Quantized redshift anomaly

Tommy, There is little to debate here other than the 2nd law and I am using the process plants use which is called photosysthesis to point out that thermal laws don't apply to energy systems. The same goes for the LED example.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Heat is vibration. Light is vibration. So why doesn't a "law" applicable to molecules not at all applicable to atoms?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I guess my analogy wasn't appropriate. What I think I mean to say, is that,in my opinion, "in principle" light requires a source of energy.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>

How can the ZPE be a consequence of thermodynamics when by definition it is found when the thermodynamics is at sero?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Use Planck's law: in a mode of EM waves of frequency f, the energy is hf/(exp(hf/kT)-1)+K. Thermodynamics says that this energy tends to kT for T large: K=hf/2. For T=0, the energy is K=hf/2. It is not available because the light may be absorbed down to hf/2 (in the average).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />
To me, it is absurd to believe that matter/waves/fields can exist without a sorresponding source of energy.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It is not a belief; your point supposes that all waves are linear. The soliton, a nonlinear wave, may not loose energy if it is free.
De Broglie did not know the solitons, so that he was unable to bind his "two solutions" into a single wave.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />JMB, I think I read you in the stardrive forum, so you are well aware of what the mathemeticians are doing with the ZPE. I'd like to read you say that everything is only classical over there and see how long your letter would last.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Quantum mechanics was my job. It was very difficult to teach it, because the students asked good questions...
My point it that the <b>principles</b> of QM are absurd, while the remainder (the <b>formalism</b>) is evidently powerful.
No problem to introduce Planck's law (therefore the ZPF), and de Broglie's "double solution", thus the interferences with particles, supposing that the particles are solitons. The formalism of QM may be considered as a set of classical recipes.
So good to avoid the absurdities and the paradoxes resulting from the principles of QM!<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
What is a mystery to me is what is your take on redshift? You say that the CREIL effect can produce redshift that mimics doppler redshift, but I don't think I ever heard you say that this falsifies cosmological Doppler redshift. So, what are you really saying?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The CREIL transfers energy from the hot (trmperature from planck's law) beams to the cold beams while they are refracted in particular gases.These transfers of energy produce frequency shifts. Usually, light is hot, therefore redshifted, the radio is cold, blueshifted.
I am not an astrophysicist, but I know that CREIL may work in neutral atomic hydrogen in states 2S and 2P. Searching where thermodynamics says that this hydrogen exists, one finds that it is just where very high redshifts appear... (other effects are explained too: the blueshift of the radio from Pioneer 10 and 11 ...) Therefore, the foundation of the BB disappears...<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
If you are saying that there are observed redshifts that are not Doppler, then aren't saying also that the theory that redshift is only Doppler is false?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, there are, at least gravitational and CREIL redshifts. (and various frequency transformations in laser labs !)
<b></b>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Tommy, There is little to debate here other than the 2nd law and I am using the process plants use which is called photosysthesis to point out that thermal laws don't apply to energy systems. The same goes for the LED example.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The second law works always: in photosynthesis, there is a big increase of entropy, and in the emission of light by any source too. The CREIL effect obeys this law too.