Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Unified Physics

  1. Jul 26, 2004 #1
    To Jon and others, this message is greater and has been mowed to this thread for Theory Development

    The photon is a misinterpretation of measurements of heat radiation where Max Planck (that reluctantly caused the quantum/photon misinterpretation deceived by Einstein) tried to find the explanation to why there was a constant change between the measured waveunits in the wavespectrum.

    Planck and other scientists (Clausius, Wien, Boltzmann, Stefan , and many other at that time) tried to find the kinematic mechanism behind the entropy-effect that forced the radiation's energy to move to equilibrium. They didn't succeed so they had to reluctantly accept Boltsmann's statistical interpretation, but just as a provisional theory.

    Max Planck's idea was that this apparent jumping changing had its cause in that energy was quantified. It was the mode at that time to explain new physical phenomena as particles.

    To explain the measurings as "energy" Planck compared the ratio of the temperature-spectrum and frequency-spectrum and guessed that it was the temperature (mathematically transformed to effect: energy per frequency-unit) that changes by quantum-jump or as quantum-energy-units.

    But what they had measured but not seen or understand was that the waves they had measured increased continually with longer wavelengths and/or covered distance. From one wavelength to the next (or proportional to the covered distance) has a wave-unit increased its length by 6.63 x 10^-34 (dimensionless).

    That is what a "photon" is.
    That is the story behind the construction of the quantum=photon.

    Look at the waterwaves. When a pebble is thrown in the water, the rings move outwards by the decreasing energy and increasing wavelengths. The same phenomenon was seen when supernova 1987A exploded (see David Malin's photos in his book A View of the Universe, 1993). There are more examples.

    I have derived this simple formula from observation and experiment, measuring and analysing.

    [tex]\Delta \lambda = k \cdot s \Rightarrow \frac{\Delta \lambda}{s(=r)}=k [/tex]

    So I asked myself by this formula: "If the energy in the light behaves in the same way, what is the light-waves' constant elongation".

    I used the Hubble-distance in my "entropy-formula" and give the entropy-constant the symbol [tex] h_ \varepsilon_\pi}[/tex]

    [tex] r = \frac{c \cdot z}{H} \Rightarrow\ \frac {H_0\cdot\Delta\lambda}{c\cdot z}=h_ \varepsilon_\pi}[/tex]

    and found that Hubble and Planck had measured the same entropy-elongation of the waves that drives or propagates the waves forwards and causes the dissipation of the radiation. But both Planck's and Hubble's guessing were wrong interpretations.

    [tex] \frac{(H\approx 50) \ 53.43 km/s/Mpc \cdot 2.014 \cdot 10^{-10} km}{3 \cdot 10^5 km/s \cdot10^{19} km/Mpc \cdot 1.055 \cdot 0.585^{-1}} = 6.63\cdot 10^{-34}[/tex]

    2.014 x 10^-10 km is the redshift of this specific "quasar" 3C 287 that I choused because it was near redshift z=1.

    When z >1 then the standard-model demands that z is reduced by

    [tex]z= \frac {V}{c}=\frac {(z+1)-1}{(z+1)+1}[/tex]

    so that always z < 1 . This equation has reduced z=1.055 to 0.585 because the consensus-compromising cosmologists believe that if
    z > 1 it should imply that light's velocity would be faster than c. But this have no relevance to reality because redshift is not velocity-related, but distance-related.

    So I have restored their reduction of the measured z-relation by (0.585).

    If someone say that the value 53 is wrong Hubble-constant and that the right value is 65 or something (that changes as fast as the stock market), I will point to that there is a relation between their Hubble-interpretation and the true redshift.

    So if they measure a galaxy with another redshift, it also has another Hubble-constant.

    The radiation-spectrum’s waves increase in length and velocity by [tex]c\pm\Delta\upsilon [/tex] and

    [tex] \Delta\upsilon = \sqrt{\frac{dc}{dt}\cdot\Delta\lambda}\Rightarrow\sqrt{2c\cdot\Delta\lambda t^{-1}}=\sqrt{6\cdot10{^5} km/s{^2}\cdot \lambda \ km}[/tex]


    [tex] \Delta\upsilon = \sqrt{2\cdot c\cdot h_ \varepsilon_\pi\cdot t^{-1}\times\lambda\cdot\ (h_\varepsilon_\pi )^{-1}}= \sqrt{6\cdot10{^5} km/s{^2}\cdot \lambda \ km}[/tex]

    It implies that all the expanding waves moves faster than the light-spectrum itself. Light is just the visible wavelength-spectrum that the eyes are sensible to as frequency-resonance reactions. It is as simple to understand as it is to accept that a car that drives before your car increases the distance with 10 km per hour if it drives 10 km per hour faster than your car.

    This is (the beginning of) the long searched and very desired "unified theory of physics" that gives explanations to the most of the problems and misinterpretations in the modern physics.

    I will show you in a few weeks the complete article (>10 pages) on my homepage http://

    There you can read about more interesting discoveries and derivations and explanations that solve many of the present anomalies and apparent mysteries and paradoxes. I will show you a new but simple, true and understandable transformation equation that explains how c+(-)v is not only possible but also relevant to the empirical reality and it will replaces the present unintelligible time-length variable transformation formula that no one understands.

    I will show you that the "quasars'" enormous energy is not any mystery: it is explained by well known empirical thermodynamic laws - so we don't need black holes.

    The high redshifted galaxies called quasars change their colour with the distance, but just apparently: from the near white, to the blue between, and the most distant that are red. I can show you self-explanatory premises so you understand why and how. The radio-galaxies enormous radiation bulbs have the same simple explanation but without speculations about synchrotron radiating jet emissions.

    Of course I will answer your interested questions.

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  2. jcsd
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?