[jeffreyH]

You appear to be suggesting that Planck was in error with his work on black body radiation. Elsewhere you suggested he fudged the results.

[timey (OP)]

Not in the slightest, and it was Planck who was quoted as saying that he had fudged the maths, I'm certainly not qualified to make such an assertion.

I'm simply suggesting a possibility that I've seen to do what Planck did not manage, despite his best efforts, and linearise the maths.

[jeffreyH]

Here is a link to a book review on quantum by Kumar.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/books/review/Farmelo-t.html

It doesn't impress me.

[jeffreyH]

Kumar is a journalist who happens to have degrees in physics and philosophy.

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

What work has he done in the field of theoretical or experimental physics? Quote mining is no substitute for background.

[jeffreyH]

Planck didn't agree with Boltzmann's statistical mechanics but had to resort to it. As did Heisenberg later on.

[timey (OP)]

You are digressing...

Are you saying my synopsis is wrong?

[jeffreyH]

Not in the slightest, and it was Planck who was quoted as saying that he had fudged the maths, I'm certainly not qualified to make such an assertion.

I'm simply suggesting a possibility that I've seen to do what Planck did not manage, despite his best efforts, and linearise the maths.

Can you provide either a link to this quote of Planck's or post details from your book. Otherwise how can I make a proper determination.

[Colin2B]

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

…..

Do the curves now match?

The Rayleigh curve does not peak so could not be matched.
If you change the time with frequency then the observed peak would be shifted and wouldn't occur in its observed position.

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

Could you explain your thinking on this?

But time is not standard, it is variable,

Although time varies between reference frames and places of differing gravity, there is no indication that it varies within an inertial frame. Light of different frequencies doesn't show any sign of varying in speed.

[jeffreyH]

"Max Planck at first regarded the constant as an inconvenient fudge factor that had to be inserted into the equation to make it work. Subsequently, he realized that the constant, despite its almost infinitesimal value, was central to the view that action on a subatomic level happens in discrete jumps, not in a continuous flow. This set the stage for Niels Bohr’s highly successful depiction in 1913 of the quantum action of electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus."

http://www.testandmeasurementtips.com/plancks-constant-and-discrete-energy-levels/

Is this what you are referring to? If so you have the wrong end of the stick entirely.

[timey (OP)]

Colin - I am suggesting that by calculating joules added as per a second that is becoming shorter as energy is added, that the quantised nature of calculating joules added as per standard second will be eliminated, and that the Planck data curve will no longer peak, but follow the Rayleigh-Jean law classical curve.

There is evidence of time varying within the same reference frame.  Food put in a fridge will last longer than food that is not.  Cryogenics is a consideration also.

[jeffreyH]

Colin - I am suggesting that by calculating joules added as per a second that is becoming shorter as energy is added, that the quantised nature of calculating joules added as per standard second will be eliminated, and that the Planck data curve will no longer peak, but follow the Rayleigh-Jean law classical curve.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Your grasp of terminology is appalling. Do us the courtesy of actually paying attention.

There is evidence of time varying within the same reference frame.  Food put in a fridge will last longer than food that is not.  Cryogenics is a consideration also.

Are you seriously suggesting that temperature affects time? It isn't a crime to be wrong or to admitting it.

[Ethos_]

There is evidence of time varying within the same reference frame.  Food put in a fridge will last longer than food that is not.  Cryogenics is a consideration also.

I have been following your posts on these speculations of yours for a considerable length of time now timey. And frankly, I've been considering your ideas and been inclined to give you every benefit of doubt taking into account your sincerity.

I think you already know that I would be tickled to find evidence for the cyclical universe, and for this reason I've been secretly hoping that you could present such evidence for us all to ponder. Nevertheless, this last statement of yours has left me with my mouth literally hanging open in amazement.

Any confidence I may have had in the possibility that you may have been on to something new has completely evaporated. That you can equate a reduction in spoilage to a slowing of time is insulting to Louis Pasteur.

 

[Colin2B]

Colin - I am suggesting that by calculating joules added as per a second that is becoming shorter as energy is added, that the quantised nature of calculating joules added as per standard second will be eliminated, and that the Planck data curve will no longer peak, but follow the Rayleigh-Jean law classical curve.

But the Rayleigh curve goes off the scale at higher frequencies, are you suggesting that energies in the uv zone are tending towards infinite?
Also tha Planck curve is a combination of the Rayleigh-Jean and Wien curves, Planck managed to link them sorting out the discontinuity. You need to show your calculations and for both curves..

There is evidence of time varying within the same reference frame.  Food put in a fridge will last longer than food that is not.  Cryogenics is a consideration also.

Please show the evidence.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the view of gravitational time dilation being relative to free fall or a true zero gravity, but this is beginning to sound silly when you introduce cryogenics into time/frequency variations.
Don't go Box on us please.

[timey (OP)]

Jeff - What does it matter about Planck saying that he'd fudged the maths.  That's what he apparently said according to Manjit Kumar and I've no doubt it is cited.  But so what?  ... And the link you posted - are you saying that the text suggests that my synopsis is incorrect?

Colin - what on earth are you talking about pay attention?  I already described earlier this thread my thoughts concerning joules being measured as per standard second.  And reducing or extending the length of a second is not exactly new terminology.  Unless you mean anything other, then please do the courtesy of explaining that which you are not comprehending.

Colin and Ethos - In case it has escaped your attention the cesium atomic clock must be cooled radically to a constant temperature.  Any increase in temperature will increase its rate of time.

Ethos - I can appreciate that in a model as fully encompassing as mine it is easy to miss detail, but my model states that GR time dilation is a mass near mass related phenomenon and that all bodies of mass experience time differently including living bodies.  Living bodies are not time affected by temperature changes because of internal coping mechanisms.   Some non-living bodies decay slower at low temperatures and faster at high temperatures... Plants/trees grow faster in times of global warming, and slower during ice ages.
Cryogenics can theoretically  suspend the aging of a body using temperature... I really don't see your problem with the analogy of different rates of time occurring in the same reference frame... although I can appreciate that people do have trouble already with grasping the concept of time being a variable within the remit of Special and General relativity.  I know you are not one of these people but can recognise that as I am expanding the concept of variable time quite considerably, people may take a while to understand.

[Colin2B]

Forget it

[jeffreyH]

Jeff - What does it matter about Planck saying that he'd fudged the maths.  That's what he apparently said according to Manjit Kumar and I've no doubt it is cited.  But so what?  ... And the link you posted - are you saying that the text suggests that my synopsis is incorrect?

You made an issue of it or does your memory conveniently fail you?

[timey (OP)]

Jeff - What does it matter about Planck saying that he'd fudged the maths.  That's what he apparently said according to Manjit Kumar and I've no doubt it is cited.  But so what?  ... And the link you posted - are you saying that the text suggests that my synopsis is incorrect?

You made an issue of it or does your memory conveniently fail you?

Your memory seems to fail you Jeff, as I distinctly made this comment that I read that Planck made in the context of explaining the means by which Planck discovered his h constant.  He was trying to match his data to the classical curve, and described it later as fudging.

You still haven't answered if my synopsis is wrong!

[timey (OP)]

Forget it

Thank you for your input.  Please forgive my impatience, but I am tempted to get my son to make a video of me trying to make posts on this broken phone.  The screen constantly freezes up, or directs me to wrong page, and I'm uncertain about the future of my internet connection.

The question was concerning if decreasing the length of a standard second proportionally to increased energy as the Planck data curve diverges from the classical curve in the higher frequencies - or indeed adding to the length of a standard second proportionally to decreased energy where the Planck curve diverges from the classical curve in the lower frequencies - and if measuring joules per second added to the blackbody via these variable seconds as energy is added, would the Planck data be rendered linear?

The question is not concerning if doing so is appropriate, just if Planck's data could then be linear instead of quantised.

(It was my thought 2 years ago that I could explain my model quite simply as a cyclic universe that finds its beginning and end of cycles via the black hole phenomenon in a contracting universe that inflates via the superluminal jets of the last standing singular black hole of the previous cycle, and develops from a sea of particles into clumped mass on the contraction trajectory as particles are drawn to each other... and empty spaces are created where the particles once where.  That this model is GR without the cosmological constant, and redresses Hubble's redshifts velocities as being gravitational time dilation related with the introduction of a time dilation for the gravity field of open space in relation to mass, that runs counter directional to GR gravitational time dilation in a gravitational field, and that a wave'length' is not actually distance related but time related.  That GR gravitational time dilation is a mass near mass phenomenon due to mass being affected by gravity potential, and massless entities such as light are, by their lacking in mass, not affected by gravity potential energy and are travelling through a counter directional gravitational time dilation... and that lights wavelength lengthening in the weaker gravity field is due to travelling through reference frames of open space with time that is slower than a standard second.  Stating that the phenomenon of time itself is a byproduct of energy and part and parcel of the mechanics of the universe. Adding a few details in about the viewing of variable times in relation to the Bekenstien Hawking conundrum concerning energy conservation law and second law thermodynamics, and explaining an alteration to the equivalence principle that ensures the speed of light is not exceeded...

In posting this descriotiin elsewhere on the forum, I had thought that someone here on the forum would be able to relate all these descriptions with each other and come up with more of a response than:
"those dimensions are meaningless"
Meaningless with respect to what?

However... here on physics board I am asking a quite simple mathematical question (for a mathematician) about a process that Planck attempted and failed to manage...  This being could what I suggest be a mathematical means to linearise Planck's data.

[evan_au]

the cesium atomic clock must be cooled radically to a constant temperature.  Any increase in temperature will increase its rate of time.

The cesium atoms in a cesium fountain are cooled to a low temperature, but not for the reason you suggest.
- When atoms have a temperature above absolute zero, the atoms are all moving at different speeds, in different directions, and this introduces a random Doppler shift. This makes it hard to focus on the precise resonant frequency of the atom, because every atom has a different Doppler shift.
- The increased temperature increases the apparent width of the resonance frequency, but not the center frequency.
- According to your theory, if you halved the temperature, the rate of time would be halved, and this is not observed.
- Today's best cesium fountain clocks cool the cesium atoms to near absolute zero - according to your theory, these clocks would not work (or would be horribly inaccurate), because time would almost stop.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock

Cesium clocks are not the only kind of clocks in the universe.
- The first atomic clocks were Hydrogen masers, that operated at room temperature.
- Hydrogen atoms in the Sun emit light at particular frequencies, depending on the electron's energy level before and after the photon is emitted.
- The Hydrogen atoms visible on the Sun can have temperatures from around 5500K to far higher in areas subject to magnetic heating.
- And yet the frequency of these photons is what Schroedinger equation predicts for room temperature.
- With lasers, we can pump room-temperature Hydrogen into any energy level we like, and it matches the frequencies emitted by the Sun, at much higher temperatures.

Timey, I have got cold feet about your new theory. I think it will take forever for you to come to any conclusions.

[jeffreyH]

Can we get something straight. The Rayleigh-Jean's AND the Wien approximation are wrong! Neither fit actual observations of the full spectrum of black body radiation. Planck's data does fit to a high degree of precision. If you are saying that Planck should have made his data fit either of the other two then it is patently obvious that you don't understand what you are looking at. Once again you have been led by popular science authors down the rabbit hole. Try reading some text books. Planck at first thought he had fudged his result but THEN realised he hadn't. It would help if you actually took the time to understand what I post.