[Bored chemist]

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?

Before we can make any meaningful progress you need to explain what you mean by "What I'm going to do is decrease the length of a second as energy increases."

Time is a real thing, it exists; you can't change it arbitrarily.

[Colin2B]

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.

OK, but just bear in mind that I almost didnt come back.

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.

This is actually 2 separate questions:
1. Could Plank curve be made to match the Rayleigh curve.
Just a slight digression, but it is relevant. The popular science press and others who should know better gloss over the history of this issue which goes back to the laws of thermodynamics, Kirchoff, Boltzman etc, so a lot has to change in order for Planks findings to change. Contrary to myth, Planck didn't overturn Rayleigh, the latter had put up the law as a 'look how ridiculous this is', he never believed it could be true.

So to the maths.
Curves are determined by the interaction of the components in the formula. Wherever you have a bump in the data you can guess at least 2 things are interacting whereas curves like Rayleigh can be derived from one.
Simple eg. Roll a dice, because all the numbers are equally likely you will get a distribution with no hump.
Now roll 2 dice and add them together, the most common number is 7 all the other numbers are less frequent – you have a hump in the data.

Now I'm not suggesting that there are probabilities here but just a simple explanation without using maths formulae that the interaction of 2 factors is what causes the hump, so changing frequency/time doesn't do it. To make a change you have to go back to thermodynamics, Kirchoff's work etc and start looking for the issues there. There is too much that is interdependent.

2.Would this linearise the data
The thing that is missing from E=hv in most quotes is n, more correctly E=nhv where n is an integer. Altering v doesn't change n, it is still there. Again you need to go well back to Planks work on oscillators and try to get rid of it, he tried and boy did he try hard!

[jeffreyH]

2.Would this linearise the data
The thing that is missing from E=hv in most quotes is n, more correctly E=nhv where n is an integer. Altering v doesn't change n, it is still there. Again you need to go well back to Planks work on oscillators and try to get rid of it, he tried and boy did he try hard!

Now I understand!

[jeffreyH]

For those interested here is a link with more information.

https://msu.edu/~churchcl/quantum/quanta.html

[jeffreyH]

You cannot get rid of n since h is an indivisible quantity and has to occur in integer multiples. It represents a particle in a field, the photon in the electromagnetic field. You are chasing a dead end here.

What is interesting is if you take the diameter of a Planck mass black hole (4 Planck lengths) and divide this into 1 light second you can then use ratio to obtain a maximum frequency. Taking 4 Planck lengths as the Compton wavelength for the black hole. So with n =1 you get 1*h*v giving the energy that would be emitted by the black hole if this was possible. This can then be associated with Beckenstein entropy.

[timey (OP)]

Evan - I'm sorry, but you have the wrong idea about introducing temperature as a time changer in the way you describe as a part of my theory of time.

What kind of logic would say that a cold clock won't tick, and are you seriously suggesting that you would think that I had thought this?  (I suppose I should feel all rosy and cheery that you would infer that you ever did have warm feet about my theory)

Yes there are molecular frequencies and there are atomic frequencies to be thought about. 

Colin was saying that time dilation/contraction can only happen when viewing another reference frame than your own. (please see NIST 2010 ground level cesium clock experiments where 2 clocks are running at different rates 1 metre apart).  I said that time can be seen to be moving at different rates for molecular structures that are subject to heat or cold, ie: they decay faster or slower, and mentioned that temperature would affect a cesium atomic clocks frequency.  Fact is that the molecular frequencies will indeed affect the atomic frequencies with their associated energies, but as to how this ties into my theory of time, to be truthful I haven't got a clue Evan.  What I do know is that when a blackbody is exposed to temperature, radiation is emitted.

Jeff - could you please have an internal moment of reflection as to why you are becoming angry and uptight?  It is clearly obvious that Planck's h constant is not fudged maths.  Its highly relevant.  However, Planck did try very hard to make his data fit a classical continuum, and in his attempts to do so, he split the energy input into sections to spread the data as to requirement, and the value of his h constant emerged.  True or false?

Bored Chemist - thanks for joining the discussion.  Yes time is a real phenomenon, and no, one cannot arbitrarily change its rate.  However current physics has yet to possess a coherent theory of time.  Currently the phenomenon of time is viewed by quantum and SR as having a universal present.  Quantum is measured via the standard second, and infers that within perturbations of time, that  there are alternative states that a system may be operating within, many worlds view, etc, and SR refers its time anomalies back to a universal present.  But GR suggests that the present is only a locality.
So we can see that within the remit of currently held time dilation/contraction notions that a standard second may be considered as having an increased or decreased length of duration.
The argument most definitely exists that it may not be 'appropriate' to attempt to linearise Planck's data by lengthening the standard second where the Planck data curve diverges from the classical in the lower frequency region, or shorten the length of a standard second where the Planck data curve diverges from the classical in the higher frequencies - but would doing so, and then measuring the input energy via these variable seconds linearise Planck's data?

Colin - good, glad to see you back, I'm chewing over your post now.

Jeff - good, glad you understand!  I'm chewing over your recent posts now too...

[Bored chemist]

All very nice but, in the end you will either come up with something mathematically equivalent to the current understanding, or you will come up with something that gives the (experimentally) wrong answer.

[jeffreyH]

What on earth makes you think I am angry and uptight? I am simply attempting to correct your misconceptions lest you trip over your own feet (chuckle).

[timey (OP)]

Bored Chemist - yes, that is a correct analysis....
If the addition of variable seconds to the interpretation did not iron out the quantised nature of Planck's data, it would without doubt be a pointless approach.
If the addition computes as a mathematical equivalent of current understanding, then it will be mathematically equivalent for different reasons than are currently held, and we can then take those reasons to the remit of Hubble's red shift velocities and reassess.

Jeff - your tone can be very contentious and accusatory, and this is the reason I find you to be perhaps angry with me and uptight.  You have indeed taught me a lot over the last 2 years, more from reading your other posts than from your replies to me, where I feel that you constantly misunderstand my questioning of current status quo as being a lacking in my understanding of current status quo, and in that this is your perspective of me, you miss the implications of what I'm suggesting...  For instance you cannot possibly correct my misconceptions concerning my model of a cyclic universe based on someone else's model of a cyclic universe.
Please understand Jeff, I am not stating that I have the ultimate theory of everything, everyone else is stupid.  Blah, blah.  All I'm saying is that I have a model that might be a mathematical viability in that it should remain the mathematical equivalent of GR, and quantum, but for different reasons.

[alancalverd]

The reason not to "iron out the quantised nature of Planck's data" is because photons are quantised. Nothing to do with understanding, everything to do with observation. A sodium street lamp is exactly the same color whether you are standing next to it or a hundred miles away, so whatever reaches you must have exactly the same energy as when it left the lamp. If you stand far enough away and use a photomultiplier detector, you can see that the light that reaches you comes in discrete packets, randomly distributed in time. A discrete packet of electromagnetic radiation with a fixed energy is called a quantum. 

[timey (OP)]

Alan - All the phenomenon that you have mentioned can potentially be described under the remit of my model.

The benefits of ironing out the quantised nature of Planck's data are: that in keeping the distance of the wave'length' as per where the data lines do not diverge as a constant, one will always know the position of a photon particle along the path of this constant wave'length', because the per second part of the speed of light constant, is rendered variable.  No need for perturbations of time to determine position.

[Colin2B]

Colin was saying that time dilation/contraction can only happen when viewing another reference frame than your own. (please see NIST 2010 ground level cesium clock experiments where 2 clocks are running at different rates 1 metre apart). 

What I actually said was:

Although time varies between reference frames and places of differing gravity, there is no indication that it varies within an inertial frame.

The clocks are in differing gravity, strictly speaking different accelerating frames.

[timey (OP)]

True... sorry for misquoting.

And yes, your concern that the basis for lengthening or shortening seconds under the circumstances I suggest is valid with respect to the premise of relativity...
I am simply suggesting that in calculating probability of position in quantum, what I'm suggesting is exactly what the process of perturbating time is already adding.  I'm just giving the process a physical reality. (potentially)

[alancalverd]

But we do know the position of a photon. At time t seconds it has travelled ct meters from where it was at t = 0, because c is a universal constant and the measurement of t is fixed by quantum mechanics. No problem.

[timey (OP)]

OK - good points...

So we have a situation where the increasing of temperature is causing frequency changes in the molecular structure of the blackbody via translational motion, and these motions cause electronic transitions in atoms, and photons are subsequently emitted.

Change the temperature input to the molecular structure and the frequency of the photons are changed accordingly...
Here we can see that the frequency changes in the photons are an indirect result of frequency changes in the molecular structure.
We can also see that the notion of a waves length is dimensionless.  Although the length of the light wave is proportional to that frequency of lights energy, the length of a wave in terms of a distance is completely meaningless as light of any frequency travels the same distance in the same time period.
And... light of any frequency, ***after it has been emitted***, will not change its frequency unless exposed to changes in the gravitational field.

The sun is our closest natural light source.  It is not moving away from us in the sense that other natural light sources are thought to be doing, as we are in orbit around it.  The light from the sun is being red shifted away from the suns gravitational field, and then blue shifted into earths gravitational field.  There is no significant Doppler effect here, (is there?), just gravitational shift.  We know the distance to the sun and the speed the light travels at, the length of a wavelength remains dimensionless, and we still hypothetically know the photons position.

Taking the situation intergalactic, we now have Hubble's redshifts velocities to contend with.  This has given the length of a wavelength a dimension.  Wavelengths are now being so called stretched by velocity that light source is moving away from us at...  And furthermore the distance the wavelength is travelling through is also expanding at speeds that can exceed the speed of light...  Where is the photon now?

[Colin2B]

We can also see that the notion of a waves length is dimensionless.  Although the length of the light wave is proportional to that frequency of lights energy, the length of a wave in terms of a distance is completely meaningless as light of any frequency travels the same distance in the same time period.

Can you please explain how a wavelength is dimensionless and meaningless, I don't follow your reasoning.

You've obviously thought this through carefully, so could you also describe how, if wavelength is dimentionless and meaningless, you explain Chladni patterns, diffraction etc.

[alancalverd]

Alas there are no quantum discontinuities in the spectrum of a black body, so there's something wrong with the argument here.

[jeffreyH]

Alas there are no quantum discontinuities in the spectrum of a black body, so there's something wrong with the argument here.

I am not sure what this relates to, can you elaborate.

[alancalverd]

these motions cause electronic transitions in atoms, and photons are subsequently emitted.

even the word "subsequently" is wrong!

[timey (OP)]

Colin - earlier, if not in this thread as I cant find it, but somewhere quite recently, Jeff explained about how the cyclic count of a wave length,  ie: the count of one completion of an up and down is dimensionless. (probably misquoting you slightly here Jeff, so apologies in advance).

The reason why the cyclic count of a wavelength is dimensionless is because of the constancy of the speed of light.  It does not matter what the cyclic count is, the light always travels the same distance at the same speed.

However, the cyclic count of wavelength is not entirely dimensionless.  Apart from being proportional to energy, the rate of the count is being held relative to the duration of a standard second.  As the speed of light is also being held relative to the duration of a standard second one would have thought we were all in the clear.

By adding velocities to the cyclic count of waves as Hubble did, the cyclic count of waves has been given a dimension of distance, and where light cannot, under the remit of the constancy of the speed of light, travel those 'distance' waves, it is then said that the fabric of space itself is stretching.

I'm at it a bit sketchy perhaps, but I can iron out any terminology if objection arises...?

P.S.  I'd also like to know what you mean Alan, and:

"electronic transitions in atoms are accompanied by the emission of photons (radiation)".