Modern accelerators are used as advanced light sources. Once the
electromagnetic wave leaves the vacuum and interacts with matter, it
may be absorbed and then emitted at the same energy or at a lower
energy via a combination of radiative and nonradiative processes.
Planck thought his constant was a property of matter based on an
idealized blackbody radiator; Einstein thought in 1905 discrete quanta
were a property of light. Later Einstein bemoaned not understanding
photons further and searched for a unified field theory. Bohr's model
described hydrogen and quantum mechanics was unable to find the proper
potential energies to explain atoms beyond helium. Incidentally, the
Copenhagen interpretation may have been a "red herring" which led
German scientist Heisenberg to his uncertainty principle while Bohr
escaped occupied Denmark to warn the US of the Curies 1930's Nobel
Prize and later work by Hahn/Meitner.
Based on different boundary conditions and classical wave mechanics,
Randall Mills has described atoms through n=20 and many molecules. For
all these atoms and molecules, Planck's constant is a fixed absolute
scale factor which converts the frequency of the incoming wave into an
atomic or molecular energy. This understanding of Planck's scale
factor constant extends beyond our understanding of a blackbody
radiator and hydrogen to perhaps in the near future to the entire
periodic table. I don't know why any energy scale factor should
inherently remain the same for different atoms and molecules but it
Advanced light sources are also called advanced "photon" sources.
Apparently these advanced light sources can create many frequencies or
wavelengths at high intensity for which there is no absorption by
matter. I am just suggesting that photons correspond to energies for
which atomic and molecular matter absorbs discretely rather than
continuously like an idealized blackbody radiator. "Photon" light
sources are only useful when we know the set of frequencies for which
to tune the incoming electromagetic wave.
-- In SCQM@yahoogroups.com
, "john_e_barchak" <john_e_barchak@...> wrote:
> Hi Mark
> You state:
> "my gut feel suggests that photons may just represent
> the subset of all continuous electromagnetic frequencies which
> specifically correspond to excited states of matter... and no more."
> Could you elaborate this statement? I'm not sure what you are
> driving at.
> Best - John B.
> --- In SCQM@yahoogroups.com, "markviverson@" <markviverson@>
> > Hi John,
> > Thanks for your interest.
> > The ultraviolet
> > catastrophe(://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe)
> > is based on Erenfest's equal partition of energy which in turn is
> > based on Botzmann's statistical analysis because atoms were thought
> > too small to describe. Apparently, you think the theoretical
> > ultraviolet catastrophe is avoided with discrete frequencies rather
> > than the continuous frequencies of a "blackbody".
> > Yet Dr. Mill's has a classical quantum mechanical theory with
> > energy levels predicted for many atoms and molecules. The
> > of an equal partition of energy may now be reexamined; many
> > experimental boiling points might now be calculated, and radiation
> > from a non blackbody radiator now seems possible with fractional
> > energy levels deep into the ultraviolet.
> > Planck's law(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law#_note-
> > was derived from entropy(Boltzman) and not from quantum mechanics.
> > Please not the following:
> > 1) Plank's original paper is online.
> > 2) A historical correction is in this wikipedia article.
> > 3) A similar prose historical correction is in Issacson's book on
> > Einstein. In addition Erhenfest was viewed as a cynic by most of his
> > associates including Einstein.
> > Yes Plank's constant h fits a curve for blackbody emission and the
> > Wien displacement law without h shows how the spectral peak moves
> > towards shorter wavelengths as the temperature increases. The
> > equation derived by Planck describes blackbody emission over
> > continuous frequencies rather than discrete. Discrete spectra have
> > lines present or missing at specific wavelengths.
> > Having a fitting constant h for a blackbody radiation curve is not
> > same as saying that all atoms which radiate or absorb
> > energy at specific frequencies through orbit spheres using the same
> > universal energy scale factor h. Moreover electromagnetic energies
> > have three experimental energy ranges: electronic transitions,
> > vibrational transitions, and rotational transitions.
> > This simply suggests that the frequency of the light must match the
> > atomic or molecular energy levels using an atomic energy scale
> > h. Anotherwords, my gut feel suggests that photons may just
> > the subset of all continuous electromagnetic frequencies which
> > specifically correspond to excited states of matter... and no
> > I look forward to discussing this further.
> > Kind regards,
> > Mark
> > --- In SCQM@yahoogroups.com, "john_e_barchak" <john_e_barchak@>
> > >
> > > Hi Mark
> > > The purpose of Planck's constant was to eliminate the ultraviolet
> > > catastophe by making the spectrum discrete rather than
> > > As long as the spectrum frequencies are separated by some
> > > value, then this avoids the ultraviolet catastophe.
> > > Best - John B.
> > >
> > > --- In SCQM@yahoogroups.com, "markviverson@" <markviverson@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As mentioned in the original posts, I have been more interested
> > > > Einstein's lack of understanding of light quanta despite his
> > > defining
> > > > quanta(1905) in the first place. Planck and others believed his
> > > > constant was a property of matter and not as a property of the
> > > > excitation light.
> > > >
> > > > If electromagnetic radiation acts on orbit spheres for various
> > > atoms,
> > > > molecules, and molecular chains, Planck's constant is just a
> > > > energy scale factor of matter and not an inherent property of
> > > > radiation.
> > > >
> > > > It is surprising that numerous atoms and molecules have the same
> > > > energy scale factor which suggests that Einstein was
> right: "God
> > > does
> > > > not play dice." Yet Einstein did not have a unified field
> theory to
> > > > see a conceptual error or perhaps he did not completely
> > > the
> > > > photoelectric effect paper where his first wife(Tesla's cousin)
> > > > major contributions.
> > > >
> > > > CQM provides a unified theory. Again I open for discussion: "Is
> > > > Planck's constant of as a property of matter as Planck thought
> or is
> > > > it a property of light as the Einstein's surmised?"
> > > >
> > > > Read the mentor of Einstein and Tesla: Mach! Confirm your own
> > > > theories by comparison with experiments. Don't "shoot the
> > > > via controlling my civil freedom of expression.
> > > >
> > >