# Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck

• 18 Replies
• 3152 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 584
##### Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« on: 17/07/2015 13:52:22 »
Measuring Planck’s Constant
Max Planck (1858-1947) was born in Kiel Germany and attended schools in Munich and Berlin. Planck was an early pioneer in the field of quantum physics. He had been commissioned by electric companies to create maximum light for a minimum amount of power. For his research he used the concept of black body radiation.
[attachment=19851]
Any hot object emits electromagnetic radiation, and the maximum in the emitted wavelength shifts to shorter wavelengths as the temperature of the emitter is raised. A black body is the name given to a theoretical ideal emitter, an object capable of absorbing and emitting all wavelengths of radiation equally. A black body emitter may be successfully approximated by a small opening into a heated cavity. The emission curves of a black body have the following form: where T_1 > T_2 > T_3 . The energy distribution, or spectral energy density, is the energy per unit volume of the cavity that is emitted in the wavelength interval  $$\lambda$$ to $$\lambda + d$$. Note the total area under the curve increases as the temperature increases, indicating that the hotter an object is, the more energy it radiates per unit volume. Analysis of the data from black body emitters led to the formulation of the Wien displacement law:
$$T\lambda_{max}= 0.00298 km$$
relating the temperature and the wavelength of maximum energy density: The problem of the energy distribution may be treated classically by considering the electromagnetic field as a collection of oscillators of all possible frequencies. The presence of radiation of frequency $$\nu$$then signifies that the oscillator of that frequency has been excited. The classical equipartition principle may then be applied to determine the average energy of each independent oscillator. From this basis follows an expression known as the Rayleigh-Jeans law after the physicists who originally formulated it: where $$\rho$$is the spectral energy density.
$$\rho = \frac{8\pi kT}{\lambda^{4}}$$
This law is very successful at long wavelengths but fails badly at short ones – the inverse dependence upon  $$\lambda$$means that as the wavelength gets shorter and shorter, the spectral energy density tends to infinity. This result is patently absurd, as it suggests that even at room temperature, objects should radiate strongly in the high frequency portion of the spectrum (gamma rays, x-rays and the ultraviolet), which is clearly not the case. This failing of the law is termed the ultraviolet catastrophe:
[attachment=19853]
Around 1900 Planck developed the concept of a fundamental unit of  energy, a quantum , to explain the spectral distribution of blackbody radiation. Planck himself remained skeptical of practical applications for quantum theory for many years. In order to explain blackbody radiation, Planck proposed that atoms absorb and emit radiation in discrete quantities given by
E = nhf
where:
n is an integer known as a quantum number
f is the frequency of vibration of the molecule, and
h is a constant, Planck’s constant.
Planck named these discrete units of energy quanta. The smallest discrete amount of energy radiated or absorbed by a system results from a change in state whereby the quantum number, n, of the system changes by one.
[attachment=19855]
The experimental observations may be accounted for by limiting the energy of each electromagnetic oscillator to discrete values. (This is quite contrary to the classical view, in which all possible energy values are allowed.) The name given to this limitation of possible values is quantisation of energy. This idea was originally proposed by the physicist Planck, and he discovered that the observed data were reproduced if he supposed that the energies of an oscillator of frequency v were limited to integer multiples of hv, where h was a fundamental constant which is now known as the Planck constant. This assumption allowed him to derive the Planck distribution:

$$\rho = \frac{8\pi\hbar}{\lambda^{5}}\left( \frac{1}{e^{h^c}\lambda kT-1}\right)\$$

With $$rho$$ the spectral energy density. This expression provides a good agreement with experimental data, and the constant h, which is an undetermined parameter in the original theory, may be adjusted to obtain the best fit. This allows measurement of the value of h by experiment. This expression is similar in form to the Rayleigh-Jeans law, the main difference being in the exponential term in the denominator. At short wavelengths the exponential term is large, and as the wavelength tends to zero, the exponential term tends to infinity faster than the  term tends to zero. The upshot of this is that as the wavelength tends to zero, so does the spectral energy density. Thus the ultraviolet catastrophe is avoided. In spite of this Max Planck agonized over his discovery for several years: Subsequently, Planck tried to grasp the meaning of energy quanta, but to no avail.
"My unavailing attempts to somehow reintegrate the action quantum into classical theory extended over several years and caused me much trouble." Even several years later, other physicists like Rayleigh, Jeans, and Lorentz set Planck's constant to zero in order to align with classical physics, but Planck knew well that this constant had a precise nonzero value. "I am unable to understand Jeans' stubbornness — he is an example of a theoretician as should never be existing, the same as Hegel was for philosophy. So much the worse for the facts if they don't fit."
[attachment=19857]
The reasoning behind the success of the Planck distribution is as follows: Rayleigh’s approach failed because it assumed that the thermal motion of atoms in the walls of a black body would excite all the electromagnetic oscillators equally; the ultraviolet catastrophe is a result of the excitation of high frequency oscillators. According to Planck’s hypothesis, however, an oscillator cannot be excited unless it receives an energy of at least $$h\nu$$or$$h\omega$$  (as this is the minimum amount of energy an oscillator of frequency $$\nu$$ may possess above zero. It cannot have an amount of energy which is a fraction of $$h\nu$$  so it cannot accept an amount of energy less than $$h\nu$$. For high frequency oscillators (large $$h\nu$$ ), the amount of energy $$h\nu$$  is too large to be supplied by the thermal motion of the atoms in the walls, and so they are not excited. Quantisation of energy reduces the contribution to the emission curve of high frequency oscillators, as the energy available is not sufficient to excite them. Subsequent research into spectra by scientists such as Lyman, Balmer and rydberg shows that experimental results bear out this theory that electrons in atoms only respond to specific energies.
To be contd ……

« Last Edit: 28/07/2015 15:34:50 by McQueen »
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 584
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #1 on: 17/07/2015 14:12:44 »
Contd. Gestalt Aether Theory and planck’s constant:
Where does Gestalt Aether Theory fit into the Planck distribution?  Obviously the quantisation of energy is unexplainable in classical terms in the sense that there was no physical phenomenon that would account for such an unusual distribution of energy, wherein waves are composed of  packets or quanta of energy such as described by Gestalt Aether Theory (See: Discussion on photons) certainly the explanation of energy on the basis of ‘waves’ was a huge failure as has been demonstrated above. However if we disregard wave particle duality as it is at present understood and the ‘complementarity ‘ principle which states that a sub-atomic particle is either exclusively a particle or exclusively a wave but can never possess both properties simultaneously, Planck’s constant begins to make sense, especially from the view point of Gestalt Aether Theory.
What does quantisation of energy mean ? Basically it means that while observing black body radiation, the number of atoms taking part in the black body radiation is taken into account together with the wave-lengths and temperatures at different samplings of frequency and wavelengths. The problem was that no number of samplings were able to correspond with observable experimental data. Planck then calculated the difference in resulted obtained by experiment and those obtained by mathematical calculation. Planck was then able to determine a new constant that came to be known as Planck’s constant that was determined by using the known values of the speed of light, c , and the charge of an electron, e and thereby computing h.
The emphasis here is on the fact that Planck’s constant equates to individual packets of energy and that is precisely what is available in Gestalt Aether theory model of the photon. It is significant to note that no modern theory of physics including Quantum Mechanics has a physical explanation of how quanta are formed or of what they are, Gestalt Aether Theory provides a very acceptable solution.  According to Gestalt Aether Theory the electron is a charged particle, it is therefore natural that what it emits are not waves or particles or even combinations of the two but bursts of electric energy :
[attachment=19859]
As each burst of energy is released from the electron it is separated by a di-electric medium (approximating a partial vacuum, the spaces between each burst of energy are too small to allow for entry of atoms or molecules) the bursts of energy get polarized. Two points should be understood here. (a) The energy of the emitted ‘photon’ is determined by the amount of energy it contains and (b) its frequency is dependent on the frequency with which each  photon is emitted by the electron as for instance atoms radiating green light will possess electrons that are oscillating at 550THz  ($$550\times10^{12}$$ photons emitted per second). The wave-length of the photon is determined by dividing the speed of light c by the frequency.  As the bursts of energy emitted by the photon become polarized they form a solenoidal field of electrical energy around themselves, making each photon a self-contained packet of energy that will retain its energy due to its capacitor like construction. Capacitors are used to store energy. The solenoidal field allows the photons to join up with othe photons both serially and laterally, enabling the photon formation to propagate as a wave. Thus a wave that has the energy of a particle and that propagates like a wave :
[attachment=19861]
This model of the photon may not appeal to everyone, it is nevertheless a model of the photon that explains for the first time Planck’s constant in physical terms and not as an abstraction. This is why Planck’s constant is what it is. It not only explains Planck’s constant in physical terms but also explains all the seemingly contradictory physical attributes of the photon:
1.   A photon possesses the attributes of both a particle and a wave
2.   A photon has no mass
3.   A photon always travels at the speed of light it is never at rest.
4.   A photon can conserve its energy forever, it will never change its initial energy even while traveling over huge distances.
5.   A photon has both frequency and wave-length.
6.   A photon is electrically neutral
7.   Both light and electromagnetic radiation ( radio waves) possess all the characteristics of a photon.
All of these attributes can be explained very capably by Gestalt Aether Theory, there is no need for the esoteric and eerie wave/particle duality or ‘complementarity‘ theory. Take for instance the question of wave length and frequency of a photon. Both of these attributes are explained in a satisfactory manner by Gestalt Aether Theory. Thus Gestalt Aether Theory brings together all the physical properties of the photon together with experimentally obtained observations on how ‘light’ or ‘photons’ behave under different circumstances. Examine first the larger diagram of the photon shown below, this is what a photon might look like:

[attachment=19863]

Note especially the solenoidal field around the bands of energy separated by a di-electric. It should be explained here that IF an electron is able to emit electrical energy, then it is also possible for that energy to settle into the configuration shown above. This configurations enables individual photons to link up, both serially (i.e., end to end) and in parallel (i.e. side by side). The frequency of a photon depends on the periodicity with which it is emitted by the electron. One has only to stand beside an open window and look out at a lawn and what one is seeing is electrons in atoms emitting photons at approximately  photons a second. That is a quite incredible amount of emissions, and they take place continuously for as long as the atoms are being excited or irradiated. Without irradiation there would be no colours , the atoms would be quiescent and non-emitting. So the frequency of a photon depends on the rate at which it is being emitted by the electron. The wave-length of the photon can then be obtained by dividing the speed of light by the frequency!
[attachment=19865]
Heterodyning:
These concepts are not abstract they are not figments of the mind hidden away in multiple dimensions, these are phenomenon that are real, that can be explained in terms of what is being experienced! For instance in the final analysis, because of their physical construction,  streams of photons can come together to give the ‘appearance’ of light of another colour. Take for instance a stream of photons of red colour having a wavelength of 750nm and mix it with a photon stream of blue colour having a wavelength of 500 nm, then wavelengths of 1250 nm and 200 nm would be produced. However, because of the manner in which our eye-sight perceives these frequencies. It is possible to see the mixture of these two wave-lengths of the colour purple or violet. Importantly the wave-lengths can separate as easily as they combine and still retain their individual energies, frequencies and wave-length.

« Last Edit: 28/07/2015 15:39:02 by McQueen »
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4195
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #2 on: 20/07/2015 19:43:24 »
So why isn't this just all explained by quantum field theory? No need of an Aether.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• 2804
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #3 on: 21/07/2015 08:05:40 »
Quote from: McQueen
Where does Gestalt Aether Theory fit into the Planck distribution?
Who knows. Not only have I never heard of it but it can't be found in the quantum mechanics literature or even in Wikipedia so it's most likely something conjured up by a crackpot.

Quote from: McQueen
What does quantisation of energy mean ? Basically it means that while observing black body radiation, the number of atoms taking part in the black body radiation is taken into account together with the wave-lengths and temperatures at different samplings of frequency and wavelengths.
Nope. You're confusing the quantization procedure as it was first used by Planck to describe the spectrum of black body radiation. Quantization of energy refers to the fact that for certain systems the energy levels can only take on discrete values rather than a continuum of values. For example; if there is an electron moving in the potential of that of an harmonic oscillator then the energy levels of the electron are quantized which means that when the energy of the electron is measured it can only take on a finite and discrete number of values. On the other hand if the electron is free then the energy is not quantized and as such the electron can take on any value whatsoever.

Quote from: McQueen
It not only explains Planck’s constant in physical terms but also explains all the seemingly contradictory physical attributes of the photon:
1.   A photon possesses the attributes of both a particle and a wave
Not quite. A photon will display particle properties of wave properties depending on what the experiment is to observer them. It can't be said to have both attributes simultaneously.

Quote from: McQueen
2.   A photon has no mass
Wrong. A photon has no "rest" mass. It does have inertial mass though. See:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/guth.jpg
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/DSC_0003.MOV

Quote from: McQueen
3.   A photon always travels at the speed of light it is never at rest.
Only in the absence of a gravitational field or in an inertial frame of reference in flat spacetime. If there is a gravitational field present then the speed of light will change when not measured locally.

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 584
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #4 on: 22/07/2015 07:28:24 »
Quote
McQueen: Where does Gestalt Aether Theory fit into the Planck distribution?PmbPhy: Who knows. Not only have I never heard of it but it can't be found in the quantum mechanics literature or even in Wikipedia so it's most likely something conjured up by a crackpot.
Aside from the fact that I am the ‘crackpot’ in question who is the originator of the Gestalt Aether Theory, and should hopefully be able to answer your questions.
Quote
McQueen: What does quantisation of energy mean ? Basically it means that while observing black body radiation, the numberof atoms taking part in the black body radiation is taken into account together with the wave-lengths and temperatures at different samplings of frequency and wavelengths.
PmbPhy: Nope. You're confusing the quantization procedure as it was first used by Planck to describe the spectrum of black body radiation. Quantization of energy refers to the fact that for certain systems the energy levels can only take on discrete values rather than a continuum of values. For example; if there is an electron moving in the potential of that of an harmonic oscillator then the energy levels of the electron are quantized which means that when the energy of the electron is measured it can only take on a finite and discrete number of values. On the other hand if the electron is free then the energy is not quantized and as such the electron can take on any value whatsoever.
Of course the number of atoms taking part in the Black Body radiation would have to be taken into account, if that had not been done there would have been no Planck constant! Apart from that, what you say is true also apart from the most important fact that whatever energy the electron ‘possesses’ it has to be in discrete amounts it can never be half or a quarter or any other fraction but always a whole amounting to some multiple of the Planck constant.  Finally, Oh, yeah LOOK at the CRACKPOT who needs 276 DIMENSIONS for his statistical probability theory to describe something which I do in just 3 dimensions plus time, before flinging remarks around! And further one who is a fervent believer in those 276 dimensions, mathematical or otherwise.
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### chiralSPO

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 1937
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #5 on: 05/08/2015 17:21:42 »
Contd. Gestalt Aether Theory and planck’s constant:
...
Two points should be understood here. (a) The energy of the emitted ‘photon’ is determined by the amount of energy it contains and (b) its frequency is dependent on the frequency with which each  photon is emitted by the electron as for instance atoms radiating green light will possess electrons that are oscillating at 550THz  ($$550\times10^{12}$$ photons emitted per second). The wave-length of the photon is determined by dividing the speed of light c by the frequency.

Yes, I agree with (a) the energy of the photon is determined by the energy it contains (this appears to be a tautology).

No, I don't agree with (b). Frequency of light has nothing to do with the rate at which photons are released. I can use a device (a light emitting diode for instance) that emits light at a very narrow and well defined frequency and I could adjust the amount of power given (to the same number of atoms) and emit 1 photon per atom (on average) per second (1 Hz) of 500 THz light, or I can emit 1 photon per atom per hour, but probably could never get an atom to emit photons at a rate  in the THz region. Even if I could though, the fact that I can control the rate of photon emission without changing the frequency of the light is easily demonstrated.

I also do not believe that there is a direct relationship between the energy of the photon and the oscillation frequency of the electrons--at least not on any local level, perhpas this model fits well for generating radio waves in conductors, but it does not apply well to atoms and photons (even of radio waves). The frequency of the photon determines the energy involved, but depending on the exact state and environment that the electron (really the whole atom) is in will determine what the electron "does", all the photon tells you is how much energy it takes to do that. I can find two dyes that absorb the exact same wavelength of light (arbitrarily close), but have dramatically different molecular and electronic structures, which would determine what type  of "oscillation" the electron could do.

For instance in the final analysis, because of their physical construction,  streams of photons can come together to give the ‘appearance’ of light of another colour. Take for instance a stream of photons of red colour having a wavelength of 750nm and mix it with a photon stream of blue colour having a wavelength of 500 nm, then wavelengths of 1250 nm and 200 nm would be produced. However, because of the manner in which our eye-sight perceives these frequencies. It is possible to see the mixture of these two wave-lengths of the colour purple or violet. Importantly the wave-lengths can separate as easily as they combine and still retain their individual energies, frequencies and wave-length.

This is not correct. It is possible to get additive mixing of photons as you describe, but it is a very inefficient process, and requires extremely high flux of photons. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum-frequency_generation ) Also, you can't just add and subtract wavelengths like that (If you believe in conservation of energy). Calculate the net energy required to make that change, I guarantee it is non-zero. This is also a misunderstanding of how color vision works ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision )

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4914
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #6 on: 05/08/2015 18:20:31 »
Quote
That is a quite incredible amount of emissions, and they take place continuously for as long as the atoms are being excited or irradiated.

A phenomenon cannot be incredible if it happens all the time.

Quote
So the frequency of a photon depends on the rate at which it is being emitted by the electron.

No, it depends on the energy difference between the states of the emitting electron. Loose phraseology can mislead the amateur physicist - as is evident throughout this forum.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 584
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #7 on: 06/08/2015 05:58:00 »
AlanCalverd: A phenomenon cannot be incredible if it happens all the time.

What is incredible is if , as in the case in photon emissions, it happens all the time and no-one, over the past hundred years or so has made any reference to it. If you notice the texts and literature on this subject of photon emission are always very static , it is always a photon (notice the emphasis on the singular) is absorbed and a photon is emitted never any hint or inkling that it might indeed be a continuous process and indeed one that may be the basis of the term frequency as applied to photons.

AlanCalverd: No, it depends on the energy difference between the states of the emitting electron. Loose phraseology can mislead the amateur physicist - as is evident throughout this forum.

Granted, but even here  there is a danger of ignoring the results of a well established empirical experiment conducted by an acclaimed University and since duplicated where light was stopped. I am referring to the experiment conducted by Lene Hau of Harvard University where it is claimed that light was stopped and then continued when energy was introduced. This surely debunks the whole of the Quantum Mechanics theory of reflection. The electrodynamic (quantum mechanics)  explanation is that the incident electromagnetic field polarizes the molecules, which generates an electromagnetic field that can be expressed as the sum of two terms: one which exactly cancels out the incident wave, and one which propagates with velocity c/n, where c is the speed of light in vacuum, and n ≥ 1 is the refractive index. No emission and absorption at all , just a passing thorough. Surely a wave cannot be frozen but an interaction such as absorption and emission can ? Returning to your statement that emission depends on the energy difference between the states of the emitting electron, it is extremely interesting to note the distinction.

ChiralSPO: This is not correct. It is possible to get additive mixing of photons as you describe, but it is a very inefficient process, and requires extremely high flux of photons.

Maybe we are speaking at cross purposes here, by the mixing of photons to give new wave-lengths and colours, I was referring to the manner in which Newton first separated and then re-united white light. Such a process does not seem to be as difficult as the scenario that you refer to.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2015 06:07:14 by McQueen »
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### MichaelMD

• Full Member
• 74
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #8 on: 06/08/2015 12:46:42 »
In the model of the ether I have been describing in this Forum, "quantization" refers to a process occurring in the vicinity of bodies like earth which have magnetic energy fields (in my model, earth's magnetic field would be stronger, and more etheric, than is now appreciated by science.) -In outer space, beyond the magnetizing influence of celestial bodies, the ether would not be magnetized and quantized in this way.

I have presented an ether model for so-called quantum entanglement, which views that phenomenon as representing radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern, elemental etheric units being the only actual participants in the phenomenon, with the quantum units "walled off," kinetically, like "cool" arms of an underlying quiet, purring, ether mechanism which can turn itself on and off, by itself, any time.

The logical extension of this model of action-at-a-distance would be that various phenomena we observe in our "quantized" setting at earth's surface - light, gravitation, spontaneous human combustion, "quantum entanglement," and others - all arise in a similar way from an underlying universal ether. Although these phenomena appear vastly different from each other as we observe them (which means after they have transitioned from etheric vibrational forces to spin-vector quantum forces), at their basic etheric level, they all represent variations in vibratory patterns of  radiated packets of etheric energy.

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 584
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #9 on: 07/08/2015 01:55:37 »
AlanCalverd: No, it depends on the energy difference between the states of the emitting electron. Loose phraseology can mislead the amateur physicist - as is evident throughout this forum.

McQueen : Returning to your statement that emission depends on the energy difference between the states of the emitting electron, it is extremely interesting to note the distinction.

The reason that I thought that it was extremely interesting to note the distinction  is as follows: Your statement envisions the atom as being made up of several discrete energy levels:   level 1, level 2, level 3, level 4, level 5 etc., then when a photon of x energy is absorbed by an electron at level 2, it absorbs enough (y) of the energy of the absorbed photon to make the jump to level 4   and emits the balance of the energy z(i.e.,x-y = z)  as a photon of lower energy z.
My reasoning envisions the whole of the energy of the photon being absorbed by an electron at level 2 it makes the jump to level 4 and then immediately jumps back to its original position at level 2 re-emitting the whole of the energy of the absorbed photon. Imagine the electron oscillating back and forth  between the two states level 2 and level 4 and absorbing and re-emitting a photon at the rate of $$5.4\times10^{14}$$ photons per second (note: that is identical to the frequency of the incoming radiation). This is what we term frequency and it would be equivalent to reflection. Expanding the view a little.  Imagine looking out of a window  onto  a green lawn, imagine a blade of grass in this lawn, it is made up of trillions upon trillions of atoms, each of those atoms has one or more electrons oscillating back and forth at $$5.4\times10^{14}$$  times per second. What results is a line of photons (as per Isaac Newton), with a frequency of $$5.4\times10^{14}Hz$$ and a wave-length of $$c/\nu$$. Both wave-length and frequency are real and have nothing to do with complementarity.
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### chiralSPO

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 1937
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #10 on: 07/08/2015 17:06:21 »

ChiralSPO: This is not correct. It is possible to get additive mixing of photons as you describe, but it is a very inefficient process, and requires extremely high flux of photons.

Maybe we are speaking at cross purposes here, by the mixing of photons to give new wave-lengths and colours, I was referring to the manner in which Newton first separated and then re-united white light. Such a process does not seem to be as difficult as the scenario that you refer to.

There is a very big difference between a beam of light that contains a mixture of photons of different frequencies (red photons and green photons) and a beam of light containing only photons of one frequency (yellow photons)--even if they look the same to our eye. Splitting and recombining light as Newton did, is an example of sorting a mixture of photons, and then remixing them. At no point is any photon changing frequency.

#### chiralSPO

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 1937
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #11 on: 07/08/2015 17:11:13 »
AlanCalverd: No, it depends on the energy difference between the states of the emitting electron. Loose phraseology can mislead the amateur physicist - as is evident throughout this forum.

McQueen : Returning to your statement that emission depends on the energy difference between the states of the emitting electron, it is extremely interesting to note the distinction.

The reason that I thought that it was extremely interesting to note the distinction  is as follows: Your statement envisions the atom as being made up of several discrete energy levels:   level 1, level 2, level 3, level 4, level 5 etc., then when a photon of x energy is absorbed by an electron at level 2, it absorbs enough (y) of the energy of the absorbed photon to make the jump to level 4   and emits the balance of the energy z(i.e.,x-y = z)  as a photon of lower energy z.
My reasoning envisions the whole of the energy of the photon being absorbed by an electron at level 2 it makes the jump to level 4 and then immediately jumps back to its original position at level 2 re-emitting the whole of the energy of the absorbed photon. Imagine the electron oscillating back and forth  between the two states level 2 and level 4 and absorbing and re-emitting a photon at the rate of $$5.4\times10^{14}$$ photons per second (note: that is identical to the frequency of the incoming radiation). This is what we term frequency and it would be equivalent to reflection. Expanding the view a little.  Imagine looking out of a window  onto  a green lawn, imagine a blade of grass in this lawn, it is made up of trillions upon trillions of atoms, each of those atoms has one or more electrons oscillating back and forth at $$5.4\times10^{14}$$  times per second. What results is a line of photons (as per Isaac Newton), with a frequency of $$5.4\times10^{14}Hz$$ and a wave-length of $$c/\nu$$. Both wave-length and frequency are real and have nothing to do with complementarity.

The frequency of the photon is directly related to the energy gap (energy = Planck's constant times frequency) please reread my first post on this thread (reply #5), and visit the links contained in it.
« Last Edit: 07/08/2015 17:13:07 by chiralSPO »

#### MichaelMD

• Full Member
• 74
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #12 on: 07/08/2015 18:34:34 »
(An ether model for the phenomena in the latest posts.) - Photonic light from a distant star is transmitted primarily by elemental etheric units, in packets having a vibratory pattern corresponding to photonic phenomena. The star's light is transmitted preferentially in space, via vibrational resonances, toward other star systems, analogous to the above ether model for "quantum entanglement." (Along its path, the etheric light transmission generates larger energy units, up to the quantum-scale photons we are able to see.)

The etheric resonances describe transmitted impulses which do not behave linearly in space. As the ether impulse is conducted away from the highly-energized distant star, its transmission entrainments, directed preferentially toward other light sources, passes through a much lower photon energy zone, in space. Once again reaching the neighborhood of a high energy zone (our Sun), the transmission is resonationally affected, and the light beam, as perceived quantally on earth, is seen to "bend" around the Sun. -This is an ether model's explanation for the Einstein/Eddington, or gravitational-lensing effect.

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 584
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #13 on: 08/08/2015 01:46:13 »
There is a very big difference between a beam of light that contains a mixture of photons of different frequencies (red photons and green photons) and a beam of light containing only photons of one frequency (yellow photons)--even if they look the same to our eye. Splitting and recombining light as Newton did, is an example of sorting a mixture of photons, and then remixing them. At no point is any photon changing frequency.

This seems to me to be getting complicated. Light is after all electromagnetic radiation, I should think the same rules apply to light as apply to radio-waves. It is well known, take the case of trying to jam radio transmissions, that it is difficult to get two radio transmissions to interfere if their frequencies are widely separated. The only way to jam a radio frequency is to get as close to that frequency as possible so that the two transmissions begin to interfere. Exactly the same thing applies to light, it is almost impossible to interfere with a beam of light, unless you are using another beam of light, in which case you can combine two beams of light of say red and blue and get a new beam of  light with the colour violet or purple, that ‘displays' all the properties of possessing a new frequency. Yet ( and this is exactly what I said in my OP) it is not a one way change because the two colours can be again separated into their component parts. If I understand your comment, I take it that by ‘sorting’ you mean splitting white light into component colours and by ‘remixing ‘ you mean recombining the colours.  Although there is every appearance that the two colours have been mixed into a ‘new’ colour,  with a new frequency, in actual fact if this were the case it would not be possible to retrieve the original colours, with the original frequencies. Therefore I agree to a certain extent with what you say that the interaction might be more involved than it at first appears. If it were not true my theory would be out of the window, because just combining say two lasers of  700nm and 550nm it would be possible to get a secondary frequency of 1250 nm which would be the same wave-length as a ‘conduction’ photon and therefore the same as sending a direct charge of electrical current through the air! Which means you could point it at the fridge and get it to work ! This doesn’t happen, so granted what you say might be true.

The frequency of the photon is directly related to the energy gap (energy = Planck's constant times frequency) please reread my first post on this thread (reply #5), and visit the links contained in it.

Wake up and smell the roses this is a new theory. AND before you start with your references to archaic stuff ( like radio waves are caused by quantum entanglement when matter and antimatter experience mutual annihilation !!!) , take note that this model of the photon accurately and very simply accounts for the following properties of the photon:
1.   It has no mass.
2.   Always travels at the speed of light.(In a vacuum).
3.   Conserves its energy intact over huge distances.
4.   Is electrically neutral
5.   Has both wave and particle like properties.
6.   Accounts for photon wave-lengths from 200nm to several thousands of kilometres.
7.   Has no difficulty in accounting for how these thousands of kilometer long radio-waves originate in an electron that has a radius of
10-15 m.
8.   Has no difficulty in showing how light (incoherent light) propagates according to the inverse square law and also why coherent light
propagates differently.
9.   Show why light propagates only in the forward direction, which is more than, quantum mechanics does.)
10.   Possesses momentum
11.   Possesses both frequency and wave-length.
Take note of one more very important property of my photon model, it travels in straight lines as well as in wave formation. What do you think of that

Finally have you ever thought of what radio frequency means, yes it depends on the time interval with which a current oscillates in an aerial, it is as simple as that, similarly  the frequency of the photon depends on the time interval at which it is emitted by the electron, which in turn is related to its energy, the greater its energy the greater its frequency and the shorter its wave-length.

« Last Edit: 08/08/2015 02:59:46 by McQueen »
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4195
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #14 on: 08/08/2015 14:19:39 »
I would tend to follow Pete (PmbPhy), Alan and Chiral on this. Unless there is a detailed understanding at a pretty high level in physics it is easy to make false assumptions. Personally I would rather start from a point of knowing the current tools and understanding their application before trying to formulate any hypothesis. Why do so many people find the need to disprove theories that are backed up by so much experimental evidence?
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 2090
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #15 on: 08/08/2015 14:55:12 »

What is incredible is if , as in the case in photon emissions, it happens all the time and no-one, over the past hundred years or so has made any reference to it. If you notice the texts and literature on this subject of photon emission are always very static , it is always a photon (notice the emphasis on the singular) is absorbed and a photon is emitted never any hint or inkling that it might indeed be a continuous process and indeed one that may be the basis of the term frequency as applied to photons.
When our children were doing 1st year physics at school, continuous emission was discussed and I saw it in the text books. It is also discussed under thermal emission as being a continual process.
Photons are often discussed as single interactions just as atoms and molecules are discussed singly, in order to focus on the specific interaction or process. There really is no deeper meaning to it.

... the experiment conducted by Lene Hau of Harvard University where it is claimed that light was stopped and then continued when energy was introduced. This surely debunks the whole of the Quantum Mechanics theory of reflection.
I saw an interview with Prof Hau some years ago. She explained how her experiment was done to investigate the predictions of quantum physics at low temperatures and in very dense materials (light slows down in dense materials). She described how quantum theory was used to design the experiment and to explain the results. Far from debunking Quantum Mechanics she sees the results as strengthening it's usefulness and predictions. This is not a theoretical mathematician dreaming up weird formulae in an ivory tower, but an experimental physicist in the best traditions of Faraday and Newton using the best and most accurate tools available.

Maybe we are speaking at cross purposes here, by the mixing of photons to give new wave-lengths and colours, I was referring to the manner in which Newton first separated and then re-united white light. Such a process does not seem to be  as difficult as the scenario that you refer to.
I can see how ChiralSPO misunderstood your 'mixing'. I must confess that when I saw your reference to 'Take for instance a stream of photons of red colour having a wavelength of 750nm and mix it with a photon stream of blue colour having a wavelength of 500 nm, then wavelengths of 1250 nm and 200 nm would be produced', I made the same assumption. What you describe is not the same as mixing light with a prism where the frequency components you mention do not occur.
I think you are confusing modulation and interference. Additive and subtractive components occur when a signal is modulated onto another using a nonlinear mixer. Radio waves superimpose and can interfere but but do not heterodyne. This is fortunate, if they did all radio stations would create additional radio signals in the spectrum and the result would be chaos.
Prism separation and recombination works because white light is a mix of different frequency photons which refract differently, not because they are physically interfering and mixing.

....absorbing and re-emitting a photon at the rate of 293a6e17a8b820d83d10ba4a38decfe7.gif photons per second (note: that is identical to the frequency of the incoming radiation). This is what we term frequency ....
- recent experiments have used lasers where the rate of emission of photons can be controlled, however, the frequency of the photons remains the same no matter what the emission rate.
- experiments at a number of research centres including MIT have been able to excite individual atoms to release a single photon. In this case the photon frequency is related to the energy gap as mentioned by ChiralSPO, clearly not to the rate of emission.

I can understand that you have invested a lot of emotional energy into this theory over a number of years and clearly believe that it explains the behaviour of the photon. That emotional energy is apparent in your response to ChiralSPO and I can see that further discussion of this theory is unlikely to be productive.
I wish you the best with your theory on other forums.
« Last Edit: 08/08/2015 14:56:50 by Colin2B »
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 584
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #16 on: 09/08/2015 03:14:09 »
Colin2B : I can understand that you have invested a lot of emotional energy into this theory over a number of years and clearly believe that it explains the behaviour of the photon. That emotional energy is apparent in your response to ChiralSPO and I can see that further discussion of this theory is unlikely to be productive.
I wish you the best with your theory on other forums.

This is a sub-forum for new theories as I understand it, therefore perhaps if you cool down a bit, you might think again about advising me to go to another forum, and wishing me all the best there. There is new use getting all hot under the collar, when you feel that the general opinion is being ignored or coming under threat.   Further I sense a distinctive evasiveness when you talk about :

Colin2B : When our children were doing 1st year physics at school, continuous emission was discussed and I saw it in the text books. It is also discussed under thermal emission as being a continual process. Photons are often discussed as single interactions just as atoms and molecules are discussed singly, in order to focus on the specific interaction or process. There really is no deeper meaning to it.

As regards 1st year physics at School there is no need to go that far, just look up any physics text book and it will stress the fact of reflection as a process of continuous emission. Yes, I definitely think that I sense a certain vagueness, a reluctance (or is it inability) to follow up on what is being asserted; namely your assertion and support of a continuous emission process.  How does it take place ?  While Professor Hau’s research and experiment might support the Huygen’s (and Quantum Mechanics) assertion that light slows down in a denser medium. (Newton said the opposite would happen, one of the few times he was wrong.) In what way does the result of that experiment ( the stopping of light) support a continuous emission process. I should think that the stopping of light is as sure a nail in the coffin of that particular theory, (theory of continuous emission) as you could hope to find.

I have found the answer to the question I was attempting to answer :  McQueen : Therefore I agree to a certain extent with what you say that the interaction might be more involved than it at first appears. If it were not true my theory would be out of the window, because just combining say two lasers of  700nm and 550nm it would be possible to get a secondary frequency of 1250 nm which would be the same wave-length as a ‘conduction’ photon and therefore the same as sending a direct charge of electrical current through the air! Which means you could point it at the fridge and get it to work ! This doesn’t happen, so granted what you say might be true.

Violet and purple look very similar; but violet is a true color, with its own wavelength on the spectrum of visible light, while purple is a composite color, made by combining blue and red.  A color which looks similar to violet is made, with the RGB color model, by mixing red and blue light, with the blue twice as bright as the red. This is not true violet, since it is composed of multiple longer wavelengths rather than a single wavelength shorter than that of blue light.

Lastly as regards jeffreyH's comment that he prefers to go with established theories. Exactly for how many centuries did everyone believe that the earth was flat. Till as late as the Elizabethan Age, sailors believed that they would sail off the edge of the world. When you consider that St. Paul is rumoured to have visited Britain, imagine the huge time span over which this belief of a  flat earth held sway !  Do you blame the few who thought otherwise and were in the end proved to be right. .
« Last Edit: 09/08/2015 06:34:25 by McQueen »
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 2090
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #17 on: 14/08/2015 09:47:52 »
LOL, I'm away for a few days and return to messages of amazement that you could misread so much into my post. The post was written in a very neutral frame of mind with no attempt to evade anything - people who know me will tell you that it takes a lot to make me hot under the collar and this subject doesn't do it. I have no axe to grind for QM. My interest is that I use the maths of wave functions, eigenvectors etc in analysing and predicting plate and cavity vibrations and resonances in order to model frequency response.

Is it worth responding, or like others not bother?
Violet and purple look very similar; but violet is a true color,
I'm glad you found the answer, however you still need to amend the section on heterodyning as this does not occur with prismatic colour separation and mixing.
In what way does the result of that experiment ( the stopping of light) support a continuous emission process. I should think that the stopping of light is as sure a nail in the coffin of that particular theory, (theory of continuous emission) as you could hope to find.
I think this thread is moving away from the original comment you made "That is a quite incredible amount of emissions, and they take place continuously for as long as the atoms are being excited or irradiated" which Alancalverd responded to etc. I think you have interpreted my response as in some way evading 'something'.
If you reread my post you will see that I did not claim that Prof Hau's experiment supports a theory of continual emission, I was merely pointing out that nothing in her interviews indicates a problem with QM.
I can't understand why you think the experiment is a nail in the coffin of the theory of continuous emission, particularly as you said the emissions take place continuously as long as atoms are being excited or irradiated. Can you copy the section(s) in the paper that you think support your assertion? It would be a major boost for your theory as this would be a world first publication right here on TNS, quite exciting. Otherwise it seems pointless continuing this thread.
Till as late as the Elizabethan Age, sailors believed that they would sail off the edge of the world.
I'm surprised you subscribe to this view. Read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
Successful new theories build on the work up to that point. I think your 'war' against QM seems almost obsessive at times and distracts from those valid ideas you may have. It also leads you to make unrealistic assertions, eg that electron energies are always quantised, I notice no one has bothered to correct you, a sign they are considering that discussing your theory is not worth the effort. There will be a change in QM as new discoveries help us to understand what its predictions mean in the real world, but it is very unlikely that the maths will get much simpler and simple models will not provide the same degree of accuracy.

Wishing you the best on other forums was also offered as genuine with no hidden agenda, I could see you were getting little affirmation for your theory and it occurred to me that you might be considering other forums. However, I've been told that you have already done this which is also why you've had limited replies here as folks are reluctant to go over old ground.
..........comments made by Roger Penrose in his monograph "Cycles of Time" that are directly relevant to the matter at hand. A full citation is provided below.

Quote Originally Posted by Penrose
"And of course we should always keep in mind that such [configuration] spaces are purely mathematical ones which should not be confused with the 3-dimensional physical space or 4-dimensional physical space-time of our ordinary experiences."

This is exactly the same response chiralSPO and myself gave you, why do you insist on your own misinterpretation of maths you don't understand. You might not understand it, but that does not make it wrong.

I will read through the rest of the thread, but I also don't like going over material which has been covered elsewhere.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 584
##### Re: Gestalt Aether Theory : Max Planck
« Reply #18 on: 14/08/2015 12:58:05 »
Quote
Colin2B: This is exactly the same response chiralSPO and myself gave you, why do you insist on your own misinterpretation of maths you don't understand. You might not understand it, but that does not make it wrong.-

It all depends on what is understood as right or  wrong. For instance I find that the statement that radio waves are the product of matter and anti-matter undergoing mutual annihilation  is out and out outstandingly hilarious. (Beam me up Mr Scott!!) Especially when I have given a much simpler explanation supported by mathematics which you set such great ( and in my opinion totally unjustified) store by.

For Quantum Mechanics to have ignored for a hundred years the fact that in every case without exception all energy emitted or absorbed by electrons is mediated by photons, is nothing less than criminal. And all on the grounds of what? The classical explanation that a free electron moving in a conductor would not be able to cope with the forces of recoil involved with the emission or absorption of a photon. Pathetic! Instead we have matter, anti-matter annihilation !! (tee hee!)

As regards your statement that I do not seem to receive much support, I find that the number of people who read my posts is on the whole average or even above average. I have not been sent completely to Coventry as yet. Although who knows! On the subject of my posting the same material in other forums, as I have explained in a another  thread, a new theory has to have room to evolve. If you look at my
post on the Big Bang   you will find that my theory of how the aether might have come into being has improved exponentially since the post you refer to on cosmoquest.

Lastly even people like Galileo were in a fantastic (some would say pitiful ?) minority during their lifetimes and for much of that time were under threat from the inquisition, which is what your mathematical interrogations remind me of at times.
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”