An attempt to the Unified Theory of Physics.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a controversial claim regarding the interpretation of photons and their relationship to temperature and wavelength, originally posited by Max Planck. The author argues that Planck misinterpreted his experimental data, leading to a flawed understanding of energy quantization. The conversation highlights the confusion surrounding the concepts of wavelength and energy, as well as the misapplication of Wien's displacement law and the Doppler Effect by Hubble. Ultimately, the thread concludes that the theories presented are inconsistent with established principles of special relativity and are categorized as "crackpot" ideas.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Planck's law and its implications in quantum physics
  • Familiarity with Wien's displacement law and its application
  • Knowledge of the Doppler Effect and its relevance in astrophysics
  • Basic principles of special relativity and energy quantization
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Planck's law in modern physics
  • Study Wien's displacement law in detail and its historical context
  • Explore the Doppler Effect and its applications in cosmology
  • Examine the criteria for identifying pseudoscience and the crackpot index
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of quantum mechanics, and anyone interested in the foundations of modern physics and the distinction between credible theories and pseudoscientific claims.

Hymne
Messages
87
Reaction score
1
Hi!
I found a man that claims the following
The photon is nothing else that a hypothetical particle that Planck misinterpreted from his experimental data from his experiments with heat radiation within the optical wavelength spectra, where the temperature and wavelengths had been measured.

They could se a relation between temperature and wavelength. And he found after analysis of the data a constant and a continual difference between the wave units when he compared their temperature as a function of the wavelength.

What Planck saw that nobody else saw was that the wavelength increases constant and continual with the spreading.
In a try to understand this hidden difference Planck tried to relate the temperature to the wave units, but recalculated them the frequency units.
The relation between temperature and wavelength was already known by Wien's displacement law.

Planck had problems with understanding the explanation and his temporary interpretation became that between every frequency unit there was a energy quantum with the unit JS (joule second) that couldn’t be written correctly with the SI-system i.e. energy per time unit.

In this way the hypothesis that the energy difference between the frequency units is a quantified energy unit that isn’t deduced in a logical way or understandable.

Hubble found the same wave displacement but interpreted it as the Doppler Effect.
The galaxy-radiation’s wave displacement is 1 Ångström per 16 million light years which corresponds to the entropy displacement that Planck couldn’t understand (6,6 * 10^-34)

Read more at [crackpot url removed]

What is wrong and where does his theories fall?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Mostly that is so confusing, that I wouldn't bother to find specific mistakes, but "the relative velocity of light" section at least is absolutely ridiculous to anyone who has understood the basics about special relativity.
 
You know, there are quite a lot of people we call "crackpots" out there, and they are especially noisy on the internet. We clean out PF for this ; if you want to know what happens to a forum where this is not done, have a look at the usenet group sci.physics.

To recognize them, here is the world-famous crackpot index:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

I'm going to lock this thread now, as we don't discuss crackpot cites (and after a visit, it is clear that the cite asked about by the OP is of this kind!).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K