Physics

[LiamOS]

A lesser purpose of this thread is to allow members to ask questions about physics which they need clarification on or want an explanation on.

In my time spent here, I've been told many a time how conventional science fails and falls short in areas. As such, I decided to make this thread. However, as there are many on the subject of Biology and its many branches, I felt one to address the issues in physics would be appropriate.
For the purposes of this thread, physics covers Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics(QCD, QED...), Electromagnetism, Optics and Thermodynamics.
The conventional theories in each field will be taken, in the context of this thread, as the best explanation currently available:
The Big Bang, the Standard Model(Particle physics), etc.

Questions for debate:
-Other than that which we do not yet know(Higgs Boson, etc.), are there any significant shortcomings in the conventional physics of the day? If so, where and why?
-Some theories are based on underlying assumptions. Are any of these assumptions flawed or not necessarily true?

With our current knowledge of the universe from a physicists point of view, is it logical to infer than a deity is a necessity? Why or why not?

On a final note, this is a physics thread, so don't hold back on using mathematics as support for your hypotheses.

[100%atheist]

Could Planck's equation for blackbody radiation be simply Einstein's energy equation in disguise?

Andre,

No, those equations describe different phenomena. Einstein's E=mc^2 refers to the total energy "created" as a result of "mass to energy" conversion. Planck showed that if we assume the quantum nature of light, then we can describe the black body radiation spectrum. There is no any mass lost to energy in the black body. I would say that Einstein's photoeffect law (the one he got the Nobel prize for) is much closer to Planck's works.

100%

[100%atheist]

Now, where, in all of the time since the Big Bang, do we see matter, energy, space and time all descending into the Quantum realm?

Black Holes.

Grumpy

I've hypothesized that black holes are gateways to other dimensions due to very similar reasons. That doesn't mean that we would be able to physically survive a trip through one. I think that if more research was done on Out-of-Body experiences and Astral Projection, than we could plausibly send someone's consciousness through a black hole in the future.

Sorry, but I can't see any connection between Black Holes and Out of Body Experiences. Do you suggest there is one?

[mich]

Could Planck's equation for blackbody radiation be simply Einstein's energy equation in disguise?

Andre,

No, those equations describe different phenomena. Einstein's E=mc^2 refers to the total energy "created" as a result of "mass to energy" conversion. Planck showed that if we assume the quantum nature of light, then we can describe the black body radiation spectrum. There is no any mass lost to energy in the black body. I would say that Einstein's photoeffect law (the one he got the Nobel prize for) is much closer to Planck's works.

100%

Thank you for your response, 100%. I am going to ask you questions; but don't take them as arguments, as I don't claim to understand the stuff very much.

Wouldn't Einstein's equation be the conversion of energy into mass without anything being created? I take it to meaning that the mass is equal to the energy divided by c ^ 2, identifying the energy within a massive particle as being enormous? In Planck's equation I take it to meaning the reverse; that is the energy is identified as being quantized through Planck's constant, therefore having the characteristic of particles?

Andre

[100%atheist]

Could Planck's equation for blackbody radiation be simply Einstein's energy equation in disguise?

Andre,

No, those equations describe different phenomena. Einstein's E=mc^2 refers to the total energy "created" as a result of "mass to energy" conversion. Planck showed that if we assume the quantum nature of light, then we can describe the black body radiation spectrum. There is no any mass lost to energy in the black body. I would say that Einstein's photoeffect law (the one he got the Nobel prize for) is much closer to Planck's works.

100%

Thank you for your response, 100%. I am going to ask you questions; but don't take them as arguments, as I don't claim to understand the stuff very much.

Wouldn't Einstein's equation be the conversion of energy into mass without anything being created? I take it to meaning that the mass is equal to the energy divided by c ^ 2, identifying the energy within a massive particle as being enormous? In Planck's equation I take it to meaning the reverse; that is the energy is identified as being quantized through Planck's constant, therefore having the characteristic of particles?

Andre

Andre,

You are correct in principle. But you are missing one important part - that is not all particles have mass. Photons, which are the particles of concern in Planck's black body radiation theory, have no mass. So again, this is not a matter of energy to particle conversion, but it is simply a description of energy that is emitted by the black body in small portions - quanta of energy (aka photons). Previously (before Planck) people thought that the energy (light) is emitted (at high temperature for example) continuously, but this description failed to describe the black body radiation spectrum (the dependence of emitted intensity on the wavelength that is the color of light). In the classic model, the intensity of emitted light is proportional to the frequency squared of oscillating atoms (or electrons) in the material. This would mean that the hotter is your oven, the more light you should see, which turns out not to be the case. Planck proposed that the emitted energy can be quantized, which led to the light emission spectrum that perfectly explained the observed one.
Hope this helps.

100%

[mich]

Could Planck's equation for blackbody radiation be simply Einstein's energy equation in disguise?

Andre,

No, those equations describe different phenomena. Einstein's E=mc^2 refers to the total energy "created" as a result of "mass to energy" conversion. Planck showed that if we assume the quantum nature of light, then we can describe the black body radiation spectrum. There is no any mass lost to energy in the black body. I would say that Einstein's photoeffect law (the one he got the Nobel prize for) is much closer to Planck's works.

100%

Thank you for your response, 100%. I am going to ask you questions; but don't take them as arguments, as I don't claim to understand the stuff very much.

Wouldn't Einstein's equation be the conversion of energy into mass without anything being created? I take it to meaning that the mass is equal to the energy divided by c ^ 2, identifying the energy within a massive particle as being enormous? In Planck's equation I take it to meaning the reverse; that is the energy is identified as being quantized through Planck's constant, therefore having the characteristic of particles?

Andre

Andre,

You are correct in principle. But you are missing one important part - that is not all particles have mass. Photons, which are the particles of concern in Planck's black body radiation theory, have no mass. So again, this is not a matter of energy to particle conversion, but it is simply a description of energy that is emitted by the black body in small portions - quanta of energy (aka photons). Previously (before Planck) people thought that the energy (light) is emitted (at high temperature for example) continuously, but this description failed to describe the black body radiation spectrum (the dependence of emitted intensity on the wavelength that is the color of light). In the classic model, the intensity of emitted light is proportional to the frequency squared of oscillating atoms (or electrons) in the material. This would mean that the hotter is your oven, the more light you should see, which turns out not to be the case. Planck proposed that the emitted energy can be quantized, which led to the light emission spectrum that perfectly explained the observed one.
Hope this helps.

100%

I will continue, if you don't mind, responding to what you've written. Again, this is not for argument sake but only for my own personal curiosity,and better understanding of modern scientific theories.
While I understand that energy particles, such as photons have a rest mass of 0, they are nevertheless never at rest.
Here is my personal understanding of Planck's equation.

E = h * f

Since the dimention of h is in ergs * sec, when we multiply this by the frequency f, the time dimentions (sec) cancels out, leaving the dimentions as being ergs * cm.
Therefore, to me, Planck's equation seems to imply that the total energy of light is equal to a fundamental unit of energy (e), being the magnetude of Planck's constant,but having the dimention of energy (erg) only,multiplied by the wavelength (w).
Now, if we have a fundamental unit of energy, according to Einstein's equation, it ought to, in my opinion, represent also a fundamental unit of mass as well. Within my first post, I derived such mass as being h / (c * w ).The dimentions being
erg * sec ^2 / cm ^ 2, being in agreement with Einstein's equation for mass E / c ^ 2 = m.


Andre

[100%atheist]

Could Planck's equation for blackbody radiation be simply Einstein's energy equation in disguise?

Andre,

No, those equations describe different phenomena. Einstein's E=mc^2 refers to the total energy "created" as a result of "mass to energy" conversion. Planck showed that if we assume the quantum nature of light, then we can describe the black body radiation spectrum. There is no any mass lost to energy in the black body. I would say that Einstein's photoeffect law (the one he got the Nobel prize for) is much closer to Planck's works.

100%

Thank you for your response, 100%. I am going to ask you questions; but don't take them as arguments, as I don't claim to understand the stuff very much.

Wouldn't Einstein's equation be the conversion of energy into mass without anything being created? I take it to meaning that the mass is equal to the energy divided by c ^ 2, identifying the energy within a massive particle as being enormous? In Planck's equation I take it to meaning the reverse; that is the energy is identified as being quantized through Planck's constant, therefore having the characteristic of particles?

Andre

Andre,

You are correct in principle. But you are missing one important part - that is not all particles have mass. Photons, which are the particles of concern in Planck's black body radiation theory, have no mass. So again, this is not a matter of energy to particle conversion, but it is simply a description of energy that is emitted by the black body in small portions - quanta of energy (aka photons). Previously (before Planck) people thought that the energy (light) is emitted (at high temperature for example) continuously, but this description failed to describe the black body radiation spectrum (the dependence of emitted intensity on the wavelength that is the color of light). In the classic model, the intensity of emitted light is proportional to the frequency squared of oscillating atoms (or electrons) in the material. This would mean that the hotter is your oven, the more light you should see, which turns out not to be the case. Planck proposed that the emitted energy can be quantized, which led to the light emission spectrum that perfectly explained the observed one.
Hope this helps.

100%

I will continue, if you don't mind, responding to what you've written. Again, this is not for argument sake but only for my own personal curiosity,and better understanding of modern scientific theories.
While I understand that energy particles, such as photons have a rest mass of 0, they are nevertheless never at rest.
Here is my personal understanding of Planck's equation.

E = h * f

Since the dimention of h is in ergs * sec, when we multiply this by the frequency f, the time dimentions (sec) cancels out, leaving the dimentions as being ergs * cm.
Therefore, to me, Planck's equation seems to imply that the total energy of light is equal to a fundamental unit of energy (e), being the magnetude of Planck's constant,but having the dimention of energy (erg) only,multiplied by the wavelength (w).
Now, if we have a fundamental unit of energy, according to Einstein's equation, it ought to, in my opinion, represent also a fundamental unit of mass as well. Within my first post, I derived such mass as being h / (c * w ).The dimentions being
erg * sec ^2 / cm ^ 2, being in agreement with Einstein's equation for mass E / c ^ 2 = m.


Andre

Actually, a more complete expression is E^2=p^2*c^2 + m_rest^2*c^4
If a particle is at rest, then p = 0, and E = m_rest^2 * c^2
If a particle has no mass, then m_rest=0 and E = p*c

[mich]

Could Planck's equation for blackbody radiation be simply Einstein's energy equation in disguise?

Andre,

No, those equations describe different phenomena. Einstein's E=mc^2 refers to the total energy "created" as a result of "mass to energy" conversion. Planck showed that if we assume the quantum nature of light, then we can describe the black body radiation spectrum. There is no any mass lost to energy in the black body. I would say that Einstein's photoeffect law (the one he got the Nobel prize for) is much closer to Planck's works.

100%

Thank you for your response, 100%. I am going to ask you questions; but don't take them as arguments, as I don't claim to understand the stuff very much.

Wouldn't Einstein's equation be the conversion of energy into mass without anything being created? I take it to meaning that the mass is equal to the energy divided by c ^ 2, identifying the energy within a massive particle as being enormous? In Planck's equation I take it to meaning the reverse; that is the energy is identified as being quantized through Planck's constant, therefore having the characteristic of particles?

Andre

Andre,

You are correct in principle. But you are missing one important part - that is not all particles have mass. Photons, which are the particles of concern in Planck's black body radiation theory, have no mass. So again, this is not a matter of energy to particle conversion, but it is simply a description of energy that is emitted by the black body in small portions - quanta of energy (aka photons). Previously (before Planck) people thought that the energy (light) is emitted (at high temperature for example) continuously, but this description failed to describe the black body radiation spectrum (the dependence of emitted intensity on the wavelength that is the color of light). In the classic model, the intensity of emitted light is proportional to the frequency squared of oscillating atoms (or electrons) in the material. This would mean that the hotter is your oven, the more light you should see, which turns out not to be the case. Planck proposed that the emitted energy can be quantized, which led to the light emission spectrum that perfectly explained the observed one.
Hope this helps.

100%

I will continue, if you don't mind, responding to what you've written. Again, this is not for argument sake but only for my own personal curiosity,and better understanding of modern scientific theories.
While I understand that energy particles, such as photons have a rest mass of 0, they are nevertheless never at rest.
Here is my personal understanding of Planck's equation.

E = h * f

Since the dimention of h is in ergs * sec, when we multiply this by the frequency f, the time dimentions (sec) cancels out, leaving the dimentions as being ergs * cm.
Therefore, to me, Planck's equation seems to imply that the total energy of light is equal to a fundamental unit of energy (e), being the magnetude of Planck's constant,but having the dimention of energy (erg) only,multiplied by the wavelength (w).
Now, if we have a fundamental unit of energy, according to Einstein's equation, it ought to, in my opinion, represent also a fundamental unit of mass as well. Within my first post, I derived such mass as being h / (c * w ).The dimentions being
erg * sec ^2 / cm ^ 2, being in agreement with Einstein's equation for mass E / c ^ 2 = m.


Andre

Actually, a more complete expression is E^2=p^2*c^2 + m_rest^2*c^4
If a particle is at rest, then p = 0, and E = m_rest^2 * c^2
If a particle has no mass, then m_rest=0 and E = p*c

Wouldn't E = p * c be the same as E = m * c ^ 2, since p should be equal to
m * c ?

Andre

[100%atheist]

Actually, a more complete expression is E^2=p^2*c^2 + m_rest^2*c^4
If a particle is at rest, then p = 0, and E = m_rest^2 * c^2
If a particle has no mass, then m_rest=0 and E = p*c

Wouldn't E = p * c be the same as E = m * c ^ 2, since p should be equal to
m * c ?

Andre

No, because they are two different parts in the equation, one is related to relativistic energy p*c and another one to non-relativistic energy m*c^2

[mich]

Actually, a more complete expression is E^2=p^2*c^2 + m_rest^2*c^4
If a particle is at rest, then p = 0, and E = m_rest^2 * c^2
If a particle has no mass, then m_rest=0 and E = p*c

Wouldn't E = p * c be the same as E = m * c ^ 2, since p should be equal to
m * c ?

Andre

No, because they are two different parts in the equation, one is related to relativistic energy p*c and another one to non-relativistic energy m*c^2

From what I see, we did indeed leave the rest mass energy for the photon as being 0; and we are left with pc. But it seems that pc would then be equal to
mc ^2 , wouldn't it? In other words, mc ^ 2 = p * c + rest mass energy, which, in this case is 0 ?

Andre

[LiamOS]

From what I see, we did indeed leave the rest mass energy for the photon as being 0; and we are left with pc. But it seems that pc would then be equal to
mc ^2 , wouldn't it? In other words, mc ^ 2 = p * c + rest mass energy, which, in this case is 0 ?

Andre

pc mc², since m = 0 in the case of the photon.

For photons, it follows from
E² = p²c² + m²c⁴
and
E =
by setting m = 0, that
p = /c

Hope this helps.