Talk:Directory:Bert Schreiber

From PESWiki

This is my opening response #1 to Mr. Ken Rauen and Dr. James N. Downing, Jr.

When one cannot attack the truth, attack the source. This tactic is the normal response by those who wish to play the Devil’s Advocate. No equations, no mathematics, no experiments, and just a lot of verbiage.

It is impossible to write a few sentences to cover any one item. This is because to explain one item takes yet other discussions. I do not know how much knowledge each reader has, so therefore, some of what will be written you might know, but there will be many other items that you do not know or were not even aware of as you were not taught them in the educational system.

Due to the vast number of claims (points) I am wrong etc. I can only reply to each item in turn. This first will be that of Downing on my claim that the numerical value of Planck’s Constant in electron volts divided by the Boltzman Constant does not give the Quantum or start of the measurement of temperature. He based this on the fact that eV has units of electron volts-second and h is not energy. In accordance with current beliefs, he is correct. However, current beliefs are not necessarily true or correct. The key word is correct.

Before I can continue, I was chastised for not giving references. To that end, here is one; COLLEGE PHYSICS, FOURTH EDITION, Serway and Faughn. There will be in later responses some critical ones. Others will be given on request if you don’t believe I have them.

A joule, symbol J, has the dimensions of newton-meter, page 121. Power in Watts is 1J/s. Note J has no time in same, but its application to work (heat) has time involved. And that word heat is a response unto itself that must be for later.

A Newton (sic) is defined as the force, that when acting on a one kilogram mass, produces an acceleration of one meter per second2. An erg is defined as the force, that when acting on a one gram mass produces an acceleration of one cm per sec2. For those who do not know what an erg is, this was the first system of gram-centimeter-sec (gcs) that was changed to cm-gm-s (cgs).

The problem is that the physical dimensional units for most constants etc. are not shown, hence eV is just eV in the vast majority of scientific writings. This is because the scientists are sloppy and likely lazy. Such is only shown when it is applicable to the subject matter. This dropping of units has resulted in false theory or beliefs that will be covered in a later response. Also, all physical equations have a constant of proportionality, symbol k, after them. Since this k is normally 1, it is dropped from, again, the vast majority (if not all) current scientific writings. This will be covered in more detail in following responses

The following results were done prior to 1993 by my using other means that did not require the usage of #1 and #2. I was not even aware what I had done until after 2003 (2004?) when I came across h in terms of eV. Boltzman’s Constant I was aware of and had its accurate (current BIPM corrected) value before 1993, probably around 1991. (Digits are not extended and shown to their present number in accuracy.)

The Boltzman Constant has two values. (#1) is 1.602176 x 10-19 J/K. (#2) is 8.617343 x 10-5 eV-s/K. This one is for the defined eV that is the work done by an electron etc. hence has units of eV-s. Planck’s Constant has the dimensions of J-sec. That is the work done by one h and is not the cause h that is simply J i.e., potential to do work. Therein lies all of the confusion. The definition of a volt is totally confused and the eV is the effect or action of a volt on the electron ex post facto. That will be covered later. The value for h is 6.62606 x 10-34 J-s.

Therefore h divided by (#1): J-s/J/K = K.k (1) will give the temperature resulting in 4.135667 x 10-15 K-s an absurdity. Time has no connection to K. Therefore, the static cause h should have no s. When this is used gives the correct K. But this particular K’s digits also is the identical to that for the terms of h in eV the J-s one of h.

But there is the Boltzman Constant (#2) that is 8.617343 x 10-5 eV-s/K such that the previous value now in eV-s divided by this one gives 4.77992 x 10-11 K as the eV-s cancel leaving only the K. The -s has been legally eliminated.

I will acknowledge or agree that the 4.135667 value does have an s after it, but I will not accept it, as it is an artifact due to current confusion and should not be there in the first place. I found that value without the usage of the Boltzman Constant so mine has no s.

Either value is a quantum and which one is selected as the start is immaterial. In my works I use the latter based on the unnamed equation and constant therein: ï?¬eV = k = 12,400 x 10-8 cm (2). This constant has no particular name, unfortunately. This determines the eV necessary to create a specific wavelength, hence frequency/wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, an eV of (about) 12,400 would be required to create a ï?¬ of 1 x 10-8 cm. That is the result of the work (action done) by energy on an electron (as the BIPM specific arbitrary example) that results in the production of electromagnetic radiation by such an electron jump. The eV-s has now been eliminated and is the static/potential energy in electromagnetic radiation.

Hence, one h in eV results in the action (work and time now involved) of producing one single cycle of electromagnetic radiation having one h of energy per Planck’s Equation, E = h�, (3) whose wavelength is 2.99792458 exact x 108 m and whose frequency is one cyc/sec. Hence it covers one of its own wavelengths in one second that is called, symbol c, the speed of light. It is the start of frequency. Hence h is set forth in numerous scientific writing as a Quantum of energy/action. Keep this in mind as it will come up later, but I will remind you.

So in order to comply with the rules of decorum, the readers will have to figure out for themselves the implications of this result. But I believe I might be permitted to give a hint. Does the one second of time exist and if so, how can it be universally (Absolute, not arbitrary) set in the Universe?

The value in my no ZPE paper (4.8 >) that I will have to correct as it was another value (as such is arbitrary) and was based on my setting K using other means. (a different c of exact 3 x 108 m/s). For that oversight, please accept my apology. But, substituting that final one as shown will correct that value per current BIPM values, so the fundamental fact remains.

Since h cannot have and has never been found (and never will) from experiments to have any fractional value as it is a Quantum, then this MUST be the start of measurable temperature. The readers can draw their own conclusion(s).

This is only one of many means that gives this identical answer or value. There are many more. The automatic end result is that any mass going at a smaller speed (having less = emitting radiation than one h of kinetic energy) will go to Absolute Rest, an impossibility.

As my last comment, temperature per se is a human concept and does not exist in the Universe. What is termed temperature is the kinetic energy of motion (retained as potential energy) in a moving mass. No mass, no temperature. No speed, no temperature. Degrees in Kelvin or any other units are presently arbitrary. And ALL said mass’s have the ability (property) to release said stored energy WHEN IT SLOWS DOWN or STOPS. Contrary to what may be and is in many peer approved scientific writings: An accelerating mass does not and cannot radiate. This electromagnetic radiation when it is absorbed or released (radiates) is generically called HEAT. This (study) applied effect (discipline of physics) is called thermodynamics.

Reference any good dictionary: Look up the words absorbed and adsorbed. How electromagnetic radiation becomes incorporated (indeterminate at present time) is unknown. But the discovery of how it does so is not permitted by the decorum.

In my next response, I will prove the falsity of the current belief that h can only be found by or from experiment. It can be calculated by/from using the current physical constants.

February 2006