Why Planck’s Law is Wrong
Light is an electromagnetic wave. This was shown by the Young experiment where when light passes through two closely spaced thin slits it produces an interference pattern. The light, like moving water, flows around objects changing the direction of flow causing the waves to cancel out it some areas and reinforce in other areas.
Light, or a disturbance in the electric and magnetic fields, does not move in a straight line but spreads in all directions. As you move around a uniform object the image remains the same because the light coming from the object spreads in all directions.
When we see an image it appears that light is traveling in a straight line because there is no object between the object and observer changing the flow of light and causing interference. In reality the light is spreading out to fill the expanding area and this is why objects appear smaller with increasing distance and why light bends around stars. It’s the change in the strength of the fields that causes the light to change direction.
How does light interact and transfer energy to an object? It is certainly not from a particle striking an electron or the nucleus of an atom. Matter in an atom or molecule is extremely scarce just as it is in the solar system and if this were the way light interacted with matter we would never see anything.
The light from the sun radiates in all directions while the scarce matter outside the sun is in an equatorial plane. In terms of output of energy from the sun, zero percent strikes the Earth and is reflected by it. The same percentage holds true for light striking matter in an atom.
All matter, larger than a neutron, produces electric and energy (magnetic/gravity) fields. These fields radiate from the object, decreasing with distance from the object. The fields will spread in all directions until they encounter the fields, of equal strength, coming from another object. A disturbance, or change in strength, in one object’s field will create a disturbance in the fields of neighboring objects and this will be transmitted throughout the object’s fields to all neighboring objects.
This is how energy is transferred by light. It is by an increase in the energy field of an object causing an increase in the energy fields of neighboring objects until a new equilibrium is established.
The size of the fields of molecules that make up an object will determine what wavelengths are absorbed, reflected, or transmitted by it, with the larger the object the greater the different sizes of wavelength that it will absorb. It all depends on the bonds it contains and the sizes of its fields. Shorter wavelengths (greater frequency) transfer more energy not because a shorter wavelength has more energy, but because energy is transferred to the object more often.
The energy of the light being transmitted is determined by the amplitude of the wave and that amplitude will decrease as energy is absorbed by an object or the distance from the source increases, which we see with sound waves. The amplitude or energy of light, as a wave, will decrease with increasing distance as it expands into a larger area or as removal of a section of the wave is absorbed by an object’s fields causing the amplitude to flatten without changing its frequency or wavelength of the wave.
When we see light from distant stars we observe that there is a red shift, blue shift, or combination of both shifts. The wavelengths in the light change as it travels through empty space. This change is presently attributed to a Doppler effect, where the stars emitting the light are moving away from us or towards us (or both?). This has led to the belief in an expanding universe (except for those stars that are collapsing towards us).
For a wave, the properties of the wave is determined by the medium in which it travels. Sound travels faster in water than in air because the medium is denser. In space where there is no medium there is no sound. For light the medium or aether in which it travels is the electric and magnetic fields emitted by objects that change in density with distance from the object.
For a particle the medium in which it travels produces resistance to its motion causing it to slow with increasing medium density. The only way velocity can be constant is if the medium is constant and offers no resistance. For a particle this means there must be no gravity affecting it. If gravity causes the path of a particle to change it will also produce a change in its velocity.
The greater the energy of a particle the greater the distance it will travel. For a wave the greater the amplitude of the wave the further it will travel. The wave will lose amplitude as it spreads into a larger area while a particle will only lose energy due to increased resistance.
Planck’s law, the energy of light is equal to the frequency of the light wave times Planck’s constant, treats light as a particle (photon), even though frequency is the property of a wave not a particle. It is an effort to turn an analog system (constantly changing) into a digital system of discrete units and as anyone who has compared a musical recording on a record to that of CD disc knows, they are not the same.
Planck arrived at his conclusion because the energy transferred to an object increases with the frequency of the light but this result is not the function of the incoming wave, but of the object absorbing the energy.
According to Planck’s law a blue shift indicates an increase in the energy of the light. How can energy, V^2, increase if the velocity, V, does not increase and what in empty space is adding energy to the particle? The whole belief in a constant speed of light is based on the light being emitted from a moving object being identical to the light being emitted from a stationary object and yet it is said to be different.
The Doppler explanation for the shift in spectrum of elements is an attempt to find any excuse to explain evidence that shows the accepted beliefs are wrong. It leads to the complete abandonment of reason, contradicting the premise that is the basis of the theory.
The shifts occur because light is a wave traveling in the magnetic and electric fields of objects and when the strength of these fields increase the light travels faster (increased frequency), the wavelength shortens, and the amplitude increases. When these fields decrease in strength the opposite occurs with the frequency of light decreasing, its wavelength increasing, and the amplitude (energy) of the wave decreasing.
The speed of light is not constant, but constantly changing as the fields it travels in change. We consider the light we observe coming from the sun as a standard but its speed decreases as it moves through the sun’s decreasing fields, then increases as it travels through the Earth’s increasing fields. The spectra emitted by an element changes if either the strength of the electric or magnetic field changes (The Stark and Zeeman effects.)
Light can be visualized as flowing water, where if there is an obstacle obstructing the flow, the water will move around it restoring the flow. Energy would be lost due to the obstruction but the flow and amplitude (level) of the water would equalize after passing the object.
Breakwaters are used at the entrances of harbors to protect the land from large waves as the energy of those waves is absorbed or reflected by the barrier. A calm water surface is created on the landward surface of the water, protecting the land and buildings in the harbor from the energy of the waves.
When a wave with greater height (amplitude) than the breakwater strikes the breakwater a portion of the wave will not be reflected or absorbed by the breakwater causing water to flow over the breakwater, creating waves in the calm water. Because these waves are created by the incoming waves they will have the same frequency and wavelength as the incoming waves that generate them, but there amplitude will be reduced by the barrier absorbing energy.
The energy of the wave is determined by the amount of water it contains and the height of that water. If there were a series of breakwaters, with a height of a meter above the water level, each breakwater would reduce the height (energy) of the incoming waves by one meter until the wave disappeared.
When longer wavelengths of light are removed the amplitude and energy decreases but those longer wavelengths are maintained as shorter wavelengths expand to restore the wave structure.
This is the evidence we see with light. In order to see further into space astronomers use telescopes that do not collect the high energy short wavelengths, but the low energy infrared and radio wavelengths. As the distance from an object increases the energy of the light coming from the object is spread over a greater area reducing the amplitude of the wave. With increasing distance the shorter wavelengths are converted into longer wavelengths so it is the longest wavelengths, with the least energy, that travel the farthest.
This is not what would be expected if light were a particle. The particle with the greatest energy (shortest wavelength) should travel further than a particle with less energy.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Peter F Gill
| #
Good try but no cigar. I used to argue with one of the hierarchy at IOP on a whole series of things. He was particularly keen, as a left winger, on supporting only one answer to any question concerning science. However, on certain issues and the above is one there has been a lot of evidence for duality. I remember asking him the key question “Light particle or wave?” He did not answer but I could tell it irritated him greatly.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Peter,
Try asking him: If a train is coming towards you with a headlight on can you distinguish the light coming from the moving train from the background light because it will have a blue shift?
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Peter,
I have decided to refrain from attempting to discuss anything with Herb.
If you want you might ask him. relative to his statement: “You question observations. You don’t believe light decreases with distance? You don’t believe that astronomers use infrared and radio telescopes to see deeper into space? These are reality.”
Ask: Why, or how, is the sky blue during the daytime when there are no clouds? For he can explain anything.
Have a good day, Jerry
1
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Peter Harris
| #
Let’s wait, and see if he replies to that statement.
I only wish he would identify himself, in terms of his scientific background too…
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Peter,
Jerry is your credentialed expert. He has a phd in chemistry and a career teaching first semester chemistry (nobody signed up for second semester) at a community college. He will tell you he is a scientist because he continually quotes what famous scientists have said (whether relative to the topic or not).
He will tell you the sky is blue because of scattering of light by particles. I say it is blue (violet) because O2 and N2 absorb uv from the sun. The molecules will reach equilibrium and radiate an amount of energy equal to the absorbed energy in all directions resulting in a longer wavelength for the radiated energy, eventually resulting in violet light.
You should believe him because he’s a phd and you know how dusty the central Pacific is with its blue sky.
My credentials, like my height, weight, color of hair, are irrelevant to the arguments so I will not mention them.You should believe the experts and get the vaccine.
Herb
Reply
Peter Harris
| #
Really Herb? You’ve reduced your argument to childish sarcasm?
“My credentials, like my height, weight, color of hair, are irrelevant to the arguments so I will not mention them.”
Now you’re parodying yourself.
It seems you’ve totally lost control of your own discussion.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Peter,
There is no discussion because you refuse to address either the data or reasoning of my argument but try to divert it to non germane issues.
Herb
Peter Harris
| #
Pot-kettle… Herb.
What you are successful at, is flip-flopping and making yourself look irrelevant.
Your non-sequiturs bear that out.
And regarding data, you provide none.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Peter,
I wrote that Herb could explain anything. That is because he doesn’t need to ‘know’ anything. The community college I taught at had quarters and not semesters.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Guido FORRIER
| #
first : we do not know what light ore electric fields are . when you “look” at it you see a particle an when you do not look it is wave . some properties are well understood as you see the EM as a particle and some other properties require the wave – theorie to explain . It is also known that small partikels behave as a wave . ( see Paul Dirac, Louis de Broglie … ) .Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantum entity may be described as either a particle or a wave. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts “particle” or “wave” to fully describe the behaviour of quantum-scale objects .
Now Markus Arndt, Anton Zeilinger and co-workers at the University of Vienna in Austria have observed wave-like behaviour in a beam of carbon-60 molecules – which are an order of magnitude larger than any other particles for which quantum interference effects have been observed (M Arndt et al. 1999 Nature 401 680).
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Guido,
Electric fields are the radiation of forces from the protons and electrons that make up matter. The energy associated with these particles also radiates a field that we identify as magnetic (direction force) or gravity. These radiate fields connect everything in the universe and light is a disturbance in these fields.
When ever anything (especially an electron) moves it will cause a change in these fields, so if you do the thin slit experiment with an electron it will produce an interference pattern. This does not mean the electron has wave properties but that it causes waves in the surrounding fields.
All objects radiate energy (thermodynamics) and all matter radiates electric fields (the neutron is a subatomic molecule made from an electron and proton that radiates nearly equal negative and positive electric fields.). What we experience and see is the interactions of these fields. (I don’t know if particles and mass actually exist or if they are just observations of the interactions of fields.)
Herb
Reply
Guido FORRIER
| #
hello ,
you wrote:
“the neutron is a subatomic molecule made from an electron and proton that radiates nearly equal negative and positive electric fields.).”
as far as I , or we, know a neutron consists of 2 downquarks and one up quark . no molecule at all.
en so on ….
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Guido,
I wrote an article, The Neutron Molecule, in PSI to answer the question:. If when an electron and proton combine to form a neutron producing energy then that neutron (not in a nucleus) spontaneously splits into an electron, proton, and gamma ray (producing energy), how does that not violate the first law of thermodynamics?
My answer was that the neutron was a subatomic molecule (like the alpha particle) and had both a positive and negative charge. When it moved through a magnetic field it represents two equal currents going in opposite directions. The magnetic field creates a shearing force (right hand rule) that provides the energy to split the neutron. If you have an alternate explanation of how the creation and decomposition of a neutron can both produce energy I would certainly be interested in hearing it.
Herb
Reply
Guido FORRIER
| #
split a neutron ?
The neutron is a subatomic particle, symbol
n
or
n0
, which has a neutral (not positive or negative) charge, and a mass slightly greater than that of a proton. Protons and neutrons constitute the nuclei of atoms. Since protons and neutrons behave similarly within the nucleus, and each has a mass of approximately one atomic mass unit, they are both referred to as nucleons.[6] Their properties and interactions are described by nuclear physics.
Classification : Baryon
Composition 1 up quark, 2 down quarks
i have no explanation but for the moment. I try to study Quantum Physics . I know also that David Tong gives lectures at the Royal society in “quantum fields” as a new approach .
But until now I stick with what I learn . Did you notice that at the university of Vienna , the group around Anton Zelinger , did demonstrate that en Bucky Ball (C60 molecule) has wave properties ? Dual split , entanglement …
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Guido,
Splitting of a neutron occurs in the nucleus of an atom during beta decay. The nucleus emits an electron and gamma ray and another proton is added to the nucleus.
Herb
Guido FORRIER
| #
hello Herb
Radioactive decay (also known as nuclear decay, radioactivity, radioactive disintegration or nuclear disintegration) is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy by radiation. A material containing unstable nuclei is considered radioactive. Three of the most common types of decay are alpha decay, beta decay, and gamma decay, all of which involve emitting one or more particles or photons. The weak force is the mechanism that is responsible for beta decay.
it is about the nucleus , not the neutron !
Alpha decay or α-decay is a type of radioactive decay in which an atomic nucleus emits an alpha particle (helium nucleus) and thereby transforms or ‘decays’ into a different atomic nucleus, with a mass number that is reduced by four and an atomic number that is reduced by two. An alpha particle is identical to the nucleus of a helium-4 atom, which consists of two protons and two neutrons. It has a charge of +2 e and a mass of 4 u. For example, uranium-238 decays to form thorium-234. Alpha particles have a charge +2 e,
“The nucleus emits an electron and gamma ray and another proton is added to the nucleus.” !!!! where did you learn physics ?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Guido,
In beta decay the atomic weight remains the same, the atomic number increases by one
It is interesting that in beta decay the weak nuclear force is unable to maintain the nucleus and is able, not only to split a neutron, but also to give that electron enough energy to overcome the attractive force between it and all the protons in the nucleus and expelled it out of the atom. After expending this energy the weak force is now able to form a stable nucleus even though the repelling force between the protons has increased by the addition of another proton.
Are you learning physics or excuses concocted to preserve current theory.
Herb
Peter Harris
| #
Guido has asked you many times, what is your background in physics?
I would like to know too.
“As the distance from an object increases the energy of the light coming from the object is spread over a greater area reducing the amplitude of the wave. With increasing distance the shorter wavelengths are converted into longer wavelengths so it is the longest wavelengths, with the least energy, that travel the farthest.”
And has any researcher / scientist or novelist corroborated your theory?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Peter,
Why do you equate truth with credentials?
You question observations. You don’t believe light decreases with distance? You don’t believe that astronomers use infrared and radio telescopes to see deeper into space? These are reality.
Theory is trying to explain why this occurs. Why do longer waves, which have less energy according to Planck, travel farther than shorter wavelengths with more energy
I know about quarks and flavors but don’t believe because it is a complicated way (Occam’s razor) created to explain something simple.
Here’s a question for you. Why is an alpha particle so stable when it contains the repelling force between protons and yet a neutron decays within ten minutes when not in a nucleus? These are observations, can you provide a reason (theory) why they occur?
Herb
Peter Harris
| #
“Why do you equate truth with credentials?”
Herb, that statement is problematic.
Firstly, the truth is subjective, particularly on this complex topic.
And secondly, and more importantly, you would need to answer the question… what are your credentials?
We want to know at least you have some authority about this subject.
And you haven’t answered my other question.
Is your theory being corroborated by other researchers/scientists?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Peter,
Credentials are given for believing what you’ve been told, not for thinking. No physicist can ever significantly advance science because they’ve been told what to believe and can only refine orthodoxy.
You should be able to judge validity based on reason and how something is supported by evidence, not how it conforms to accept beliefs. By accepting things based on established beliefs you are betraying science which is about doubting and questioning. When you accept answers without examining how those answers were established you are substituting knowledge for thinking.
When scientists were questioning whether light was a wave or particle Einstein provided an answer, the photon, which gave a name to ignorance allowing it to be both and calling it knowledge. If you ask what gave rise to the dispute on the nature of light you have the photoelectric effect and the reasoning that if light were a wave it would require time to transfer enough energy to dislodge an electron from the material producing a current. This objection to the wave theory assumes that the wave must transfer all the energy necessary to separate an electron from an atom. In the materials that produce a photoelectric effect (metals and crystals) electrons are already separated from atoms and exist as ions held in place by electric bonds. All a wave needs to do is distort the bond to release the electron. The photoelectric effect is just another version of the piezo electric effect. There is no justification for the particle nature of light.
What credentials can you get not believing in Einstein?
In my case what credentials are possible if I don’t believe gravity is a result of mass but of the energy associated with mass? Kepler’s formula says the distance a planet is from the sun times its velocity squared (energy) is the same for all the planets. Newton created the gravitational constant to provide a source for his force.
When asteroids were discovered orbiting other asteroids his formula does not work. Try convincing someone that gravity is not a function of mass. Moving objects do not travel in a straight line as Newton premised but maintain their energy unless energy is gained or lost. Objects orbit because they are in equilibrium with the energy radiated from another object.
I claim no credentials because after questioning what I had learned I discarded it as untrue.
Herb
Peter Harris
| #
Herb… I asked you two specific questions, and you threw a lot of disingenuous non-sequiturs at me.
Yes, Einstein was right; well, most of the time, and he had no formal training, but he has been proven correct, by-and-large.
So the answers to my two specific questions are no and no.
I believe light can be both, a particle and a wave, depending on the observer and the environment in which it is observed.
And through dark matter and dark energy, what does that do to light, from distant objects?
I don’t think any of us have the true answers as to what’s going on in the Cosmos, and how we observe it through our limited means
Arthur Dent
| #
Why do “We want to know at least you have some authority about this subject”?. I for one couldn’t give a monkey’s gonads about Herb’s “authority”, or his “credentials”, for that matter. If we deferred to authority without questioning, the Earth would still be the centre of the solar system and only a few thousand year’s old, phlogiston would be the source of combustion, the continents would not move, peptic ulcers would be caused by stress, and CO2 would cause global warming. Real scientists continually question and remain eternally sceptical. Keep on questioning, Herb. Even though you’ll probably be wrong most of the time you may be right some of the time.
Finn McCool
| #
Hi Herb
Interesting. Perhaps reading more on QFT would help. Fascinating ideas which have no need for particles.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
“(the neutron is a subatomic molecule made from an electron and proton that radiates nearly equal negative and positive electric fields.)” WOW! This new page in Herbphysics totally demolishes the Standard Model in physics…give this guy the Nobel now……no, wait….it’s just gibberish….again.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi T.C.,
You need to give an explanation on how, when a proton and electron combine to form a neutron it gives off energy and yet that same neutron, when not in a nucleus, will spontaneously decompose into an electron, proton, and gamma ray in ten minutes. For you this doesn’t violate the first law of thermodynamics?
Herb.
Reply
Peter Harris
| #
Really?
I missed that.
That is so bizarre, it invites supreme ridicule and laughter.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Particles are particles in a wavelike environment.
Spacetime is wavelike which is why everything has a wave “function”.
But a particle is just a particle. It has no duality, only its behaviour.
Reply
Guido FORRIER
| #
particles , waves , forces are abstract and you can not compare them with something in our macro world .
it is as in mathematics :: a point , a surface , a solid are abstracts . we need these words to write and speak about .
all what we detect are phenomena . quantum physics are hard to understand because we live in a non quantum world , you can describe with classic rules .
in your words : a particle IS a behavior , as are waves . electromagnetic waves are not water waves , are not air waves (sound) . There is no “medium” . see he Michelson–Morley experiment .
to understand quantum physics you need a lot to study and enter a totally different world .
read some books from Anton Zeilinger (Vienna University) . now I wil be quiet !
Reply
Kevin Shelton
| #
Bravo, I like the way you think. Let the imaginative dreamers chase the duality unicorns until the cows come home. You wont make sense to them anyway, but If I could add to your revelations of insight clarity I would say that electric fields have no velocity, It is only the changes in the field which can be measured or detected and there are only two ways I know of to do that. Change in potential or interference from magnetism. Most people already know that a bird on a wire feels no electrical potential .. why ? .. because the bird is not in a conductive path of moving charge. The bird charges and discharges without detecting the differences between the wire and the Earth, however if the bird put itself between the charge and the return to source path … ZAP !!! What this means is that we are like a bird on a wire and detecting what is actually happening is not as obvious as it may seem. The fact that we are existing in the Sun’s electric field is not in question but the detection and relative magnitude of the field we live in is not possible from our high wire perch where we instantly change our relative electrical charge in concert with our environment and yet to the perspective of space we most likely pulse and vibrate like a bug on a calm water surface.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Longer wavelength light actually travels very slightly slower than shorter wavelength.
re. SN1987A supernova results, and MAGIC telescope results from Makarin 501.
The longer wavelength light took measurably longer to reach us than shorter wavelengths.
However, since the mainstream cannot come up with a causality and are averse to accepting such a novel idea, they’ve simply talked it away. No surprises there.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Ken. Oceanic waves from the same source can travel at different speeds because the wind surface friction “fetch” changes in intensity.
Faster moving waves catching up with slower moving waves and forming one entity whilst being conflicted by an opposing direction current play a role in forming the gigantic “freak waves that destroy ships.
Curiously, I have never heard cosmic energy described as potential “currents”.
Reply
Guido FORRIER
| #
“principia scientific” NO science at all . some articles are good but most are ridiculous .
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
Guido
Whatever you think, it is still good to read your comments.
Reply
Peter Harris
| #
I agree Guido… your comments are succinctly put.
Reply
Macha
| #
Always thought intensity and frequency are crucial for energy transformation to heat. Emissivity important for the resulting temperatures.
This article helps highlight that. Hence the sun’s UV burns skin in minutes while the moonlight won’t. AGW extra CO2 can only warm other particles below -80C. Thus surface temps are unchanged by emissions. Keep the glorious benefits of fossil fuels and further develop micro nukes. Leave so called renewables as a relatively dilute and wasteful energy luxury.
Reply
Dr Darko Butina
| #
Hi Herb,
It is a quite a task to tackle Planck’s law outside a proper scientific journals and so many years later. Are you qualified researcher in atomic particles physics, if yes in which research site have you done your research? and have you published this article in a peer reviwed international journal?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dr. Darko,
No to all your question. I believe in reason and evidence and no peer reviewed journal would ever publish anything I wrote because it conflicts with everything they believe to be true.
Do you think they would accept for publication my article on time dilation due to gravity? The closer you get to an object, the greater the gravity, the slower time. If time slows and the speed of light is constant then distance must expand. The closer you get to an object the farther away from it you are.
Herb
Reply
Doug Harrison
| #
My observation from this very interesting discussion is that those who do not comprehend the value of new ideas are always inclined to the “Attack the messenger Syndrome”. My humble advice as a man who has lived long and experienced much is that “Listening is the greatest skill you can learn in life”.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Doug,
Dead-on!
I sometimes ask those “Credential Karens” whether they learned more before or after graduation; yet some would still insist on the importance of a parchment on the office wall.
(BTW, would you allow for an exception from your listening paradigm? I’m almost deaf, you know…)
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Doug,
You wrote. “My observation from this very interesting discussion is that those who do not comprehend the value of new ideas are always inclined to the “Attack the messenger Syndrome”.”
Would it be fair to ask those with ‘new ideas’ a few questions as to what specifically their personal experiences have been during their lifetimes? I evaluate people on what they individually have done which has nothing to do with their personal credentials. R. G. LeTourneau, according to his autobiography (Mover of Men and Mountains) had no formal education beyond failing his 7th grade class. Yet invented, designed, and manufactured the modern earth moving machines which are now common.
Louis Agassiz, when asked what his greatest achievement was, is said to have replied: “I have taught men to observe.” He was both a teacher and a SCIENTIST and a teacher. SCIENCE is philosophy solely based upon observation. Less anyone question that Einstein did not base his science upon observation I need to point to the fact that his problems were totally about observation and that he clearly recognized that his ideas (theories) needed to be tested by observations (experiments) and even if experiments supported his ideas he still recognized that there could be an experimental result which might prove an idea to be absolutely wrong.
Back to Agassiz. He was a naturalist (whose special science was the study of prehistoric fish fossils) and not a geologist. But he observed erratic boulders and concluded it was possible that some of these boulders had been carried by glaciers to even south of 45N latitudes.
So I believe it is very fair to ask Herb Rose what his personal experiences have beyond what he writes. For there are what I term personal achievements by which I evaluate what a person writes.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Fellows,
Do any of the ‘exotic’ ideas about which you reason have any testable predictions of that which has not yet been observed, but could be? If these ideas which you propose have no testable predictions, they are not scientific ideas.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
John Alexander
| #
The attack on Herb and demanding credentials is rediculous. Don’t attack the mesenger attack the facts and the hypothesis.
Well said Doug Harrison.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Wave or Particle?
Physics today seems to be in a deep mess. Sometimes one must wonder: Is there an invisible hand leading all the scientists and philosophers in circles?
And, Herb, I think it would be easier to prove that there is no real matter then just to pick on a poor photon 😉
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jako,
A photon is a contrivance where ignorance about the nature of light is left ambiguous, given a name and called knowledge.It would be tougher I think to argue there is no matter. They might hit you with a bat and say it doesn’t matter.
Herb
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPAxzr6ihu8 A particle is the smallest possible vibration (excitation or quantum) of a relativistic quantum field. Photons are in a electromagnetic field….electrons in an electron field….quarks in a quark field. Is Herb misunderstanding at a shallow level while attempting to misunderstand at a deeper level?
Reply