1,01660413x10² in SI units: K^-1.kg^-1.s (precision of 8 digits)
and:
Q/V = µ(f,T) = [constant].T³ 

So the units verify:
J.m^-3 = [(J.K^-1)³/((J.s)².(m.s^-1)³)]K³ = (J.K^-1)³.(J.s)^-2.(m.s^-1)^-3 = J.m^-3.s
Simplifying I reach:
J = J.s what is wrong

You are right. Please let me some time to review everything now...

Edited April 7 by martillo

[swansont]

40 minutes ago, martillo said:

Where are you considering generated photons? in the bodies or in the conductor. I don't get your point.

You say there are all these photons but can’t tell us how they are generated. I know how they are generated in mainstream physics, but your model denies that mechanism.

And once you figure out the heat capacity issue, there will be more deficiencies to point out.

[martillo]

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

You say there are all these photons but can’t tell us how they are generated. I know how they are generated in mainstream physics, but your model denies that mechanism.

In my model, any material body in thermal equilibrium with the environment has a stable temperature T. There are photons in in both the body and the environment and they continuously interchange photons establishing a dynamical equilibrium between them. It is assumed that to reach any temperature greater than the 0º K the body absorbed photons from the environment or from from other body before and so on for all the other bodies and environments in the Universe. If you are asking how all that photons appeared in the universe it depends on which theory you have for the origin of the Universe. In my case I don't really know how.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

In my model, any material body in thermal equilibrium with the environment has a stable temperature T. There are photons in in both the body and the environment and they continuously interchange photons establishing a dynamical equilibrium between them. It is assumed that to reach any temperature greater than the 0º K the body absorbed photons from the environment or from from other body before and so on for all the other bodies and environments in the Universe. If you are asking how all that photons appeared in the universe it depends on which theory you have for the origin of the Universe. In my case I don't really know how.

No, I want to know how photons are generated in a solid given your model. Photons don’t just sit there - they move at c - so they are either absorbed, or they leave the material.

We can know the rate at which they leave, since it’s dictated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. But once the photons are absorbed inside the material, which will happen quickly, how do you get new ones? 

(Once we can calculate the heat capacity, we can find out how many photons there must be)

[martillo]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

No, I want to know how photons are generated in a solid given your model. Photons don’t just sit there - they move at c - so they are either absorbed, or they leave the material.

We can know the rate at which they leave, since it’s dictated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. But once the photons are absorbed inside the material, which will happen quickly, how do you get new ones? 

(Once we can calculate the heat capacity, we can find out how many photons there must be)

Electrons jump to a lower level of energy and the difference of energy is to the energy of a emitted photon. This is the balance of energy. Now, In my model there is another fundamental particle involved: neutrinos. In my model there are abundance of both in the universe and they can convert in each other. In absorption a photon converts into a neutrino and in an emission a neutrino  converts into a photon. There are always available neutrinos near the atoms for the emission process take place.

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, martillo said:

Electrons jump to a lower level of energy and the difference of energy is to the energy of a emitted photon. This is the balance of energy.

Can you provide evidence of quantum transitions at such low energies?

10 minutes ago, martillo said:

Now, In my model there is another fundamental particle involved: neutrinos. In my model there are abundance of both in the universe and they can convert in each other. In absorption a photon converts into a neutrino and in an emission a neutrino  converts into a photon. There are always available neutrinos near the atoms for the emission process take place.

Neutrinos do not interact electromagnetically. You’re building speculation on top of more speculation, and give the appearance of just making it up as you go.

!

Moderator Note

The charade has gone on long enough. This doesn’t fulfill the requirements of speculations, despite ample opportunity to comply.

Don’t bring this topic up again