Corruption of Modern Science: Light as Particles
Modern Physics identified by quantum mechanics/atom mechanics as a revolution of classical non-atomistic continuum wave mechanics, was initiated by Max Planck (pictured) in 1900 with his mathematical derivation of the spectrum of blackbody radiation based on a concept of energy quanta hf (Joule) as discrete packets of energy with h=6,62607015⋅10−34 Planck’s constant and a f a natural number (1,2,3,…) representing a frequency.
Planck described his long struggle to motivate a high-frequency cut-off needed to avoid an ultra-violet catastrophe with energies tending to infinity from frequencies without upper bound, as follows:
- the whole procedure was an act of despair because a theoretical interpretation had to be found at any price, no matter how high that might be…
Frequencies can range from 1012 for infrared light to 1019 for gamma rays with corresponding energy quanta hf ranging from 10−20 to 10−14 Joule, thus macroscopically very small. Planck did not view his energy quanta to represent real physics, because atom physics was not yet born, and then only as a mathematical trick to achieve high-frequency cut-off from a statistical argument.
The next step towards quantum mechanics was taken in 1905 by the young Einstein in his “heuristic derivation” of the law of photoelectricity (already formulated by Hertz in 1887 on the basis of experiments), where Einstein picked up the idea of energy quanta hf from Planck, to motivate why shining light on a metal surface releases electrons from the surface only if the light frequency is large enough, as if an energy quanta hf of sufficient strength is needed to release one electron.
Einstein’s basic “heuristic idea” was thus that exactly one energy quantum later named photon ejects exactly one electron.
Einstein thus suggested to view light as a stream of photons/energy quanta each one if large enough capable of ejecting one electron. But this was only “heuristics” without real physics as admitted by Einstein in 1951:
- All these 50 years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, “What are light quanta”? Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.
The decisive step towards quantum mechanics was taken by the Nobel Prize Committee awarding the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics to Planck for “his discovery of energy quanta” (in his derivation of black body spectrum), and the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics to Einstein for “his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect”, thus sending the World a message of light as a stream of particles/photons/energy quanta. This work by Planck and Einstein is still the main “evidence” presented for the “particle nature of light”, while all real physics evidence shows “wave nature”.
This is where modern physics stands today 100 years later coming to expression as the firm belief of a physicist (whether Nobel Laureate or not) that any material body is emitting an unstoppable shower of light particles/photons as real physics depending on its temperature but not on the medium surrounding the body.
Planck and Einstein viewed energy quanta/photons/light particles as a concept, which could be useful in certain types of theoretical arguments (statistics or cut-off), but lacked real physics. Unfortunately this is forgotten by physicists of today, who do not object to an alarm of CO2 Warming caused by Downwelling Long Wave Radiation as stream/shower of energy quanta/photons emitted by the atmosphere and being absorbed by the Earth surface.
It is important to distinguish between real physics and phantom physics. In phantom physics you are allowed to use concepts without physical meaning if it serves your objectives. In phantom physics you can view the radiative exchange of heat energy between two bodies as a two-stream flow of photon particles transferring massive heat energy back-and-forth even if the bodies have the same temperature.
It is the same as believing your bank account to be connected to all other bank accounts with a massive one billion dollar transfer back and forth every moment. Or that you are connected to all other people on the web with a constant exchange back and forth of the same one Gbyte message every moment.
This type of belief lacks real physics because it involves massive transfer back-and-forth, which is unstable and so cannot persist over time. To rely on unstable processes is dangerous and will result in misfortune.
Corruption involves massive back-and-forth transfer of services/commodities. Corrupted physics involves massive back-and-forth transfer of heat energy.
For a derivation of the laws of black body radiation and photoelectricity based on real physics carried by electromagnetic waves, see Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation.
For quantum mechanics without particles, see Real Quantum Mechanics.
See more here claesjohnson
Header image: Thoughtco
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Guido FORRIER
| #
see :
https://physicsworld.com/a/wave-particle-duality-seen-in-carbon-60-molecules/
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25548
https://people.physics.anu.edu.au/~cms130/phys2013/cat/Phys2013/BBinterference.htm
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The photon, or particle nature of light, was a result of a belief that it would take time for a wave to transfer enough energy to an object to separate an electron from an atom and create a current. This would cause a delay between the light striking the object and the current and no such delay was observed.
In metals and crystals (which exhibit the photoelectric effect) electrons are already separated from atoms and are held in place by ionic bonds. All that is needed to cause a current is the distortion of these bonds, either by pressure (piezo electric trim effect) or by a change in the strength of the electromagnetic field around the bond by a wave of the right size (photoelectric effect).
What energy is absorbed by an object is determined by the structure of the object, not the source of energy. The energy of a wave (light) is determined by its amplitude while how much energy an object absorbs is determined by the frequency of the transfer of energy to the object. A wave passing over a breakwater will lose energy to the breakwater and the amplitude of the wave will decrease depending on the height of the breakwater. The frequency and wavelength of the wave after going over the breakwater will remain the same..
Planck (and Einstein) got it wrong.
Reply
Kenneth Hughes
| #
The simple truth is, that you actually hear one photon at a time hitting a detector.
“Light comes in lumps” – Richard Feynman.
So you wanna argue with Planck, Einstein, Feynman and all the others? Good luck with that one.
Reply
Kenneth Hughes
| #
Oh, and you have made the biggest and most common mistake of all, you attribute wave behaviour to particles when the wave behaviour comes from the wave nature of the vacuum.
Time is wave like.
Reply
Lit
| #
Actually, nobody has ever seen or detected any photons. What is seen is the response of matter interacting with the field of radiation. The photon is an assumption based on, for example, the ejection of an electron. So, what is detected is an electron, not a photon. Assumptions are dangerous.
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
Thanks for this article and comment by Herb.
Ever since I heard about photons I was skeptical about the claim.
Now I can ignore the quantum bs. [finally]
Reply
Greg Spinolae
| #
Corruption of Science.
Yes; we do need to be aware of that.
🤣🤣🤣
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Claes and PSI Readers,
You like to tell others to read your mathematical reasoning and offer what seems to me only words about your reasoning. As I have written before SCIENCE IS BASED SOLEY UPON OBSERVATION AND QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS MADE WITH INVENTED INSTRUMENTS.
So I ask you all to read what Rickard Feynman (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_32.html) Section 32-5 about his radiation (light) scattering theories. Specifically why we ever see clouds. And then go to (https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory-part-three/) and Photo 2. I need to make one explanation about the direct solar radiation of the rising sun. I did not see the pinkest sun when I took this photo of the sun rising over the horizon of the Cascade Mountains more than 60 miles away. I saw a fire-engine red sun which was not over-exposed as in the photo and I did not see the blue smoke bank. I had to use the technology to remove the twilight from the western sky which was illuminating the surface of the smoke bank and hiding the blue being scattering by the smoke particles.
Please explain, with your “mathematics”, all the colors you can see in this photo without referring to Feynman’s light scattering explanations.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
JonasW
| #
Neither Boltzmann nor Planck derived any radiation law. This is a myth..
Boltzmann showed that the energy density of an electromagnetic field in a cavity is proportional to T raised to four.
Planck derived an expression for an electromagnetic field in thermal equilibrium in a cavity.
Neither Boltzmann nor Planck make any statements about radiation from bodies.
Planck was several times asked about the source for thermal radiation – what create the thermal radiation. Plank could not really answer this question. He said something about “oscillations”, without being able to specify what oscillations he meant.
All theories, books, courses etc.. is in reality about electromagnetic radiation in a closed cavity. It does not say anything about how thermal radiation is generated.
The only way to create electromagnetic radiation is acceleration/deceleration of electrical charges (or quantum leaps). Temperature does not create electromagnetic radiation.
My view is that there is a big big hole in the theory. The connection between the source of thermal radiation (charges) and the characteristic of the thermal radiation.
Reply
Lit
| #
“Boltzmann showed that the energy density of an electromagnetic field in a cavity is proportional to T raised to four.”
No, that was Joseph Stefan. Boltzmann came up with the constant that transforms T^4 to W/m^2.
“Neither Boltzmann nor Planck make any statements about radiation from bodies.”
Planck wrote a lot about radiation from bodies in “The Theory of Heat Radiation”. For example:
“But the empirical law that
the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost’s principle). A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B0 at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated
by B0 is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B0 a stronger emitter
than A”
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
In the quote above you have two solid arguments against the greenhouse effect.
“the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost’s principle)”
The atmosphere is not part of the internal state of the emitter(the surface). It´s per definition the external state, so surface emission can´t depend on the atmosphere.
And also this:
“A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B0 at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B0 is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B0 a stronger emitter
than A”
It clearly says that the warmer body is cooled by the colder body. The GHE says the opposite.
Reply
JonasW
| #
Lit
No, Joseph Stefan did some experimental work. Based on rather poor quality data he estimated that the heat losses from a body was proportional to T^4. Stefan did not do any theoretical work.
Yes, Boltzmann showed that the energy density of an electromagnetic field is proportional to T^4.
Read his paper !
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/andp.18842580616
Yes, Planck wrote about black body radiation. A black body is a closed box that is heated. There was excellent agreement between the radiation from a box (black body) and Planck´s equation.
There was poor agreement between the radiation from solids and Planck´s equation.
Planck was very well aware of this. All contemporary experimentalists were aware of this.
Seems as if the old wisdom has been forgotten. Most “basic physics” books today says that solids emit according to Planck´s distribution. They do not.
Reply