Experimental Proof: Kirchhoff’s Law of emission False
Study applies standardized lab experiments to refute Max Planck’s classic text, “The Theory of Heat Radiation”. New research shows the German physicist was unable to properly justify Kirchhoff’s Law.
New analysis has major impact for consensus climate science being that it discredits the so-called greenhouse gas theory (which emphasises ‘radiative theory’, that ignores massive convective energy in earth’s atmosphere).
Readers may view the accompanying video presentation, ‘Linking Planck’s Equation with the Physical World!‘ here:
Extract:
Affirming Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal emission, Max Planck conferred upon his own equation and its constants, h and k, universal significance. All arbitrary cavities were said to behave as blackbodies. They were thought to contain black, or normal radiation, which depended only upon temperature and frequency of observation, irrespective of the nature of the cavity walls.
Today, laboratory blackbodies are specialized, heated devices whose interior walls are lined with highly absorptive surfaces, such as graphite, soot, or other sophisticated materials. Such evidence repeatedly calls into question Kirchhoff’s Law, as nothing in the laboratory is independent of the nature of the walls. By focusing on Max Planck’s classic text, “The Theory of Heat Radiation”, it can be demonstrated that the German physicist was unable to properly justify Kirchhoff’s Law.
At every turn, he was confronted with the fact that materials possess frequency dependent reflectivity and absorptivity, but he often chose to sidestep these realities. He used polarized light to derive Kirchhoff’s Law, when it is well known that blackbody radiation is never polarized. Through the use of an element, dσ, at the bounding surface between two media, he reached the untenable position that arbitrary materials have the same reflective properties. His Eq. 40 (ρ =ρ′), constituted a dismissal of experimental reality.
It is evident that if one neglects reflection, then all cavities must be black. Unable to ensure that perfectly reflecting cavities can be filled with black radiation, Planck inserted a minute carbon particle, which he qualified as a “catalyst”. In fact, it was acting as a perfect absorber, fully able to provide, on its own, the radiation sought. In 1858, Balfour Stewart had outlined that the proper treatment of cavity radiation must include reflection. Yet, Max Planck did not cite the Scottish scientist.
He also did not correctly address real materials, especially metals, from which reflectors would be constructed. These shortcomings led to universality, an incorrect conclusion. Arbitrary cavities do not contain black radiation. Kirchhoff’s formulation is invalid. As a direct consequence, the constants h and k do not have fundamental meaning and along with “Planck length”, “Planck time”, “Planck mass”, and “Planck temperature”, lose the privileged position they once held in physics.
Stephen J. Crothers
Download: PDF