Light

[hermann]

Hallo Jehovajah,

I do nor realy understand your problem in the way you stated it.
Light is an electomagnetic wave which is composed of a magnetic and an electric part.
In energy can be in an elektric field and in a magnetic field they are like ying and yan.
Every solid body has a temperature which is due to the velocity of the particels it is composed from.
When a charged particel is accelerated it will radiate elektromagnetic waves.
Solid bodies and gas are composed of charged particels. The greater the heat of a body or gas is, the higher the the velocity of the particels is.
If this particels are bouncing together this will result in an acceleration and hence you have electromagnetic waves.





http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektromagnetische_Welle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rmestrahlung
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation

You may also have a look on the black body radiation and the work of Max Plank. Which is one of the starting points of quantenmechanics.

Hermann
P.S. Thank you very much for the links to Wildbergers lessons on mathematics on YouTupe.
I yesterday watched his lessons on rational numbers. I also like his critical view on infinities in mathematics, which I share.

[jehovajah]

I want to explore the role light took in coming to our notion of matter and it's atomic structure. In particular the fundmental role of spectroscopy and spectometry in introducing the electron into chemistry and the redaction of the periodic table into its present structure.

It is not commonly recognised but chemists apprehend more about the nature of light and the anomalies in Electromagnetic theory than most physicists. This is because light was crucial to the formation and completion of the periodic table organised by Mendeleyev, drawing on earlier alchemical works like Lavoisiers. The work of Dalton and others in fluid and so gaseous chemistry , drawing on Boyles insights and equipment, also informed Lavoiiers taxonomy. It was Mendeleyev who drew attention to the octets in this chemical list of elements based on reactivity with standard agents.

The octet structure was a bold conjecture which guided chemists in completing the table which was organised by molecular weights based on the mole of fluid used to quantify reactants, reactions and reaction products. It was the mole formulary or notation that lead to a consistent notation for chemical reactions.

With this notation as a handle chemists could write down and note different reactions and their outcomes. In some cases they became able to predict outcomes, based on the octet" rules", but elements were still missing in the tables, and were difficult to isolate. Around this time spectroscopy started to record spectra for the elements when they were burnt in a flame.

These spectra, linked to the periodic table not only helped to identify new elements, but also to better understand the composition of elements internally. Spectrometry enabled these spectra to be measured and compared and differences compared with unknown specimens. Spectrometry soon became a vital assay tool.

The light produced in a Crookes ray tube was of a particular colour because of the copper wire. But spectrometry revealed other lines which were identified as new elements, rare gases . Spectosvopy was based on the molecular theory of elements and it was clear that elements were associated with light when heated. Thus electric sparks had to be heating elements and causing light emission, so called. But when it was declared, after some hesitation by Thompson, that he had found a particle called by this time the electron, a name he conceded to only after much persuasion, and that it itself was the light in the Crookes ray tube, then spectroscopy took on a whole new meaning.
Later Einstein based his concept of a photon on the electron. It was called the massless electron! Einstin posited that it was this photon that Thompson actually witnessed as Crookes ray, mingled in amongst the electron particles that carried the mass.

There was a huge problem with the electron, which has to do with stability. To make a stable atom Thompson posited a huge binding particle called a proton. The electron had to sit inside the proton to remain stable. Electic and magnetic activity somehow knocked it out. He had no notion of a photon. The problem with the electron was it could not travel at the speed of light because it's mass would have to be zero, for the mathematical theory to work!

Lorentz theory of the electron had serious flaws in it and it was Einstein who brokered a solution based on Thompsons electron concept, not Lorentz's.  Evenso, Rutherford continued experimenting with sparks and light rays and felt Thompsons model was wrong. Similarly Bohr came to the same conclusion. They imagined a minuscule nucleus and a circling electron like a planetary system. The photon then came from the electon as Einstin posited by changing its relative potential energy.

Chemists took this model to task. Refined it and suggested shell structures and orbit patterns. The light emitted or absorbed was related to these patterns and a complex structure that accounted for elements, the periodic table, chemical reactivity , atomic structure was developed. It was chemists that provided an empirical model that supported the Rutherford Bohr atomic model and which took light right into the heart of matter. However light was itself transformed by this association, it became the more general electromagnetic radiation. This concept was demonstrated by Heinrich Hertz, but it was posited nearly 50 years earlier by Faraday.

Fire was now incorporated ino matter by a theoretical construct. It would be some time before it would be renamed plasma, and contribute to a new model of matter .

[jehovajah]

Thanks, Hermann. Some cool graphics , and a nice summary of the standard model.

I do not have a problem with the standard model. Usually it is the other way round!
I have not stopped looking or researching or revisiting the empirical data, or examining the natural philosophy . I have not stopped questioning. You could say I never stopped reinventing the wheel!
 

The theory or model you eloquently presented raises many questions. Unfortunately, when you ask those questions you often get kicked to death! I exaggerate for effect. Lol!
http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf

[jehovajah]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/yuCVsyPqAF4&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/yuCVsyPqAF4&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

The active magnetic data of our sun collected over many years underpins the new theoretical dynamics or mechanics of light. The active surface of the sun reveals what is actually going on between the plates of a capacitor or around a dipole antenna or on the surface of a van de Graaf generator globe.

These magnetics are only part of the picture. The much more energetic and expanding " magnetics" are usually considered to be electric phenomena, radiation phenomena and heat and light phenomena.

The matter or plasma in and of which this is constructed is usually consigned to thermodynamic phenomena of convection and or conduction. The induction of electric and or magnetic behaviours is isolated away from this complex mix, resulting in a fragmented and partial description of a set of phenomena we experience daily, every second of our lives..

Perhaps it is time to think different!
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/cpemX6lWFCg&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/cpemX6lWFCg&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>
This shock resulted in a sall local power outage in the city of Lincoln Uk. The scary thing was, it took out the cell phone transmitters as well!

You knw something strange is happening when lights remain glowing when all the power is oft!

[jehovajah]

The notion of plasma is still relatively new. But I make a few points regarding Sir William Gilbert's view of magnetism here
http://my.opera.com/jehovajah/blog/gilberts-plasma
Today we have all but lost contact with the root concepts of the technology we enjoy. Our understandings are at least sanitised, but I own that they are propagandised by the rise of great commercial interests in the new powers being technologically harvested by ingenious engineers and inventors.

Much of what is actually known lies buried and even hidden in records of the philosophical and scientific societies, only now being released onto the Internet . That which still has commercial advantage or military advantage is still secreted away from public view.

You can be sure that what we do know is what some only want us to know.

[hermann]

Hallo Jehovajah,

are you aware of this paper?
http://www.fli-leibniz.de/www_kog/research/physics/JMP%201210.pdf

Hermann

[kram1032]

Speaking of paper awareness; Did you already look into the one I linked?

[jehovajah]

Thanks guys!
Kram1032 I cannot say I looked into the x2 papers you referenced. They are quite detailed and I have not the time to get to grips with them yet, but basically the geometric algebra approach is  welcome.

The mathematics is not so important at this stage, though. The fundamental data is what I am revisiting. So for example the gauge theory of gravity hopes to explain how gravity works by gauge transfers. This is a way of saying forget gravity think about gauges. Newton more or less said I do not know what gravity is, by which he meant he had no credible mechanism to explain its action at a distance.

Newton's concept of motive required corpuscles to transmit its causative agency. Thus absolute empty  space defeated his model of transmission.  He did attempt to establish a fluid dynamic model of transmission but got bogged down and confused by the complexity.

The concepts of Faraday and Maxwell of spheres of influence restored the Gilbertian magnetic philosophy to its previous position before Newtons ideas  held sway. Newton had concepts of aether, and acknowledged the magnetic philosophy, but his astrologer acolytes down played these concepts and bigged up his Mathematics! In that sense he allowed them to establish his philosphical ideal praxis over the extant mostly Cartesian methods of reasoning.

I have to say he was wrong on several fronts and in details, but used his position to enforce his view. Genius no matter how great does not give the individual right to domineer, which Newton is known to have done in later life.

So we return to what I called Gilbert's Plasma, because it was one distinct version of the many aether theories. It had the advantage of demonstrating a field effect empirically.

We cannot have gauge theories without these empirical fields to originate and absorb the gauge transfers. The geometry of these fields is therefore very important.

So now we have to question the assertion of absolute space and the assertion of atomic matter sitting in and moving through absolute empty space. The very definition of Mass is Newtonian , that is, the common Teutonic meaning has been adhered to the Newtonian Measure:  quantity of matter!  We move, cleverly from geometry to mechanics and physics of the space around us, to which must be applied several metrics which depend on not just one sensory system but many . For each sensory system and for combinations of them we have to define metrics or units of measurement, and these units are linked to our geometrical notions of space.

Thus geometric algebra offers a promise of a more consistent approach to mathematical modelling, and that is why I have researched and am researching Grassmans analytical and synthetical methods.

Which brings us to Hermanns paper, which I have again looked at cursorily.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/y&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/y&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>
Such papers I give less time to unless they contain some fundamental analysis of the issues, which are what is mass and what is charge, and what is going on in Thompsons experimental set up?

You will note from the video link a quote which differs remarkably from what is generally taught and trumpeted in academia. Thompsons own corpuscular theory is available to read. Thompson thought in terms of a particle that carried charge. This particle was invisible and its effect only was visible in the gas in the accelerator tube and in the fluorescent material at the end of the manipulation tube.

So we have a presentiment of a particle, that is a bias toward a particle explanation, a selected anode " barrel" whose role is discounted, the presence of a noble gas to exude the excited material which showed filamentary behaviour usually described as ray behaviour and diffraction in a magnetic field with dispersion and deflection in an electric field.

The analysis assumes mass and assumes charge and calculates a ratio based on those assumptions.

It is a brilliant set up and demonstration, but it does not demonstrate the existence of a particle that is a point charge in and of itself. That version has been manufactured and taught to us by various groups of researchers and scientists each with their own agenda.

It shows that even at this late stage the wave theory or undulatory theory of light and matter was still not persuasive enough to inform the thinking of all scientists and chemists. In particular chemists were biased toward particles by the theory of Dalton and Mendleyev even though light now played a major role in assay techniques.

I think the research you two are doing is really valuable , and a great contribution to the thread. I hope you will continue to contribute and others will join in with their research.
Thanks again
• Newtons " motive" as a force I later came to understand not as a cause of acceleration but a type of centripetal force that is quantifiable by a weighing balance.

[jehovajah]

This is a lovely, clear exposition of the experimental set up, the theoretical basis of the calculation and the calculation.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/4aKMsMs-5tc&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/4aKMsMs-5tc&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

This fundamental  calibration then enables a particle, as a corpuscle to carry Oersteds and Flemings version of electromagnetism, and Newtons version of gravity . Thus a region of space as a corpuscle is filled with at least 3 kinds of motive, in a Newtonisn sense. This is why Thompson came up with the plum pudding model, and why it was so readily received as definitive by the scientific Societies at the time.

The decision to call it the electron was a decision made by the establishment of the time, who felt it was necessary o have a fundamental building block called the electron. It was never allowed to be destroyed until very recently! This is as part of a long term game plan to redefine "physica" nature nd many so called physical constants. Although it is seemingly being done in the open, in fact it is being managed behind closed doors. The public are not engaged in these redefinitions, only a few so called top scientists are allowed to advise on and make this decision.

This may sound conspiratorial and it is, but it is not without precedent historically. The best analogy is that of the setting of weights nd measures. The SI units are the world standard, but not the only standard. Because all measurement is ultimately affected by any revision in the basic constants, no one breakthrough is going to be allowed to upset the fundamental measures we use. So realistically there is a negativity to change and advance that derives from social and political considerations outside of physics and chemistry as well as n inter subject resistance between the 2 main physicl sciences.

Now see how these constant measures are used to build theoretical models to explain nuclear nd inter nuclear interactions.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/3g6RtyGjX3o&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/3g6RtyGjX3o&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>
The use of these constants or symmetries or conservation laws by theoreticians is noteable. They no longer deal in " reality" but instead deal with a mathematical model or representation of reality. This approach goes back to Newton, who defined his measures do cleverly that no one really grasped that they no longer had contact ith the objective experience. To enter into Newtons Principia is to enter into a geometrical measuring tool or scheme that delivers measurements as outcomes.

Of course this may be hard to apprehend, but as n example think of spherical geometry then realise that spherical trigonometry is required to apply it to everyday problems or issues of measurement.

As another example. Think of Euclidesn geometry. Then realise that trigonometry perhaps codified by Hipparchus initially but certainly developed by Archimedes and Apollonius, Eudoxus and Ptolemy and many Indian mathematicians; Brahmagupta is but one that easily comes to mind. The trigonometry is necessary to apply planar Grometry to everyday problems.

Well Newton set up this kind of metric or measuring scheme for Astrology and it devolved into all of physics and mechanics. Eventually it influenced Alchemy, another of his interests. This is not to say that Descartes and others were not about doing the same thing. In fact it was the Zeitgeist of the time, and Leibniz probably was the nearest European philosopher polymath establishing a rival metric principle. Both were improving on Descartes schemes.

So it is a fantastic story to find out that the next real contributors to this metric representation of reality were professor Hermann Grassmann and Sir William Rowan Hamilton. Grassmann in fact was a primary school educatr most of his career and he worked in concert with his brother Robert on his father Justus ring theoretical ideas.

Hamilton was groomed to be the next Newton or Aristotle. He recognised Grassmann in ome sense as his master on reading the 1844 Ausdehnungslehre. I am not sure if he was aware of how Grassmann had been ignored under Gauss's academic hegemony, but he recognised immediately the fundamental importance of Grassmanns method and Analysis and synthesis. So did Peano, as a young Italian researcher and so did A N whitehead. So internationally the Grassmann family were responsible For influencing the next major shift in metric theory and metric modelling of "reality".

Representation theory develops on the back of the Grassmann ring theoretic method, especially when lied ith the work of Hamilton. The result is that theoreticians can now talk about models of reality as shown in this video

[jehovajah]

This video is really quite special. Everything in it is representational . It is derived from the metric models of geometrical or spaciometric "reality".

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/v6bgABUyT3c&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/v6bgABUyT3c&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>
It is quite fantastic, definitely mythical and yet factually based. You have to realise that humans create both myths and facts to realise what you are experiencing while learning from this video.

When you realise that you will apprehend how important geometry or Spaciometry really is in our social structure!

[jehovajah]

An additional derivation attributed to Heinrich Hertz
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/elmag/
Both Heaviside and Hertz worked through Maxwells theory and made notes and comments. The two redactions appear to depend on whether Eulerian reference frames or Lagrangian reference frames were used. Thus the forms would indicate that the equations are not gauge invariant. The relativistic versions therefore are written in a gauge invariant form.
http://www.cpdee.ufmg.br/~fernando/material/Hertz_Maxwell.pdf

This a article details the difficulties of a mathematical model representing physical phenomena!
http://www.sonnetsoftware.com/support/downloads/publications/MWJ_AcceptanceOfMaxwellsEquations.pdf

[jehovajah]

FitzGerald was a brilliant idea man, although self-described as “lazy” when it came to follow up experimental work. Typically, he would do the initial work and then rely on others (usually friends or students) to continue the effort. In the paper that Maxwell reviewed, FitzGerald had linked Maxwell’s electrodynamic theory to an earlier theory of Prof. James MacCullagh also of Trinity College. This theory modeled the luminiferous ether required by Fresnel’s wave theory of light and required a purely rotational elasticity, i.e., no translational stress was allowed to form. MacCullagh had shown that given this form for the ether, one could model refraction, reflection and polarization perfectly. Quite the coincidence. However, there were a couple of problems. First, MacCullagh did not suggest a physical form for this mysterious ether (it is certainly unknown in normal matter). Second, in 1862, G.G. Stokes, in reviewing a number of proposed ethereal models, pointed out that MacCullagh’s ether violates conservation of angular momentum. A nice idea while it lasted.

However conservation of angular momentum is not the crucial decider! The symmetry or conservation laws are regularly broken in real situations. Energy dissipates in space and it arises from space because that is space! The light we cannot see, the background radiation we cannot measure, the negative energy we had not conceived are all in that observation.

Even in the waves in the sea certain inexplicable waves arise out of the general milieu, because conservation laws are only a useful tool, not a reality of space!

[jehovajah]

Thanks guys. I have learned some good documented historical details about Hertz and the Maxwellians. Also I have seen how the aether has been manipulated to support snd destroy empirical perceptions.

The displacement current term was placed into the equations by Heaviside to preserve symmetry.mthe concept of a rolling sinusoidal wave is nowhere to be found, but the generation of waves by alternation informs the development of mechanical aether models.

The vector or quaternion magnetic induction potential seems to have been a blind alley replaced by the symmetries between the electric and magnetic field concepts.

The suggestion is not obvious, but I believe the notion of vibration must be replaced by rotation. In that case the magnetic field rotates in complete rotations per second. The electric field is an artefact of an expanding rotating magnetic field or indeed a contracting rotating magnetic field.

Arago's rotating mass of metal now has a significance unrealised.

[hermann]

Hallo Jehovajah,

thank you very much for the links to the physics lessons, which gave me the change to get an exellent overview on things I haven't been in tough for many years.

By the way I have problems with getting access to the links in the post:

An additional derivation attributed to Heinrich Hertz.

May be there are typos.

Hermann

[jehovajah]

Thanks Hermann . Links corrected in that post.