[timey (OP)]

Can Planck's law curve be matched to Rayleigh-Jean's law curve like this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe

Frequency is a count of how many wave cycles complete within the time scale of a standard second.

E=hf and Wavelength=hv

What I'm going to do is decrease the length of a second as energy increases.

So for this calculation, by replacing Wavelength=hv with Wavelength=hf, where frequency is the velocity of a second - we are now keeping the 'distance' of a wavelength constant and instead decreasing the length of a second that the cycles of the wave complete within...

Do the curves now match?

[evan_au]

E=hf is one component of quantum theory for photons.

However, the frequency of emitted or absorbed photons is determined by electron orbitals. Classical electromagnetism cannot explain why electrons only reside in certain energy levels, or why there is a "ground state" energy level.

To understand electron orbitals in an atom, you really need to understand Schroedinger's equation - and be able to solve it.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation

[timey (OP)]

Ah Evan - was going to post the text below but have seen your interim post.  I am looking at the Schrödinger equation elsewhere.

Actually I'm a little unsure of the maths I've given.  The idea of Wavelength=hv would be transposed to Secondlength, but on puzzling over it I think Secondlength would have to be Secondlength=f/h...
In any case the idea is that the length of a wavelength, or the distance that it travels remains constant, and that it is the length of a second that is decreasing as energy increases.

This concept ties in with the measurement of joules per 'standard' second and should  eliminate the quantised nature of the data.

[jeffreyH]

Photon wavelength is c/f where c is the speed of light and f is frequency. You can't mess around with dimensions and hope to have valid equations.

[timey (OP)]

...and photon wavelength would also be hv, where c is v.

Planck tried everything to iron out the quantised nature of his data.  By measuring joules per standard second and frequency as cycles per standard second, Planck has standardised time in the equation.

But time is not standard, it is variable, and if adding energy makes the frequency of wave cycles increase, why not try proportionally decreasing the length of a second for a faster second accordingly?

This should eliminate the quantised nature of the data!

There are no messing around with dimensions being conducted in this process.  Indeed nature reflects this concept in that food left in a fridge will last longer than food that is not.

[jeffreyH]

The reason E = hv is that h is joule second and v is cycles divided by seconds. Since cycles have no dimension you can simply cancel out the unit of seconds in the numerator and denominator leaving the dimension of the answer as joules. Note that cancelling a unit has no effect on the values in the equation. This is what we use dimensional analysis for. I have explained this in words rather than just using maths since that is how you requested answers.

[jeffreyH]

BTW v should be a Greek letter representing frequency which can also be represented by f. So no advantage in swapping them.

[jeffreyH]

If v is meant to be velocity then you have joule second metres per second. So your final units are joule metres.

[timey (OP)]

Jeff - many thanks for the explanation in words!

I do not understand why the cycles of the waves are dimensionless...

In fact it would seem to me that giving a wave cycle a dimension and stating the frequency of the cycles as time related would be mathematically possible...

Then just measure the addition of joules as per the variable seconds as denoted by increase in frequency, and the quantised nature of the data is eliminated.

[jeffreyH]

The derived unit is hertz. The underlying cycle count is a scalar with no dimension.

[timey (OP)]

So - by stating the underlying cycle count as a dimension of time - in relation to the standardisation of the standard second within the interpretation of Planck's data, frequency can become the velocity of a second.

...and adding joules to seconds that are decreased in length will alter the data curve.

As stands the wavelength has an associated length in 'distance' that is proportional to energy.  All I suggest is that this length in 'distance' is transposed to being a length of 'time'.

[jeffreyH]

You cannot assign the dimension of time to the scalar cycle count. It is an absolute no no. The SI unit of frequency is s^-1. That is per second since the time divides into a scalar. You keep trying to break physics to prove your ideas. That will never work.

[timey (OP)]

If time is a variable, which we know it is, then assigning a wave function as time related is far less outlandish than assigning an unobserved and mechanically unaccounted for energy to propel everything in the universe outwards at an ever accelerating rate.

I daresay the world of physics would be quite happy to consider a hypothetical model of quantised dark energy though, aye?

But you reckon that subtracting time from the length of a standard second for a linear data curve is a no, no...?

[jeffreyH]

To complete the background it would be useful to study the other end of the spectrum and the Wien approximation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien_approximation

[jeffreyH]

If time is a variable, which we know it is, then assigning a wave function as time related is far less outlandish than assigning an unobserved and mechanically unaccounted for energy to propel everything in the universe outwards at an ever accelerating rate.

I daresay the world of physics would be quite happy to consider a quantised dark energy though, aye?

But you reckon that subtracting time from the length of a standard second for a linear data curve is a no, no...? Kg

Putting words into someone's mouth is a standard defence mechanism of those protecting an untenable position. An attempt to cast doubt to deflect attention away from a defect in logic. Just thought I would clarify that point.

[timey (OP)]

Thank you. I will have a look at that link.

I did not put words in your mouth, it was a question...

Physics is quite happy to consider adding a hypothetical dimension of dark energy to support the continuation of current theory.  I'm questioning the fact of you seeming to reckon that adding a hypothetical decrease in the length of a second to achieve a linear and classical data curve is a no, no - in the face of what current physics adds to maintain the premise of the current theory.

More to the point, does what I'm suggesting actually even achieve a linear and classical curve?  This being the very first of my considerations...whether or not it's acceptable to achieve linear results in this way being the second.

[jeffreyH]

Do you actually understand what Max Planck did?

[timey (OP)]

Well...quite a large portion of Manjit's book was dedicated to the subject, and most physics books give a run through...

A brief and oversimplified synopsis in my own words:

Planck added energy to a blackbody.  As energy was added, the frequency that the resulting radiation was emitted at increased, but not in a linear fashion as the Rayleigh-Jean law predicted.  In trying to make the data fit the predicted curve, Planck found that by splitting the input energy into lumps, there could be gaps between the frequency changes. Frequency changes that only occurred at certain energy levels and that the 6.whatever joules per second was the constant that emerged. ie: Planck's h constant.

[jeffreyH]

Scroll to the section on black body radiation and read through carefully.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck

[timey (OP)]

Manjit Kumar's description was more informative.

What am I looking for Jeff?

Are you saying my synopsis is wrong?