[alancalverd]

Black body (thermal) photons can have any energy, unlike fluorescence photons whose energy depends on quantum transitions in the emitting atom, because thermal energy is only going to excite free electrons or cause whole atoms to jiggle randomly.   

Baffled by "the data is quantised" when it isn't. The data shows a smooth curve with no discontinutities if there is a sufficient photon flux, but if you look at one photon a a time, each has a specific energy. Think of graded sand and half-inch ballast: each grain has a fixed size and there will be a maximum probability of finding grains in a particular size range (around half an inch diameter) but there is no rule about forbidden sizes. What Planck showed is that you can calculate the actual continuum shape by assuming that the underlying phenomenon is quantised.

[timey (OP)]

Colin - NIST 2010 ground level relativity tests proved that time slows for a clock in relative motion to a stationary clock at speeds as low as 36km/h

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100923/full/news.2010.487.html

Alan - what I'm doing is suggesting a means of calculating the classical shape via a means that (potentially) eliminates the underlying quantised nature.

[alancalverd]

Why ignore an established fact, in order to produce a poor approximation to the truth? That's art, not physics.

[timey (OP)]

Quite simply because to do so would mean that what is occurring is occurring for a reason that can be given a physical cause, and the implications of this physical cause can be taken over to Hubble's red shift velocities and the situation there reassessed, looking at Stephan's quintet and the emerging luminosity anomalies.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

...and also because the maths of using variable seconds as appropriate in quantum will eliminate the need for perturbation theory to know position, and (potentially) eliminate the use of the Lorentz transformations to describe Doppler.

[alancalverd]

In other words, you think that the prime cause of anything must be a continuum phenomenon. Wrong. If it were so, the hydrogen atom would collapse and we would not exist.

[timey (OP)]

No - as the electron moves towards the nucleus, the space it is moving through increases in rate of time, sucking the electron towards the nucleus. But the nucleus is also not stationary.  As the electron gets closer to the nucleus, the nucleus is affected with the proximity of the electron and it moves faster with the extra energy.  The electron misses the nucleus, its trajectory now on the outward bound.  Its trajectory slows due to the increasingly slower time of the space further away from the nucleus.  The nucleus travels slower the further away it gets from the electron with a decreased energy.  A point of inertia is reached where a tiny amount of gravitational attraction is facilitated, and the electron falls back towards the nucleus being sucked towards it again by the increasing time of the space between it and the nucleus.

No collapsing going on!

And one could imagine that in more complex arrangements, that a jittering of such distribution of resonating frequencies could cause the atom to stabilise by emitting a photon.

[alancalverd]

Since the electron and nucleus carry opposite charges, you will have to explain why they don't simply continue to attract ad infinitum. Why does the electron "miss the nucleus" when all the forces acting on it are towards the nucleus? Ar you saying that your newtonian model doesn't obey Newton's laws? And since there is a lot more matter outside the atom than inside it, why is the electron gravitationally attracted to the nucleus? And since moving charges radiate photons, why don't we detect them from all atoms?

The beauty of the Heisenberg/Planck/Schrodinger approach is that it predicts what actually happens without resort to magic.

[timey (OP)]

Photons will not radiate from atoms that are not experiencing a jitter in the motion that is the result of the motions caused by resonation of  the component parts frequencies.

If there is a time dilation of open space then the actual force of gravity will have a value far less than the current gravitational constant.  In fact it would be the magnetic moment of the electron that will be the force that causes an attraction, and the repulsion from the nucleus that repels, and the time dilation of open space causing the rate of acceleration inbound from point of inertia, or the rate of deceleration outbound from point of repulsion- this insuring that the electron will never fall into the nucleus.  (but as you know Alan, this is all hypothetical supposition of how an alternative might give same results)

Yes of course, if the maths I'm suggesting correspond, they will correspond with what is predicted and what happens... So why bother looking at alternate maths?  Because it might lead to a deeper understanding that can answer and give physical cause for the phenomenon of quantum states... That's why.

(Hmmm, magic?  Quantum states, many worlds, or just a case of an undiscovered counter directional gravitational time dilation?  I'd go for many worlds myself, but I always did like a fantastical fairy tail, and its soooo much more exotic, when can we visit?)

[alancalverd]

All moving charges radiate. Why not yours? That was the reason for abandoning the Bohr model in favor of Schrodinger.

Not all nuclei have a magnetic moment.

"Many worlds" is a mathematical model. Quantum states is what actually happens because we can measure it.

[timey (OP)]

Alan - clearly the current method is adequate and there is nothing further to be discovered by viewing observation under alternate remit.  Very sorry to have bothered you.  It now doesn't look likely that my mathematical question will be answered, only all the reasons why I should not have asked the question, because there is no need or call to question that which adequately works.

On the basis that I've obviously been led astray by the contradictory story that is portrayed in popular science, TV documentaries, and scientific press, I am now very annoyed at these misrepresentations that I've bought into and think I might have to sue.

Thanks for straightening me out Alan.  Good day!

[timey (OP)]

quantum gravity - must just be one of my many misinterpretations of basic physics terminology.
Many apologies.  I'm sooo embarrassed...

[hamdani yusuf]

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.

The unit for h is actually Joule second per cycle. Reduced Planck's constant, called ħ (h bar) has a unit of Joule second per radian. They have the same dimension, but different in numerical value.
Using ħ can reduce the number of symbols used in equations of quantum mechanics, where we need to write down 2π if h were used instead.

[alancalverd]

The unit for h is actually Joule second per cycle.

Er, no.

The SI units are defined in such a way that, when the Planck constant is expressed in SI units, it has the exact value h = 6.62607015?10⁻³⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹

Since 1 Hz = 1/second, the term Hz^-1 has the dimension of time, so h is simply 6.62607015?10⁻³⁴ joule.sec.

h/2π = ħ is still joule.sec but 2π turns up in so many calculations that it is simply a more compact way of writing equations.

[hamdani yusuf]

The unit for h is actually Joule second per cycle.

Er, no.

The SI units are defined in such a way that, when the Planck constant is expressed in SI units, it has the exact value h = 6.62607015?10⁻³⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹

Since 1 Hz = 1/second, the term Hz^-1 has the dimension of time, so h is simply 6.62607015?10⁻³⁴ joule.sec.

h/2π = ħ is still joule.sec but 2π turns up in so many calculations that it is simply a more compact way of writing equations.

The hertz (symbol: Hz) is the unit of frequency in the International System of Units (SI), equivalent to one event (or cycle) per second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertz

If a wheel is turning at 1/2π cycle per second, then it's turning at 1 radian/cycle. Because 1 cycle = 2π radian.

[alancalverd]

Photons are not rotating, so radians are not involved. How many radians in a square wave? Or a piano string?

[hamdani yusuf]

Photons are not rotating, so radians are not involved. How many radians in a square wave? Or a piano string?

You seem to forget about Fourier transform.

[alancalverd]

I never forget Fourier, but photons and pianos have never heard of him. 

Hammond organs and power stations use a rotating shaft to generate various frequencies.

[hamdani yusuf]

I never forget Fourier, but photons and pianos have never heard of him. 

Hammond organs and power stations use a rotating shaft to generate various frequencies.

Do you think photons have square waves?
Do you think radio waves also consist of photons?

[hamdani yusuf]

Photon is just a model to describe behavior of light in some experimental setups. It's a modified version of older version of particle model of light called corpuscles, which was popularized by Newton.

But imagining light as point-like particles only brings more difficulties than it helps. You would be hard-pressed to explain many of its properties, like frequency, wavelength, polarization, diffraction, interference. On the other hand, imagining light as a mechanical wave like sound, wave on strings, water surface or membrane has its own drawbacks. I've shown that in my experimental video about blocking mechanism using microwave. My conclusion for now is that light is a different kind of wave, until I can find evidence showing otherwise.

[alancalverd]

Fact is that the propagation of em radiation is best described with wave equations but many interactions are better described with a particulate model.

None of which changes the dimensions of h or ħ : joule.second. 2π is a dimensionless constant.