Re: Let's discuss big bang theory some more.
- From: John Polasek <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:01:47 -0500
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:11:53 +1100, "Max Keon"
<maxkeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
While my replies to the subject heading "Lets discuss Big Bang
Theory" are appearing on Google, some of them seem to be having
trouble finding their way to the relevant newsgroups. My previous
reply to Steve Carlip, which has gone missing, highlights a
misconception which supports expansion theories and falsifies
the zero origin concept.
In the interest of truth and the credibility of physics, this
reply needs to be properly addressed. I've changed the crosspost
list accordingly.
-------------
In sci.physics maxkeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Steve Carlip wrote:
[...]
A change in c, on the other hand, has a *different* effect on
different spectral lines.
The spacing of spectral lines is determined (very successfully)
by quantum mechanics. The energy levels of an atom or
molecule depend on the fine structure constant alpha, where
alpha e^2/hbar c
(e is the charge of the electron, hbar is the reduced Planck's
constant, and c is the speed of light). If c changes, so does
alpha, and therefore so do energy levels and wavelengths.
The trouble starts here in using the emasculated cgs units to evaluate
alpha = e^2/hbar c (1)
in what are obviously cgs units. Please try to affix believable units
to each of the terms above, to demonstrate that this is dimensionless.
I don't think it can be done.
cgs units are a cruel trap, of which the users are blissfully unaware.
("SI is for engineers and tradespeople").
This leads to nonsensical statements that c has no place in defining
alpha, and regarding alpha as no more than another assemblage of
constants with a dimensionless product. In fact very little that is
useful comes from cgs units.
Let me show you how SI units make sense of alpha. The correct equation
is
alpha = e^2/2hc*eps0 (2)
eps0, which is banished from cgs, is the palpable permitivity of
empty space, being 8.8e-12 farad/meter or more clearly as 8.8e-12
coulomb/volt*meter. With eps0 we can partition (2) into two energy
terms:
e^2/eps0 = 2.897e-27Joule*meters (3)
eps0 converting one of the two charges into Volt*meters.
Again
2hc = 3.972e-25Joule*meters (4)
The ratio of (3) divided by (4) = 7.297e-3 = alpha. (4) is 137 x (3).
Evidently alpha is the ratio of these two energies.
(4) is directly connected to the CWL:
2me*c^2 x CWL = 3.972 e-25Joule*meters,
the same value as 2hc in (4).
So there is a wealth of significance contained in alpha, but it is
completely obliterated in adhering to those useless cgs units.
In light of this, how would you modify your analysis below?
I don't know if c is involved in determining hbar, but the cJohn Polasek
component included in alpha is nothing more than a simple
multiplier, which has nothing whatever to do with the speed of
light. I'm sure you're aware that if the value of 'c' in alpha
is changed to some other constant number, or removed altogether,
exactly the same final results can be generated by applying an
appropriate (constant) multiplier to the initial results.
The sole purpose of including c in the formula would seem to be
to link it to the speed of light. But there is no justification
at all for doing that.
Another such case where the speed of light has been likewise
prostituted is in the Planck formula for blackbody radiator curves
(2 * pi * h * c ^ 2) / (w ^ 5 * ((EXP((h * f) / (k * t))) - 1))
According to that formula, if the speed of light changes, so too
does the entire shape of the blackbody spectrum. But that is
completely WRONG.
One of the two 4000 K blackbody curves shown in this graph
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/hbar.jpg
was generated using c^2 in the formula, the other uses c, with
a different power multiplier applied to the result. Each power
multiplier remains constant for any blackbody temperature. And
the curve mismatch was intentional.
I can apply any exponent to c, or remove c completely, and with
an appropriate power multiplier, which compensates exactly for
changes to the multiplier labeled 'c', the same curve is
generated. 'c' with any exponent has no effect on the generated
curve, because IT'S A SIMPLE MULTIPLIER and has nothing to do
with the speed of light.
But different splittings of energy levels depend on different
powers of alpha, and therefore different powers of c.
That should read, "and therefore different powers of the chosen
multiplier". Your statement is void if the 'c' multiplier is
removed from alpha altogether. And it will make no difference to
the final result.
But different splittings of energy levels depend on different
powers of alpha, and therefore different powers of c. For
hydrogen, for instance, the "basic" energy levels do not
depend on c. But these levels are split by, for example, the
spin-orbit coupling. As a result, each "basic" spectral line
breaks into narrower lines ("fine structure"). The energy
differences between these lines go as (alpha)^2. For more
complicated atoms, additional splittings go as (alpha)^4.
You can find good descriptions of most of this in an advanced
undergraduate quantum mechanics text, e.g. Griffith.
A change in c will therefore change the spacings of different
spectral lines in different ways. So by comparing different
types of spectral line separations, we can extract changes
of c independent of overall red shift.
---
(irrelevant)
---
(And yes, we could detect such differences, if c were changing as little
as a part in 10^15 per year.)
Only if you use a multiplier with the same value as c and assume
that it represents the speed of light.
-----
Max Keon
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Absolute Rotation vs. Relative Rotation
- Next by Date: Re: IBM to build massive 20 Petaflop supercomputer for NNSA
- Previous by thread: Inside Science News Briefs -- February 9, 2009
- Next by thread: PING: Sam and kiloVolt - FYI
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
