Discussion:
Want to prove E=mc²? University labs should try this!
Add Reply
rhertz
2024-11-17 00:46:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Current "state of the art" weighting technology (expensive) can measure
about 1 nanogram of MASS.

I asked ChatGPT this question:

"If I use a high precision laser having 5 Watts steady power for 72
hours, injecting the light into an almost perfect reflective cavity
(more than 99% of reflectivity), can I prove that the internal MASS
increased as
m=E/c² states?

ChatGPT answered this:

Conclusion

If the laser operates for 72 hours, the theoretical mass increase inside
the cavity is approximately 14.4 picograms, but in practice, the
steady-state energy inside the cavity will be significantly lower due to
losses. Proving this mass increase experimentally would require an
exceptionally controlled setup and cutting-edge measurement tools. While
it is a challenging experiment, its successful execution would provide a
novel confirmation of m=E/c² in an optical context!

I simplify calculations here:

5 Watts x 72 Hr = 1,296,000 Joules (Kg.m²/s²)

MASS increase in 72 Hr = 1.0368 μgrams of MASS

WEIGHT INCREASE = 1.007 μgrams of WEIGHT ≈ 1.007E-09 Newtons


ChatGPT WARNINGS:


Challenges in Proving the Mass Increase

While the mass increase is theoretically calculable, there are practical
hurdles:

1. Energy Retention in the Cavity

Steady-State Limit: A laser does not continuously add energy to a cavity
indefinitely. After a certain time, the energy inside the cavity
stabilizes at a steady state determined by:

E(stored) = P(laser)/P(loss) x τ

τ is the cavity’s photon lifetime.

Real cavities lose energy through mirror transmission, scattering, and
absorption. Even with highly reflective mirrors (99.999%), steady-state
energy may be orders of magnitude smaller than the total energy
delivered by the laser.

2. Balance Sensitivity

Mass Changes: To measure a steady increase up to 1.0368 μgrams of MASS,
you would need an extremely sensitive device like an electromagnetic
balance or other precision mass measurement tools with sub-μgram
sensitivity.

Current state-of-the-art balances can detect mass changes at this scale,
but such measurements are delicate and require isolation from
vibrations, air currents, and thermal effects.

3. Environmental Interference

Thermal Effects: Energy absorption by mirrors or cavity components can
cause thermal expansion or convection currents that might mimic a weight
change.

Radiation Pressure: The laser light exerts a tiny force on the mirrors,
which might introduce additional complications.

4. Loss Compensation

Not all the laser energy is stored. The difference between the laser's
energy input and the cavity’s steady-state energy is lost as heat,
scattered light, or transmitted light. This loss must be carefully
accounted for to isolate the contribution of stored energy to the mass
increase.

Experimental Considerations to maximize your chances of success:

High-Q Cavity: Use ultra-high-reflectivity mirrors to maximize energy
retention and reduce losses.

Sensitive Instrumentation: Employ a precision electromagnetic balance
capable of detecting picogram-scale changes.

Environmental Isolation: Perform the experiment in a vacuum chamber and
on an isolated platform to reduce noise.

Calibration: Account for all sources of error, including thermal effects
and laser power fluctuations.

***********************************************

BUT WHAT REALLY MATTERS HERE IS THAT THE AI ENGINE CONFIRMED THAT NOBODY
IN THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY HAS EVEN TRIED EXPERIMENTS OF THIS
SORT, WHICH ARE CONCEPTUALLY SIMPLE!

WHY, I ASK? MAYBE THE RESULTS COULD BE SHOCKING!

With a little of ingenuity, you could try this at home, using a
DIFFERENTIAL ELECTROMAGNETIC BALANCE. Here is a guide:

Homemade Microgram Electrobalance

https://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/equipment/scale.html

You should add a DIFFERENTIAL BALANCE, with two cavities (one with the
laser turned off).

Here is a company that sells microgram balances ($10,000 and up), mainly
for Big Pharma companies.

https://www.mt.com/us/en/home/products/Laboratory_Weighing_Solutions/microbalances/ultra-micro-balance.html


HEY!, THERE IS A CHANCE THAT YOU CAN CONFIRM OR DISPROVE E=mc².

AND BY DISPROVING IT, RELATIVITY GOES TO THE TRASH BIN. ALL OF IT, AND
DERIVATIONS APPLIED ALL OVER THE REALM OF PHYSICS!
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-11-17 03:52:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mr. Hertz: Are you saying you think it was ever proven?
rhertz
2024-11-17 04:22:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: Are you saying you think it was ever proven?
Not me. Is ChatGPT that indicates that there are no historical records
about experiments of this kind. Maybe BECAUSE nobody like the results.


Even when it operates near the limits of technology available for the
last 20 years, the concept itself is extremely simple to understand and,
as ChatGPT wrote, it's a novel way to prove/disprove E=mc² at optical
level.
gharnagel
2024-11-17 05:22:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Not me. Is ChatGPT that indicates that there are no historical records
about experiments of this kind. Maybe BECAUSE nobody like the results.
Even when it operates near the limits of technology available for the
last 20 years, the concept itself is extremely simple to understand and,
as ChatGPT wrote, it's a novel way to prove/disprove E=mc² at optical
level.
Seems to me that the chatGPT estimate was extremely optimistic.
The maximum energy built up will be limited by the input energy
during each pass of the storage beam. If the cavity were one
meter long, the time per pass would be 1/c. How much energy
does a 5 W laser put out during that time? 1.67e-8 J.

If the end mirror absorbs 0.00001 of the energy per reflection,
the maximum energy in the cavity would reach only .00167 J.

You might get a 10x improvement of reflectivity and make the
cavity 10 m long, but you're still a long way from your dream,
methinks. A scales to weigh a 10 meter pipe seems a bit
unwieldy to me. You think maybe I made a mistake? Check it
out yourself.
rhertz
2024-11-17 15:42:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by rhertz
Not me. Is ChatGPT that indicates that there are no historical records
about experiments of this kind. Maybe BECAUSE nobody like the results.
Even when it operates near the limits of technology available for the
last 20 years, the concept itself is extremely simple to understand and,
as ChatGPT wrote, it's a novel way to prove/disprove E=mc² at optical
level.
Seems to me that the chatGPT estimate was extremely optimistic.
The maximum energy built up will be limited by the input energy
during each pass of the storage beam. If the cavity were one
meter long, the time per pass would be 1/c. How much energy
does a 5 W laser put out during that time? 1.67e-8 J.
If the end mirror absorbs 0.00001 of the energy per reflection,
the maximum energy in the cavity would reach only .00167 J.
You might get a 10x improvement of reflectivity and make the
cavity 10 m long, but you're still a long way from your dream,
methinks. A scales to weigh a 10 meter pipe seems a bit
unwieldy to me. You think maybe I made a mistake? Check it
out yourself.
You are confusing cavity with something else.

I suggest you to read about the cavities used at Berlin University
during 1893-1900 (Wien, Planck - 2 Nobel Prize on the same matter), and
how to measure black body radiation.

I just thought of the exact opposite use of the small orifice: to allow
the laser beam to ENTER into the perfectly reflecting cavity, with
irregular inner coating, what allow that the laser beam be dispersed
within the small cavity, being confined there.


The laser beam can't escape, and is reflected everywhere inside. What
matter is the wavelength (550 nm - green) vs. the wide of irregularities
inside the cavity. Also, it has to be thermally stabilized, as well as
being in vacuum and protected from vibrations, electromagnetic
interference, etc.

LIGO array use lasers in the kilowatt range, mirrors with almost 100%
reflectivity, etc.
gharnagel
2024-11-17 21:27:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by gharnagel
Post by rhertz
Not me. Is ChatGPT that indicates that there are no
historical records about experiments of this kind.
Maybe BECAUSE nobody like the results.
Even when it operates near the limits of technology
available for the last 20 years, the concept itself
is extremely simple to understand and, as ChatGPT
wrote, it's a novel way to prove/disprove E=mc² at
optical level.
Seems to me that the chatGPT estimate was extremely optimistic.
The maximum energy built up will be limited by the input energy
during each pass of the storage beam. If the cavity were one
meter long, the time per pass would be 1/c. How much energy
does a 5 W laser put out during that time? 1.67e-8 J.
If the end mirror absorbs 0.00001 of the energy per reflection,
the maximum energy in the cavity would reach only .00167 J.
You might get a 10x improvement of reflectivity and make the
cavity 10 m long, but you're still a long way from your dream,
methinks. A scales to weigh a 10 meter pipe seems a bit
unwieldy to me. You think maybe I made a mistake? Check it
out yourself.
You are confusing cavity with something else.
"cavity: an unfilled space within a mass, especially: a hollowed-out
space"
Post by rhertz
I suggest you to read about the cavities used at Berlin University
during 1893-1900 (Wien, Planck - 2 Nobel Prize on the same matter),
and how to measure black body radiation.
I have used such cavities many times to calibrate light sources.
I suggest you reread what I wrote, particularly how many orders of
magnitude a practical system is away from your required energy.
Post by rhertz
to allow the laser beam to ENTER into the perfectly reflecting
cavity, with irregular inner coating, what allow that the laser
beam be dispersed within the small cavity, being confined there.
The laser beam can't escape,
Actually, it can: through the hole. 1 m diameter ball, 1 mm diameter
hole ==> 0.0001% loss. Still many orders of magnitude away. The
light still bounces off the wall of the sphere more often that in
a linear cavity. But you can probably get up to higher energy in
the ball this way. 5W continuous input would get you to 5 MW,
assuming no losses on the bounces, which is wildly optimistic.
Post by rhertz
LIGO array use lasers in the kilowatt range, mirrors with almost
100% reflectivity, etc.
"Almost" isn't good enough. You're still orders of magnitude away
from a practical experiment, which is why no one has attempted one.
rhertz
2024-11-17 23:34:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by rhertz
Post by gharnagel
Post by rhertz
Not me. Is ChatGPT that indicates that there are no
historical records about experiments of this kind.
Maybe BECAUSE nobody like the results.
Even when it operates near the limits of technology
available for the last 20 years, the concept itself
is extremely simple to understand and, as ChatGPT
wrote, it's a novel way to prove/disprove E=mc² at
optical level.
Seems to me that the chatGPT estimate was extremely optimistic.
The maximum energy built up will be limited by the input energy
during each pass of the storage beam. If the cavity were one
meter long, the time per pass would be 1/c. How much energy
does a 5 W laser put out during that time? 1.67e-8 J.
If the end mirror absorbs 0.00001 of the energy per reflection,
the maximum energy in the cavity would reach only .00167 J.
You might get a 10x improvement of reflectivity and make the
cavity 10 m long, but you're still a long way from your dream,
methinks. A scales to weigh a 10 meter pipe seems a bit
unwieldy to me. You think maybe I made a mistake? Check it
out yourself.
You are confusing cavity with something else.
"cavity: an unfilled space within a mass, especially: a hollowed-out
space"
Post by rhertz
I suggest you to read about the cavities used at Berlin University
during 1893-1900 (Wien, Planck - 2 Nobel Prize on the same matter),
and how to measure black body radiation.
I have used such cavities many times to calibrate light sources.
I suggest you reread what I wrote, particularly how many orders of
magnitude a practical system is away from your required energy.
Post by rhertz
to allow the laser beam to ENTER into the perfectly reflecting
cavity, with irregular inner coating, what allow that the laser
beam be dispersed within the small cavity, being confined there.
The laser beam can't escape,
Actually, it can: through the hole. 1 m diameter ball, 1 mm diameter
hole ==> 0.0001% loss. Still many orders of magnitude away. The
light still bounces off the wall of the sphere more often that in
a linear cavity. But you can probably get up to higher energy in
the ball this way. 5W continuous input would get you to 5 MW,
assuming no losses on the bounces, which is wildly optimistic.
Post by rhertz
LIGO array use lasers in the kilowatt range, mirrors with almost
100% reflectivity, etc.
"Almost" isn't good enough. You're still orders of magnitude away
from a practical experiment, which is why no one has attempted one.
Obviously, there is a problem understanding the proposed experiment.

*******************************************************************
1) ABOUT THE DIFFERENTIAL ELECTROMAGNETIC BALANCE (there are other
means):

I propose to use TWO DEB, similar to the one of which I posted a link:

Homemade Microgram Electrobalance

https://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/equipment/scale.html

The output of the two sensors are connected to electronics, which can
REST, filter and process the electrical output of the EB. The result,
once calibrated to be ZERO while the laser is off, will be a LINEAR
relation between weight difference and voltage, in the order of
nanograms.

The DEB will be working in a vacuum, with a Faraday-like dome, and
floating on a mercury bed (to filter vibrations, noise and EM
interferences. It also will be compensated in temperature by means to
cool it off and measure the heat excess that's eliminated.

*******************************************************************

2) ABOUT THE CAVITY:

It has not to be a perfect sphere. On the contrary.
Imagine that you take 2 mg of aluminum foil and build a case with it,
having dimensions of about 1,000 cm³. The inner coating, made of highly
reflective material, has artificial irregularities much narrower than
the laser wavelength (green, 550 nm), such that the laser beam (1 mm
radius) spread all over the interior of the cavity, with a very small
percentage escaping through the 2 mm orifice.

If necessary, make the external laser device to spatially oscillate
slowly a little amount (by mechanical means) to assure that the beam is
hitting different spots within the cavity. That will spread the
radiation all over inside its volume.

Two identical cavities are built, being each one placed on the DEB.
Their weight (a few grams) will be subtracted from their electrical
outputs, so that (in perfect balance and equilibrium), the output will
read 0.000 nanograms.

*******************************************************************

3) ABOUT THE DIFFERENT LOSSES:

Every deviation from a perfect setup, due to different losses and
perturbations, will be measured and considered in the final result.

The differential output signal [linear function of the weight
difference] will be processed to filter NOISE, including the electrical
noise (in the order of nanovolts) generated by the EM mechanisms.

******************************************************************

4) ABOUT THE ACCUMULATION OF ENERGY INSIDE THE CAVITY 1:

If the reflected laser beams are almost 100% reflected and only a very
small fraction of energy dissipates as heat (0.001%), the energy will
accumulate linearly with time:

5 W x 1 Hr = 18,000 Joules per hour

By m=E/c², it represents 2.0E-10 gram of mass per hour.

In 72 hours, the accumulated energy within the cavity represents
1.44E-08 gram of mass.

This value of mass represents 0.1398 microNewtons in 72 hours.

Such values are perfectly in the range of measurement for current
technologies (state of the art).

Check my second link of a lab balance ($10,000), capable of measuring
weight (mass equivalence) in the order of 0.1 microNewtons.

Imagine what can be built investing $ 100,000 or $ 1,000,000 in a
qualified lab.

*****************************************************************

This experiment allows to probe/disprove E = mc² in the real world, not
in the fairy land of the quantum/atomic world.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-18 03:21:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Obviously, there is a problem understanding the proposed experiment.
*******************************************************************
1) ABOUT THE DIFFERENTIAL ELECTROMAGNETIC BALANCE (there are other
Homemade Microgram Electrobalance
https://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/equipment/scale.html
The output of the two sensors are connected to electronics, which can
REST, filter and process the electrical output of the EB. The result,
once calibrated to be ZERO while the laser is off, will be a LINEAR
relation between weight difference and voltage, in the order of
nanograms.
The DEB will be working in a vacuum, with a Faraday-like dome, and
floating on a mercury bed (to filter vibrations, noise and EM
interferences. It also will be compensated in temperature by means to
cool it off and measure the heat excess that's eliminated.
*******************************************************************
It has not to be a perfect sphere. On the contrary.
Imagine that you take 2 mg of aluminum foil and build a case with it,
having dimensions of about 1,000 cm³. The inner coating, made of highly
reflective material, has artificial irregularities much narrower than
the laser wavelength (green, 550 nm), such that the laser beam (1 mm
radius) spread all over the interior of the cavity, with a very small
percentage escaping through the 2 mm orifice.
If necessary, make the external laser device to spatially oscillate
slowly a little amount (by mechanical means) to assure that the beam is
hitting different spots within the cavity. That will spread the
radiation all over inside its volume.
Two identical cavities are built, being each one placed on the DEB.
Their weight (a few grams) will be subtracted from their electrical
outputs, so that (in perfect balance and equilibrium), the output will
read 0.000 nanograms.
*******************************************************************
Every deviation from a perfect setup, due to different losses and
perturbations, will be measured and considered in the final result.
The differential output signal [linear function of the weight
difference] will be processed to filter NOISE, including the electrical
noise (in the order of nanovolts) generated by the EM mechanisms.
******************************************************************
If the reflected laser beams are almost 100% reflected and only a very
small fraction of energy dissipates as heat (0.001%), the energy will
5 W x 1 Hr = 18,000 Joules per hour
By m=E/c², it represents 2.0E-10 gram of mass per hour.
In 72 hours, the accumulated energy within the cavity represents
1.44E-08 gram of mass.
This value of mass represents 0.1398 microNewtons in 72 hours.
Such values are perfectly in the range of measurement for current
technologies (state of the art).
Check my second link of a lab balance ($10,000), capable of measuring
weight (mass equivalence) in the order of 0.1 microNewtons.
Imagine what can be built investing $ 100,000 or $ 1,000,000 in a
qualified lab.
*****************************************************************
This experiment allows to probe/disprove E = mc² in the real world, not
in the fairy land of the quantum/atomic world.
Your experiment is absurdly impractical. A case 1,000 cm³ in volume
would (if cubical) be 10 cm on a side. Light would be expected to
bounce off the interior surfaces about 3e9 times a second. Even if the
reflectivity were 99.999% (*IMPOSSIBLE* to achieve with diffuse
reflectors) then 3 percent of the light's energy will be lost each
second to absorption, heating up the chamber walls. It would take only
a few minutes for effectively all of the energy of a pulse of light to
be dissipated as heat. But you are not using a _pulse_ of light. You
propose using a 5 W continuous beam, meaning that over the long run,
the chamber will be heated up by 5 watts of power, or 18 KJ per hour.

In other words, your 2 mg chamber is going to get pretty warm very
fast.

Warm objects radiate heat energy. Radiated heat carries momentum.
The momentum of the radiated heat will distort your weight
measurements.
gharnagel
2024-11-18 03:36:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by gharnagel
Post by rhertz
I suggest you to read about the cavities used at Berlin
University during 1893-1900 (Wien, Planck - 2 Nobel Prize
on the same matter), and how to measure black body radiation.
I have used such cavities many times to calibrate light sources.
I suggest you reread what I wrote, particularly how many orders of
magnitude a practical system is away from your required energy.
Post by rhertz
to allow the laser beam to ENTER into the perfectly reflecting
cavity, with irregular inner coating, what allow that the laser
beam be dispersed within the small cavity, being confined there.
The laser beam can't escape,
Actually, it can: through the hole. 1 m diameter ball, 1 mm
diameter hole ==> 0.0001% loss. Still many orders of magnitude
away. The light still bounces off the wall of the sphere more
often that in a linear cavity. But you can probably get up to
higher energy in the ball this way. 5W continuous input would
get you to 5 MW, assuming no losses on the bounces, which is
wildly optimistic.
Post by rhertz
LIGO array use lasers in the kilowatt range, mirrors with almost
100% reflectivity, etc.
"Almost" isn't good enough. You're still orders of magnitude away
from a practical experiment, which is why no one has attempted one.
Obviously, there is a problem understanding the proposed experiment.
Yes, there is. What do you think the light that enters the cavity
is going to be doing?

It's going to be bouncing off the walls 3x10^8/0.1 = 3x10^9 times
per second. Each time it bounces, it will lose a minute fraction
of its energy, leaving only 0.999999 of what it had.

What is 0.999999^(3x10^9)? And that's EACH SECOND!
Post by rhertz
*******************************************************************
1) ABOUT THE DIFFERENTIAL ELECTROMAGNETIC BALANCE (there are other
Homemade Microgram Electrobalance
https://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/equipment/scale.html
The output of the two sensors are connected to electronics, which can
REST, filter and process the electrical output of the EB. The result,
once calibrated to be ZERO while the laser is off, will be a LINEAR
relation between weight difference and voltage, in the order of
nanograms.
The DEB will be working in a vacuum, with a Faraday-like dome, and
floating on a mercury bed (to filter vibrations, noise and EM
interferences. It also will be compensated in temperature by means to
cool it off and measure the heat excess that's eliminated.
*******************************************************************
It has not to be a perfect sphere. On the contrary.
Imagine that you take 2 mg of aluminum foil and build a case with it,
having dimensions of about 1,000 cm³. The inner coating, made of highly
reflective material, has artificial irregularities much narrower than
the laser wavelength (green, 550 nm), such that the laser beam (1 mm
radius) spread all over the interior of the cavity, with a very small
percentage escaping through the 2 mm orifice.
If necessary, make the external laser device to spatially oscillate
slowly a little amount (by mechanical means) to assure that the beam
is hitting different spots within the cavity. That will spread the
radiation all over inside its volume.
Two identical cavities are built, being each one placed on the DEB.
Their weight (a few grams) will be subtracted from their electrical
outputs, so that (in perfect balance and equilibrium), the output will
read 0.000 nanograms.
*******************************************************************
Every deviation from a perfect setup, due to different losses and
perturbations, will be measured and considered in the final result.
The differential output signal [linear function of the weight
difference] will be processed to filter NOISE, including the electrical
noise (in the order of nanovolts) generated by the EM mechanisms.
******************************************************************
If the reflected laser beams are almost 100% reflected and only a very
small fraction of energy dissipates as heat (0.001%), the energy will
5 W x 1 Hr = 18,000 Joules per hour
By m=E/c², it represents 2.0E-10 gram of mass per hour.
In 72 hours, the accumulated energy within the cavity represents
1.44E-08 gram of mass.
This value of mass represents 0.1398 microNewtons in 72 hours.
Such values are perfectly in the range of measurement for current
technologies (state of the art).
Check my second link of a lab balance ($10,000), capable of measuring
weight (mass equivalence) in the order of 0.1 microNewtons.
Imagine what can be built investing $ 100,000 or $ 1,000,000 in a
qualified lab.
*****************************************************************
This experiment allows to probe/disprove E = mc² in the real world,
not in the fairy land of the quantum/atomic world.
Sorry, but it won't work the way you're thinking. But there's
another way to think of it:

All the bounce losses will heat up the cavity walls. Heat is energy.
So just heat up a thick-walled ball, with a laser or whatever?

So how hot would the ball have to be to have 1.3 MJ?

Well, suppose we have a 10 cm dia. aluminum ball with a 1 mm
hole drilled to the center and blackened to absorb the light.
It would weigh about 11 kg and the temperature increase would
be about 128 C. Radiative heat loss over the surface would be
about 5.4 W, so the laser must stay on -- or extra weight added
for insulation.

11 kg may be a lot to put on a sensitive scale, so let's go to
a 5 cm ball (1.4 kg). Oops, the temperature goes to 1022 C!
Couldn't use aluminum! This is quickly getting out of hand.
Forget I said anything :-(

I'm not a metrology expert, but an 11 kg (plus) ball on a scales
that is sensitive to a few ng seems pretty far-fetched to me.
rhertz
2024-11-18 04:23:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by rhertz
Post by gharnagel
Post by rhertz
I suggest you to read about the cavities used at Berlin
University during 1893-1900 (Wien, Planck - 2 Nobel Prize
on the same matter), and how to measure black body radiation.
I have used such cavities many times to calibrate light sources.
I suggest you reread what I wrote, particularly how many orders of
magnitude a practical system is away from your required energy.
Post by rhertz
to allow the laser beam to ENTER into the perfectly reflecting
cavity, with irregular inner coating, what allow that the laser
beam be dispersed within the small cavity, being confined there.
The laser beam can't escape,
Actually, it can: through the hole. 1 m diameter ball, 1 mm
diameter hole ==> 0.0001% loss. Still many orders of magnitude
away. The light still bounces off the wall of the sphere more
often that in a linear cavity. But you can probably get up to
higher energy in the ball this way. 5W continuous input would
get you to 5 MW, assuming no losses on the bounces, which is
wildly optimistic.
Post by rhertz
LIGO array use lasers in the kilowatt range, mirrors with almost
100% reflectivity, etc.
"Almost" isn't good enough. You're still orders of magnitude away
from a practical experiment, which is why no one has attempted one.
Obviously, there is a problem understanding the proposed experiment.
Yes, there is. What do you think the light that enters the cavity
is going to be doing?
It's going to be bouncing off the walls 3x10^8/0.1 = 3x10^9 times
per second. Each time it bounces, it will lose a minute fraction
of its energy, leaving only 0.999999 of what it had.
What is 0.999999^(3x10^9)? And that's EACH SECOND!
Post by rhertz
*******************************************************************
1) ABOUT THE DIFFERENTIAL ELECTROMAGNETIC BALANCE (there are other
Homemade Microgram Electrobalance
https://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/equipment/scale.html
The output of the two sensors are connected to electronics, which can
REST, filter and process the electrical output of the EB. The result,
once calibrated to be ZERO while the laser is off, will be a LINEAR
relation between weight difference and voltage, in the order of
nanograms.
The DEB will be working in a vacuum, with a Faraday-like dome, and
floating on a mercury bed (to filter vibrations, noise and EM
interferences. It also will be compensated in temperature by means to
cool it off and measure the heat excess that's eliminated.
*******************************************************************
It has not to be a perfect sphere. On the contrary.
Imagine that you take 2 mg of aluminum foil and build a case with it,
having dimensions of about 1,000 cm³. The inner coating, made of highly
reflective material, has artificial irregularities much narrower than
the laser wavelength (green, 550 nm), such that the laser beam (1 mm
radius) spread all over the interior of the cavity, with a very small
percentage escaping through the 2 mm orifice.
If necessary, make the external laser device to spatially oscillate
slowly a little amount (by mechanical means) to assure that the beam
is hitting different spots within the cavity. That will spread the
radiation all over inside its volume.
Two identical cavities are built, being each one placed on the DEB.
Their weight (a few grams) will be subtracted from their electrical
outputs, so that (in perfect balance and equilibrium), the output will
read 0.000 nanograms.
*******************************************************************
Every deviation from a perfect setup, due to different losses and
perturbations, will be measured and considered in the final result.
The differential output signal [linear function of the weight
difference] will be processed to filter NOISE, including the electrical
noise (in the order of nanovolts) generated by the EM mechanisms.
******************************************************************
If the reflected laser beams are almost 100% reflected and only a very
small fraction of energy dissipates as heat (0.001%), the energy will
5 W x 1 Hr = 18,000 Joules per hour
By m=E/c², it represents 2.0E-10 gram of mass per hour.
In 72 hours, the accumulated energy within the cavity represents
1.44E-08 gram of mass.
This value of mass represents 0.1398 microNewtons in 72 hours.
Such values are perfectly in the range of measurement for current
technologies (state of the art).
Check my second link of a lab balance ($10,000), capable of measuring
weight (mass equivalence) in the order of 0.1 microNewtons.
Imagine what can be built investing $ 100,000 or $ 1,000,000 in a
qualified lab.
*****************************************************************
This experiment allows to probe/disprove E = mc² in the real world,
not in the fairy land of the quantum/atomic world.
Sorry, but it won't work the way you're thinking. But there's
All the bounce losses will heat up the cavity walls. Heat is energy.
So just heat up a thick-walled ball, with a laser or whatever?
So how hot would the ball have to be to have 1.3 MJ?
Well, suppose we have a 10 cm dia. aluminum ball with a 1 mm
hole drilled to the center and blackened to absorb the light.
It would weigh about 11 kg and the temperature increase would
be about 128 C. Radiative heat loss over the surface would be
about 5.4 W, so the laser must stay on -- or extra weight added
for insulation.
11 kg may be a lot to put on a sensitive scale, so let's go to
a 5 cm ball (1.4 kg). Oops, the temperature goes to 1022 C!
Couldn't use aluminum! This is quickly getting out of hand.
Forget I said anything :-(
I'm not a metrology expert, but an 11 kg (plus) ball on a scales
that is sensitive to a few ng seems pretty far-fetched to me.
1) You obviously don't know anything about almost perfect reflectivity
of advanced coating materials, like the ones used in the mirrors of the
LIGO instrument, which reflect with ultra-high effectivity 40 Watts
lasers, which are reflected 18,750 times to obtain the cumulative power
of 750,000 watts before the composite beam reach the detector. Make some
research on this.

2) I see that you are in denial of what you read. I wrote CLEARLY that
the weight of each cavity is 2.00 grams. They are done with very thin
composite materials, much more advanced than acrylic mirrors, in the
order of 99.999+ % of reflectivity. Make your calculations again.

I don't know why you are writing about 11 Kg balls, when I wrote that
each cavity weight about 0.002 Kg, and that the output of the
differential electromagnetic balance CANCEL both weights at time ZERO.

The reading of the instrument would be (t = 0) 0.000 micrograms. While
the excited cavity STORE the energy (losses are computed), the companion
cavity is passive, so the balance READ THE DIFFERENCE OF 2 gr + weight
gain - 2 gr (passive cavity).

3) I think that you may learn something about current capabilities by
reading descriptions of LIGO assembly (which are old systems). Then try
to read something about the new systems, built after the couple of LIGO
systems. Maybe, it will be an eye-opener for your stubbornness.

Please, read ALL WHAT I POST, because you don't. I'm an EE, and I don't
write idiocies when dealing with details of experiments involving
technology. I'm very careful with numbers.

If you don't like the idea, write numbers and considerations that make
sense, instead of posting deceiving/incorrect data, which has no support
based on references. I post data WITH REFERENCES, citing links.
gharnagel
2024-11-18 14:41:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
1) You obviously don't know anything about almost perfect
reflectivity of advanced coating materials, like the ones
used in the mirrors of the LIGO instrument, which reflect
with ultra-high effectivity 40 Watts lasers, which are
reflected 18,750 times to obtain the cumulative power
of 750,000 watts before the composite beam reach the
detector. Make some research on this.
750,000 Watts?! That's ridiculous! :-))
Post by rhertz
2) I see that you are in denial of what you read.
Pot, kettle, black.
Post by rhertz
I wrote CLEARLY that the weight of each cavity is 2.00 grams.
Which would quickly burn up because of the losses.
Post by rhertz
They are done with very thin composite materials, much more
advanced than acrylic mirrors, in the order of 99.999+ % of
reflectivity. Make your calculations again.
Make yours.
Post by rhertz
I don't know why you are writing about 11 Kg balls,
Then you're obviously not understanding what I wrote, and
you're in denial of the physics involved.
Post by rhertz
[Blah, blah, blah]
[Blah, blah, blah]
Maybe, it will be an eye-opener for your stubbornness.
Pot, kettle, black
Post by rhertz
Please, read ALL WHAT I POST, because you don't.
Au contraire. I did.
Post by rhertz
I'm an EE,
So am I ... and a physicist.
Post by rhertz
and I don't write idiocies when dealing with details of
experiments involving technology.
Apparently, you do :-)

750,000 watts?!!! :-))
Post by rhertz
I'm very careful with numbers.
But you ignore physics. LIGO does NOT build up 750,000 Watts!
It's an interferometer. The light doesn't go back and forth
between mirrors 18000 times. It is split between two arms,
goes 4 km down each arm, is reflected by mirrors at the end,
comes back and the two beqams go to a detector. End of story.
You are conflating LIGO with something completely different.

You are speculating a build up of energy inside your little
ball. With 99.9999% reflectivity each time the light bounces
off the wall, CALCULATE how many times that light must bounce
in 72 hours. What's left will be a skinny zero. CALCULATE
where all that lost energy goes! The only answer is heat.
Your little ball goes poof!
Post by rhertz
If you don't like the idea, write numbers and considerations
that make sense, instead of posting deceiving/incorrect data,
which has no support based on references. I post data WITH
REFERENCES, citing links.
I use PHYSICS. You can get the info out of a physics textbook.
I gave the results of my calculations. You completely missed
the fact that your little ball would become a sphere of flame.
I suggested an alternative that avoided that catastrophe and
followed the science of it.

“People love answers, but only as long as they are the ones
who came up with them.” ― Criss Jami

Reread what I wrote and find out why I suggested an 11 kg ball.
Try to understand that heat is E = mc^2 energy, too. Since
your little ball gets trashed because it overheats, USE the heat
for the experiment. Use the 5W laser to heat the ball.

I also showed what would happen if you reduced the size of
the ball (poof!). It's still ridiculous because the proposed
scales is too fragile to handle the weight.

Too bad. Nice ideas, but a good physicist, doing a few simple
calculations would have seen right off that it wouldn't work.

Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that
is good is not original, and the part that is original is not
good. -- Samuel Johnson
rhertz
2024-11-18 19:43:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by rhertz
1) You obviously don't know anything about almost perfect
reflectivity of advanced coating materials, like the ones
used in the mirrors of the LIGO instrument, which reflect
with ultra-high effectivity 40 Watts lasers, which are
reflected 18,750 times to obtain the cumulative power
of 750,000 watts before the composite beam reach the
detector. Make some research on this.
750,000 Watts?! That's ridiculous! :-))
Read this, from Caltech. The descriptions are based on 2008 technology:

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligo-technology

Read this. from the original LIGO team (1998).

https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0000/P070082/004/P070082-v4.pdf

Some insights, that I try to resume for you:


1) Laser power on each arm is incremented about 300 times, to obtain an
effective length of about 1,000 Km. Once each beam has bounced such an
amount, on each arm, they are combined (Michelson like interferometer)
so the OUTPUT directed over the photodetector is ZERO.

The laser is a highly stabilized infrared laser of 1064 nanometers.

Initially, the laser power was relatively low, around 10 Watts, but it
was increased over the years up to 50 Watts. This power is amplified
inside the interferometer using power recycling and resonant Fabry-Perot
cavities, increasing the effective circulating power in the arms to
hundreds of kilowatts (up to 750 kW in the most recent configurations).

Higher laser power reduces the shot noise, a quantum noise source that
limits the sensitivity of the interferometer, improving the precision of
the signal detected, once both beams are combined, resulting in a
destructive interference, so the input to the photodetector is ZERO in
normal conditions. The sensitivity allows detecting length variations in
the order of 10E-18 mts.


<snip>
Post by gharnagel
Post by rhertz
I wrote CLEARLY that the weight of each cavity is 2.00 grams.
Which would quickly burn up because of the losses.
Post by rhertz
They are done with very thin composite materials, much more
advanced than acrylic mirrors, in the order of 99.999+ % of
reflectivity. Make your calculations again.
2) The reflectivity of the mirrors is so high that it reflect all but
one of every 5 million photons that hit them. This means a reflectivity
of 99.99998 %.

This reflectivity means that only 10 μW/hit are absorbed by the mirrors.

As the beam inside the proposed cavity is deflected so it barely hit the
same spot in 1 second, the absorbed energy per spot inside the cavity is
about 10 μJoules/sec = 0.036 Joules/Hr = 0.0086 calories/hour x spot.

Considering that I wrote that the GENERATED HEAT in the entire cavity is
EXTRACTED by the proper use of refrigeration (and also measured), the
environment in which the cavity resides REMAIN IN THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM.




<snip>
Post by gharnagel
Post by rhertz
I'm an EE,
So am I ... and a physicist.
Post by rhertz
and I don't write idiocies when dealing with details of
experiments involving technology.
Apparently, you do :-)
750,000 watts?!!! :-))
Post by rhertz
I'm very careful with numbers.
But you ignore physics. LIGO does NOT build up 750,000 Watts!
It's an interferometer. The light doesn't go back and forth
between mirrors 18000 times. It is split between two arms,
goes 4 km down each arm, is reflected by mirrors at the end,
comes back and the two beqams go to a detector. End of story.
You are conflating LIGO with something completely different.
You are speculating a build up of energy inside your little
ball. With 99.9999% reflectivity each time the light bounces
off the wall, CALCULATE how many times that light must bounce
in 72 hours. What's left will be a skinny zero. CALCULATE
where all that lost energy goes! The only answer is heat.
Your little ball goes poof!
I CLEARLY WROTE: REFRIGERATED, with vibrations cancelled AND ALMOST IN
VACUUM. Both actions are measured. Vacuum can be as high as
one-trillionth that of sea level, which means there are about 10 million
molecules per cubic centimeter.

If you don't like the amplification to 750,000 Watts from 50 Watts, go
and comply with LIGO people, not to me.

<snip>
Post by gharnagel
Reread what I wrote and find out why I suggested an 11 kg ball.
Try to understand that heat is E = mc^2 energy, too. Since
your little ball gets trashed because it overheats, USE the heat
for the experiment. Use the 5W laser to heat the ball.
I also showed what would happen if you reduced the size of
the ball (poof!). It's still ridiculous because the proposed
scales is too fragile to handle the weight.
I clearly wrote: 2 grams/cavity and 1,000 cm³ each.

I didn't say that the experiment was going to be cheap. Maybe it's in
the range of ten million USD.

The technology exists today, even when not available for anyone. It is
possible an ad-hoc setup, with materials and subsystems built for this
specific purpose.


Conclusion: The experiment is perfectly possible to be made in 2024.
There are more details left outside this reply, but better in this way.
The proposal is just a sketch, and I cited MAJOR ISSUES only.
rhertz
2024-11-18 19:51:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
CORRECTION:

The calculations were made for a 50W laser, not for a 5W laser. The new
values are:

NEW TEXT:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This reflectivity means that only 1 μW/hit are absorbed by the mirrors.

As the beam inside the proposed cavity is deflected so it barely hit the
same spot in 1 second, the absorbed energy per spot inside the cavity is
about 1 μJoules/sec = 0.0036 Joules/Hr = 0.00086 calories/hour x spot.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
gharnagel
2024-11-19 00:48:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by gharnagel
750,000 Watts?! That's ridiculous! :-))
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligo-technology
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0000/P070082/004/P070082-v4.pdf
1) Laser power on each arm is incremented about 300 times,
No. You misunderstand what is happening. The beam hits a
different spot on the mirrors each time.
Post by rhertz
to obtain an effective length of about 1,000 Km.
The 50W beam is spread over 1000 km. How much energy is
contained in that distance? Delta t = 1000/299792.458 = 3.3 ms.
E = 50*.0033 = 0.167 J. That's the amount of energy in the
whole 1000 km at any one time, and then it exits the arm on
its way to the detector.
Post by rhertz
This power is amplified inside the interferometer using power
recycling and resonant Fabry-Perot cavities, increasing the
effective circulating power in the arms to hundreds of
kilowatts (up to 750 kW in the most recent configurations).
This is your misinterpretation of the LIGO system. There is
no mention of 750 kW in their blurb, nor of "amplifying" the
signal to more than 50 W.
Post by rhertz
2) The reflectivity of the mirrors is so high that it reflect
all but one of every 5 million photons that hit them. This
means a reflectivity of 99.99998 %.
Yes, which is insignificant loss for only 600 reflections:
0.9999998^600 = 0.99988.

But assuming the beam didn't exit but hit the same spots on
the mirrors and built up from 50 W to 750 kW, you would need
30,000 hits. 0.9999998^30000 = 0.994. Each mirror would have
to absorb .003*750000 = 225 W, which is more than the 50 W
laser can supply.

BUT YOU WANT TO PUT IT IN A SHORT CAVITY.

How many hits if the cavity were only 10 cm?! Use your
carefulness with numbers to calculate THAT.
Post by rhertz
This reflectivity means that only 10 μW/hit are absorbed by
the mirrors.
Each hit. They REALLY add up when you have a short cavity.
Post by rhertz
Considering that I wrote that the GENERATED HEAT in the entire
cavity is EXTRACTED by the proper use of refrigeration (and also
measured), the environment in which the cavity resides REMAIN IN
THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM.
Even if you could cool 750 kW, your tiny cavity would be smoked.
Post by rhertz
Post by gharnagel
You are speculating a build up of energy inside your little
ball. With 99.9999% reflectivity each time the light bounces
off the wall, CALCULATE how many times that light must bounce
in 72 hours. What's left will be a skinny zero. CALCULATE
where all that lost energy goes! The only answer is heat.
Your little ball goes poof!
I CLEARLY WROTE: REFRIGERATED, with vibrations cancelled AND
ALMOST IN VACUUM. Both actions are measured. Vacuum can be as
high as one-trillionth that of sea level, which means there are
about 10 million molecules per cubic centimeter.
Irrelevant, since all the light would become heat, which wouldn't
be so bad except that the refrigerator, if you could handle that
load, would suck all the energy out that you were trying to detect.
Post by rhertz
If you don't like the amplification to 750,000 Watts from 50 Watts, go
and comply with LIGO people, not to me.
I guess you mean "complain" Perhaps YOU should ask them if they
ever said anything about 750 kW. I'm quite sure they didn't.
Post by rhertz
Post by gharnagel
I also showed what would happen if you reduced the size of
the ball (poof!). It's still ridiculous because the proposed
scales is too fragile to handle the weight.
I clearly wrote: 2 grams/cavity and 1,000 cm³ each.
I didn't say that the experiment was going to be cheap. Maybe
it's in the range of ten million USD.
Maybe more like 100 quadrillion, since it's impossible and the
government likes to spend money. Oh, wait, Musk and Ramaswamy
are looking over their shoulders :-)
Post by rhertz
The technology exists today, even when not available for anyone.
It is possible an ad-hoc setup, with materials and subsystems
built for this specific purpose.
The proposal is just a sketch, and I cited MAJOR ISSUES only.
But you forgot the superlative issue: poof!
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-18 23:20:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
But you ignore physics. LIGO does NOT build up 750,000 Watts!
It's an interferometer. The light doesn't go back and forth
between mirrors 18000 times. It is split between two arms,
goes 4 km down each arm, is reflected by mirrors at the end,
comes back and the two beqams go to a detector. End of story.
You are conflating LIGO with something completely different.
Richard's numbers are off, but look up Fabry-Perot cavity.
rhertz
2024-11-19 00:13:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by gharnagel
But you ignore physics. LIGO does NOT build up 750,000 Watts!
It's an interferometer. The light doesn't go back and forth
between mirrors 18000 times. It is split between two arms,
goes 4 km down each arm, is reflected by mirrors at the end,
comes back and the two beqams go to a detector. End of story.
You are conflating LIGO with something completely different.
Richard's numbers are off, but look up Fabry-Perot cavity.
I didn't invent any of these numbers. This information, which I
retrieved from several official sites, like Caltech, showed the
evolution of the technology developed since 1998. The project started
with 10W IR laser, ending with 47W lasers.

The beam power amplification in the Fabry-Perot cavity started with a
factor of 300, 20 years ago. This allowed them to publish that the
"virtual length" of the largest arm was about 1,000 Km.

As time advanced, the technology developed for the Fabry-Perot cavities
(2 per arm) also advanced, reaching today an amplification factor of
about
18,000 (what is equivalent to the mentioned 750,000 Watts).

Again, don't blame me for the published data. I just quoted it, and also
provided two links with valuable information. The oldest one points to
an old document signed by more than 30 scientists (50 pages), which
reveal the state of LIGO circa year 2000.

And about the multilayered coating used in the mirrors, which also
evolve with the pace of time, can be perfectly applied to the interior
of the cavity that I proposed, without restrictions except money.

I proposed a 550 nm green laser, without knowing the use of IR in LIGO.
But, such wavelength makes possible multiple layers of coating
(verifying thickness of integer wavelengths) and, also, a very low
weight. I thought of 2 grams per cavity just because, but there are no
differences in the outcome if each cavity weight 10 grams (this is a
lot).

The differential electromagnetic balance still will resolve nanograms.

And regarding the absorbed heat of the entire cavity PER HOUR, I checked
my numbers many times a while ago, and the numbers are ridiculously low.

Consider that there is a direct relationship between Joules and
calories, and that 1 CALORIE is defined as the heat that rises 1"C one
gram of water. You can relate, then, the temperature increase per hour
due to the absorption of energy of the 550 nm laser by the entire
cavity. If you don't like that way of calculation, you can use the
number of hits/second on every spot (area = that of the laser beam), and
use this number multiplied by the number of spots in the inner part of
the cavity. I clearly stated that the inner cavity has to have an
irregular surface (in the order of nm) to guarantee that the beam is
dispersed into the cavity, instead of hitting the same spot
continuously.

In the long term, the cavity will be filled with uniform green
radiation, which is like what happened with Planck's black body cavity,
that allowed him to develop his famous formula.


There is much more to say, but this is not the place, so I stop here.

Ideas are ideas, in particular if some realistic criteria are presented.

Not the case of Einstein, his magic train, ghosts observers, perfect
mirrors and beams of light in a fantastic world without gravity, matter
and absence of forces that prevent inertial motion.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-19 09:41:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by gharnagel
But you ignore physics. LIGO does NOT build up 750,000 Watts!
It's an interferometer. The light doesn't go back and forth
between mirrors 18000 times. It is split between two arms,
goes 4 km down each arm, is reflected by mirrors at the end,
comes back and the two beqams go to a detector. End of story.
You are conflating LIGO with something completely different.
Richard's numbers are off, but look up Fabry-Perot cavity.
I didn't invent any of these numbers. This information, which I
retrieved from several official sites, like Caltech, showed the
evolution of the technology developed since 1998. The project started
with 10W IR laser, ending with 47W lasers.
The beam power amplification in the Fabry-Perot cavity started with a
factor of 300, 20 years ago. This allowed them to publish that the
"virtual length" of the largest arm was about 1,000 Km.
As time advanced, the technology developed for the Fabry-Perot cavities
(2 per arm) also advanced, reaching today an amplification factor of
about
18,000 (what is equivalent to the mentioned 750,000 Watts).
When I look at the screenshot on the following page, taken during an
actual run, https://tinyurl.com/2v3kssvv I see a circulating power of
358.8 KW versus an input power of 63.5 W. This implies an
amplification factor of 5650. This is not a freely adjustable number,
but one dictated by the physics of the Fabry-Perot mirrors. Look down
at the diagram captioned "Basic Michelson interferometer with Fabry
Perot cavities." The far mirrors will be 99.999% reflective, but the
mirrors near the beam splitter must necessarily be partially
transmissive, otherwise power cannot enter the Fabry Perot cavity.
It's an interesting optimization problem. The more transmissive the
near mirrors, the more light enters the FP cavity, but the fewer the
reflections. The more reflective the mirrors, the more the power
amplification factor, but less light enters the cavities, and the
system's sensitivity to high frequency gravitational waves is also
limited. Once they settled on an optimum transmissivity for the near
mirrors, they could not arbitrarily adjust this parameter.
Post by rhertz
Again, don't blame me for the published data. I just quoted it, and also
provided two links with valuable information. The oldest one points to
an old document signed by more than 30 scientists (50 pages), which
reveal the state of LIGO circa year 2000.
And about the multilayered coating used in the mirrors, which also
evolve with the pace of time, can be perfectly applied to the interior
of the cavity that I proposed, without restrictions except money.
Nope. Physics limits their application.
You can achieve 99.999% reflectivity only at one specific angle
(which is dependent on the mirror design). If the mirror reflects
99.999% of light normal to the surface, it won't reflect 99.999% of
the light at other angles.
Post by rhertz
I proposed a 550 nm green laser, without knowing the use of IR in LIGO.
But, such wavelength makes possible multiple layers of coating
(verifying thickness of integer wavelengths) and, also, a very low
weight. I thought of 2 grams per cavity just because, but there are no
differences in the outcome if each cavity weight 10 grams (this is a
lot).
The differential electromagnetic balance still will resolve nanograms.
And regarding the absorbed heat of the entire cavity PER HOUR, I checked
my numbers many times a while ago, and the numbers are ridiculously low.
At steady state, the absorbed power equals the input power. So the
cavity will emit IR in all directions, distorting your weight
measurements since the emitted IR carries momentum.
Post by rhertz
Consider that there is a direct relationship between Joules and
calories, and that 1 CALORIE is defined as the heat that rises 1"C one
gram of water. You can relate, then, the temperature increase per hour
due to the absorption of energy of the 550 nm laser by the entire
cavity. If you don't like that way of calculation, you can use the
number of hits/second on every spot (area = that of the laser beam), and
use this number multiplied by the number of spots in the inner part of
the cavity. I clearly stated that the inner cavity has to have an
irregular surface (in the order of nm) to guarantee that the beam is
dispersed into the cavity, instead of hitting the same spot
continuously.
In the long term, the cavity will be filled with uniform green
radiation, which is like what happened with Planck's black body cavity,
that allowed him to develop his famous formula.
There is much more to say, but this is not the place, so I stop here.
Ideas are ideas, in particular if some realistic criteria are presented.
Not the case of Einstein, his magic train, ghosts observers, perfect
mirrors and beams of light in a fantastic world without gravity, matter
and absence of forces that prevent inertial motion.
gharnagel
2024-11-19 16:06:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
When I look at the screenshot on the following page, taken during an
actual run, https://tinyurl.com/2v3kssvv I see a circulating power of
358.8 KW versus an input power of 63.5 W. This implies an
amplification factor of 5650. This is not a freely adjustable number,
but one dictated by the physics of the Fabry-Perot mirrors. Look down
at the diagram captioned "Basic Michelson interferometer with Fabry
Perot cavities." The far mirrors will be 99.999% reflective, but the
mirrors near the beam splitter must necessarily be partially
transmissive, otherwise power cannot enter the Fabry Perot cavity.
It's an interesting optimization problem. The more transmissive the
near mirrors, the more light enters the FP cavity, but the fewer the
reflections. The more reflective the mirrors, the more the power
amplification factor, but less light enters the cavities, and the
system's sensitivity to high frequency gravitational waves is also
limited. Once they settled on an optimum transmissivity for the near
mirrors, they could not arbitrarily adjust this parameter.
Post by rhertz
And about the multilayered coating used in the mirrors, which
also evolve with the pace of time, can be perfectly applied to
the interior of the cavity that I proposed, without restrictions
except money.
Nope. Physics limits their application.
You can achieve 99.999% reflectivity only at one specific angle
(which is dependent on the mirror design). If the mirror reflects
99.999% of light normal to the surface, it won't reflect 99.999% of
the light at other angles.
Exactly. I didn't realize how complex the LIGO optical train was,
nor the "power recycling" concept:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0305

I'm still quite certain, however, that when you throw 750 kW
into a 10 cm ball with walls that are 0.999999 reflective,
the losses will, as you say, cause serious problems.

For one, that's a loss of 0.75 W/bounce, and bounces will happen
c/0.1 = 3x10^9 times per second -- IF one could supply the power
to keep it operating. In which case, the whole thing would make
a beautiful incendiary display. With only 5 W input to drive
the system, however, it would heat up to about 300 C, according
to my radiation slide rule.

For another, most of the light bouncing around won't be coming in
at normal incidence, so losses will be greater.

I still think it's a loss cause. My worst loss cause was I built
a system to spin up a 4-inch diameter aluminum disc, 1 inch thick,
to 27000 rpm (it was scary!). Some engineer has patented what he
called a "kinemassic effect." I thought it might be a gravitational
drag effect from spinning nuclei, and an equation in a paper by
Robert Forward seemed to confirm it, and my experiment should have
revealed it.

It didn't.

Turns out, Forward left out a term in his equation that almost
canceled the L-T effect :-(
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-19 16:41:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Nope. Physics limits their application.
You can achieve 99.999% reflectivity only at one specific angle
(which is dependent on the mirror design). If the mirror reflects
99.999% of light normal to the surface, it won't reflect 99.999% of
the light at other angles.
Exactly. I didn't realize how complex the LIGO optical train was,
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0305
I'm still quite certain, however, that when you throw 750 kW
into a 10 cm ball with walls that are 0.999999 reflective,
the losses will, as you say, cause serious problems.
For one, that's a loss of 0.75 W/bounce, and bounces will happen
c/0.1 = 3x10^9 times per second -- IF one could supply the power
to keep it operating. In which case, the whole thing would make
a beautiful incendiary display. With only 5 W input to drive
the system, however, it would heat up to about 300 C, according
to my radiation slide rule.
No. Your loss per bounce calculation is off.
Think conservation of energy.
At steady state, 5 W input equals 5 W output, which is not incendiary.

It _is_ warm enough, however, that the whole shebang needs to be run
in ultra-high vacuum to avoid convective effects.
gharnagel
2024-11-19 18:04:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by gharnagel
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Nope. Physics limits their application.
You can achieve 99.999% reflectivity only at one specific angle
(which is dependent on the mirror design). If the mirror reflects
99.999% of light normal to the surface, it won't reflect 99.999% of
the light at other angles.
Exactly. I didn't realize how complex the LIGO optical train was,
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0305
I'm still quite certain, however, that when you throw 750 kW
into a 10 cm ball with walls that are 0.999999 reflective,
the losses will, as you say, cause serious problems.
For one, that's a loss of 0.75 W/bounce, and bounces will happen
c/0.1 = 3x10^9 times per second -- IF one could supply the power
to keep it operating. In which case, the whole thing would make
a beautiful incendiary display. With only 5 W input to drive
the system, however, it would heat up to about 300 C, according
to my radiation slide rule.
No. Your loss per bounce calculation is off.
Think conservation of energy.
Prok, Prok, Prok! Did you not read the above sentence that begins
with "-- IF"?
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
At steady state, 5 W input equals 5 W output, which is not
incendiary.
It _is_ warm enough, however, that the whole shebang needs to be
run in ultra-high vacuum to avoid convective effects.
The 300 degree temperature rise I calculated was under such
condition, based upon 300 cm^2 of surface area radiating with
no convection.

The point is, though, that with 3x10^9 bounces/second, it would
take much less than a second to whittle 5 W down to nothing:
1E5 bounces: 0.905Po
1E6 bounces: 0.368Po
2E6 bounces: 0.135Po
3E6 bounces: 0.050Po (in the first msec)
4E6 bounces: 0.018Po
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-19 20:04:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by gharnagel
Exactly. I didn't realize how complex the LIGO optical train was,
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0305
I'm still quite certain, however, that when you throw 750 kW
into a 10 cm ball with walls that are 0.999999 reflective,
the losses will, as you say, cause serious problems.
For one, that's a loss of 0.75 W/bounce, and bounces will happen
c/0.1 = 3x10^9 times per second -- IF one could supply the power
to keep it operating. In which case, the whole thing would make
a beautiful incendiary display. With only 5 W input to drive
the system, however, it would heat up to about 300 C, according
to my radiation slide rule.
No. Your loss per bounce calculation is off.
Think conservation of energy.
Prok, Prok, Prok! Did you not read the above sentence that begins
with "-- IF"?
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
At steady state, 5 W input equals 5 W output, which is not
incendiary.
It _is_ warm enough, however, that the whole shebang needs to be
run in ultra-high vacuum to avoid convective effects.
The 300 degree temperature rise I calculated was under such
condition, based upon 300 cm^2 of surface area radiating with
no convection.
The point is, though, that with 3x10^9 bounces/second, it would
1E5 bounces: 0.905Po
1E6 bounces: 0.368Po
2E6 bounces: 0.135Po
3E6 bounces: 0.050Po (in the first msec)
4E6 bounces: 0.018Po
5 watts is approximately the energy output of an old-style
incandescent nightlight run off a Powerstat variable transformer
set to 100 volts. Even if I plugged the nightlight into 120 volt
mains, I can still hold the nightlight in my hand without it being
too uncomfortable. How did you calculate 300 C? Are you sure you
didn't mean 300 K?

Your bounce attenuation calculation is a bit off.
rhertz
2024-11-20 00:47:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
To make things more realistic and feasible, I changed the material of
the cavity for aluminum, which has a reflectivity of 99%. I figure out
the weight of each cavity as being 2 grams.

The aluminum coating on the inside has, on purpose, an irregular surface
in the order of nanometers, so the laser beam will disperse in each
bounce.

I suggest that the laser output be dispersed by a vibrating lens, prior
to its entry to the cavity. In this way, the beam will be continuously
dispersed. Even more, 4 or 5 different lasers (total power = 5 W) be
placed in such a way that they cover the entire volume of the cavity,
accelerating the process of energy spread in its volume.

New calculations, using aluminum:



h = 6.62607E-34 J.sec
λ = 5.50E-07 m
c = 3.00E+08 m/s
E(photon) = 1.21E-48 Joules

5 W = 5 Joules/sec = 4.12E+48 photons/sec
5 Joules/hour = 1.48E+52 photons/hour

Inner surface of cavity = 7.85E+03 mm²
Area of laser spot = 3.14159 mm²
2,500 spots

Time between hits = 3.333E-10 seconds (10 cm avg. trajectory)
3.00E+09 bounces/sec

photon hits/sec in the cavity = 1.37E+39
photons hit/sec x spot = 5.4879643E+35

Reflectivity with aluminum = 99.0%
photons reflected/sec x spot = 5.4330846E+35
photons absorbed/sec x spot = 5.49E+33

energy lost/sec x spot = 6.67E-15 J
energy lost/sec in the cavity = 1.67E-11 J
energy lost/Hr in the cavity = 6.00E-08 J
energy lost/Hr in the cavity = 1.43E-08 cal/Hr


energy lost in 72 Hr, in the cavity = 1.032E-06 calories

Even if I made errors in the order of 1,000:1, still the heat absorbed
is insignificant (0.00103 calories).




AS A REFERENCE:

1 calorie is the heat that raises 1"C to one gram of water.

With this new arrangement and materials, proving/disproving E=mc² should
be much easier and cheap. The weight increment is in the order of 9 μN
(1.0368 μgrams of MASS) can be measured with EM balances of $ 10,000.
Paul B. Andersen
2024-11-20 21:27:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
To make things more realistic and feasible, I changed the material of
the cavity for aluminum, which has a reflectivity of 99%. I figure out
the weight of each cavity as being 2 grams.
The aluminum coating on the inside has, on purpose, an irregular surface
in the order of nanometers, so the laser beam will disperse in each
bounce.
I suggest that the laser output be dispersed by a vibrating lens, prior
to its entry to the cavity. In this way, the beam will be continuously
dispersed. Even more, 4 or 5 different lasers (total power = 5 W) be
placed in such a way that they cover the entire volume of the cavity,
accelerating the process of energy spread in its volume.
h = 6.62607E-34    J.sec
λ = 5.50E-07 m
c = 3.00E+08 m/s
E(photon) = 1.21E-48 Joules
5 W = 5 Joules/sec = 4.12E+48 photons/sec
5 Joules/hour = 1.48E+52 photons/hour
Inner surface of cavity = 7.85E+03 mm²
Area of laser spot  =      3.14159 mm²
                     2,500    spots
Time between hits =     3.333E-10 seconds (10 cm avg. trajectory)
                    3.00E+09 bounces/sec
photon hits/sec in the cavity = 1.37E+39
photons hit/sec x spot =     5.4879643E+35
Reflectivity with aluminum =     99.0%
photons reflected/sec x spot =     5.4330846E+35
photons absorbed/sec x spot =     5.49E+33
energy lost/sec x spot =     6.67E-15 J
energy lost/sec in the cavity = 1.67E-11 J
energy lost/Hr in the cavity =     6.00E-08 J
energy lost/Hr in the cavity =     1.43E-08 cal/Hr
energy lost in 72 Hr, in the cavity =     1.032E-06 calories
Even if I made errors in the order of 1,000:1, still the heat absorbed
is insignificant (0.00103 calories).
1 calorie is the heat that raises 1"C to one gram of water.
With this new arrangement and materials, proving/disproving E=mc² should
be much easier and cheap. The weight increment is in the order of 9 μN
(1.0368 μgrams of MASS) can be measured with EM balances of $ 10,000.
Its remarkable that you (and others) don't understand how hopeless
this is.

You send a laser beam with power P₀ = 5W into a cavity with inner
reflectivity R = 0.99.
It is irrelevant if the beam is diffused, when the light hits the inner
walls of the cavity, it is reflected and the reflected power is P₀*R.
The reflected light will then hit the opposite wall and be reflected
again. The reflected power is now P₀*R*R.
When the light has been reflected n times, the reflected power is
P = P₀⋅Rⁿ.

If n = 24170 the reflected power is P = 1.590e-105 W ≈ 0 W

If the cavity is spherical with volume 1000 cm³, the diameter
is D = 12.4 cm. Which means that the light will be reflected
24170 times during 10 μs.
If you integrate the energy of the laser light in the cavity
it will be constant 2.05e-7 J
During the 10 μs 5⋅1e-6 J is put into the cavity, so 4.9795e-05 J
will be heat in cavity walls.

The heat energy in the cavity walls will genearally be:
E = (5⋅t - 2.05e-7) J where t is the time in seconds.

The temperature of the walls will increase, and steady
state will be when the outside of the cavity has a temperature
so that the radiated power (and convection loss) is 5 W.

At that time, the cavity will be filled by black body radiation
with temperature equal to the inner walls.

Have I missed something?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-20 21:58:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Its remarkable that you (and others) don't understand how hopeless
this is.
You send a laser beam with power P₀ = 5W into a cavity with inner
reflectivity R = 0.99.
It is irrelevant if the beam is diffused, when the light hits the inner
walls of the cavity, it is reflected and the reflected power is P₀*R.
The reflected light will then hit the opposite wall and be reflected
again. The reflected power is now P₀*R*R.
When the light has been reflected n times, the reflected power is
P = P₀⋅Rⁿ.
If n = 24170 the reflected power is P = 1.590e-105 W ≈ 0 W
If the cavity is spherical with volume 1000 cm³, the diameter
is D = 12.4 cm. Which means that the light will be reflected
24170 times during 10 μs.
If you integrate the energy of the laser light in the cavity
it will be constant 2.05e-7 J
During the 10 μs 5⋅1e-6 J is put into the cavity, so 4.9795e-05 J
will be heat in cavity walls.
E = (5⋅t - 2.05e-7) J where t is the time in seconds.
The temperature of the walls will increase, and steady
state will be when the outside of the cavity has a temperature
so that the radiated power (and convection loss) is 5 W.
At that time, the cavity will be filled by black body radiation
with temperature equal to the inner walls.
Have I missed something?
Nothing that I can see. :-)
gharnagel
2024-11-20 00:48:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by gharnagel
The 300 degree temperature rise I calculated was under such
condition, based upon 300 cm^2 of surface area radiating with
no convection.
The point is, though, that with 3x10^9 bounces/second, it would
1E5 bounces: 0.905Po
1E6 bounces: 0.368Po
2E6 bounces: 0.135Po
3E6 bounces: 0.050Po (in the first msec)
4E6 bounces: 0.018Po
5 watts is approximately the energy output of an old-style
incandescent nightlight run off a Powerstat variable transformer
set to 100 volts. Even if I plugged the nightlight into 120 volt
mains, I can still hold the nightlight in my hand without it being
too uncomfortable.
Most of the nightlight energy is in the IR (see attachment), and
the glass envelope is transparent to most of the IR. The warmth of
the bulb represents only a fraction of the 5W.
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
How did you calculate 300 C? Are you sure you
didn't mean 300 K?
I have a GE radiation slide rule calculator from the long ago
good ol' days. I could have written an app to do it to eight
decimals, but this is close enough to show that the whole idea
is not worth doing that.

Anyway, the surface area is about 300 cm^2, so .0167 W/cm^2.
Emissivity of 0.3 ... Oop! I was reading the K scale, 320K,
about 45 C. Ya got me! That doesn't change the fact that
the light is quickly absorbed and converted to heat.
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Your bounce attenuation calculation is a bit off.
Yes, to be exact I should calculate a reduced power level after each
bounce. Being a back-of-the-envelope calculation I just took it
as .999999^n. Good enough for government work. Not important
enough to find or write an app since there's not enough left after
1 msec to make a microbe sneeze.

Possibly, covering the outside of the ball with a low-emissivity
coating might give a faint possibility of weighing the heat
energy in the ball.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_emissivity

Actually, they have a value of 0.03 for Al foil itself. But
Al would melt before it was hot enough. In fact, EVERYTHING
would melt:

Wall thickness: .001" 167650K
Wall thickness: .100" 1676K (weight: 862 gm)
Wall thickness: .200" 838K (weight: 8620 gm)

Might as well stick with Al and use a thicker wall. That
puts all the pressure on the scales though, but I think that's
a much easier problem than weighing actual 455 nm light. Just
keep pumping 5W into the cavity for 72 hours, and the hole
for introducing the 5W could be a sapphire disc with a 455 nm
transmission band, otherwise, too much energy would be lost.

What do you think, still out of bounds? Yeah, I think so.
rhertz
2024-11-20 01:02:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by gharnagel
The 300 degree temperature rise I calculated was under such
condition, based upon 300 cm^2 of surface area radiating with
no convection.
The point is, though, that with 3x10^9 bounces/second, it would
1E5 bounces: 0.905Po
1E6 bounces: 0.368Po
2E6 bounces: 0.135Po
3E6 bounces: 0.050Po (in the first msec)
4E6 bounces: 0.018Po
5 watts is approximately the energy output of an old-style
incandescent nightlight run off a Powerstat variable transformer
set to 100 volts. Even if I plugged the nightlight into 120 volt
mains, I can still hold the nightlight in my hand without it being
too uncomfortable.
Most of the nightlight energy is in the IR (see attachment), and
the glass envelope is transparent to most of the IR. The warmth of
the bulb represents only a fraction of the 5W.
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
How did you calculate 300 C? Are you sure you
didn't mean 300 K?
I have a GE radiation slide rule calculator from the long ago
good ol' days. I could have written an app to do it to eight
decimals, but this is close enough to show that the whole idea
is not worth doing that.
Anyway, the surface area is about 300 cm^2, so .0167 W/cm^2.
Emissivity of 0.3 ... Oop! I was reading the K scale, 320K,
about 45 C. Ya got me! That doesn't change the fact that
the light is quickly absorbed and converted to heat.
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Your bounce attenuation calculation is a bit off.
Yes, to be exact I should calculate a reduced power level after each
bounce. Being a back-of-the-envelope calculation I just took it
as .999999^n. Good enough for government work. Not important
enough to find or write an app since there's not enough left after
1 msec to make a microbe sneeze.
Possibly, covering the outside of the ball with a low-emissivity
coating might give a faint possibility of weighing the heat
energy in the ball.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_emissivity
Actually, they have a value of 0.03 for Al foil itself. But
Al would melt before it was hot enough. In fact, EVERYTHING
Wall thickness: .001" 167650K
Wall thickness: .100" 1676K (weight: 862 gm)
Wall thickness: .200" 838K (weight: 8620 gm)
Might as well stick with Al and use a thicker wall. That
puts all the pressure on the scales though, but I think that's
a much easier problem than weighing actual 455 nm light. Just
keep pumping 5W into the cavity for 72 hours, and the hole
for introducing the 5W could be a sapphire disc with a 455 nm
transmission band, otherwise, too much energy would be lost.
What do you think, still out of bounds? Yeah, I think so.
Use this site instead:

https://aluminyumburada.com/en/aluminium-weight-calculation

Weight of a sheet of 100x100mmx0.1mm (Alloy 5083) is 3.0 grams.

Not bad for my estimation (2 gr) for the weight of the cavity, with
inner surface of 7,850 mm², and thickness of 0.1 mm.

And it will not melt. Not even heat enough for you to feel it.

Most of the energy will be confined in the inner volume, not in the
walls, even with 99% reflectivity.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-20 04:01:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by gharnagel
Might as well stick with Al and use a thicker wall. That
puts all the pressure on the scales though, but I think that's
a much easier problem than weighing actual 455 nm light. Just
keep pumping 5W into the cavity for 72 hours, and the hole
for introducing the 5W could be a sapphire disc with a 455 nm
transmission band, otherwise, too much energy would be lost.
What do you think, still out of bounds? Yeah, I think so.
https://aluminyumburada.com/en/aluminium-weight-calculation
Weight of a sheet of 100x100mmx0.1mm (Alloy 5083) is 3.0 grams.
Not bad for my estimation (2 gr) for the weight of the cavity, with
inner surface of 7,850 mm², and thickness of 0.1 mm.
And it will not melt. Not even heat enough for you to feel it.
Most of the energy will be confined in the inner volume, not in the
walls, even with 99% reflectivity.
Your estimates look pretty reasonable to me.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-20 03:54:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Possibly, covering the outside of the ball with a low-emissivity
coating might give a faint possibility of weighing the heat
energy in the ball.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_emissivity
Actually, they have a value of 0.03 for Al foil itself. But
Al would melt before it was hot enough. In fact, EVERYTHING
Wall thickness: .001" 167650K
Wall thickness: .100" 1676K (weight: 862 gm)
Wall thickness: .200" 838K (weight: 8620 gm)
Might as well stick with Al and use a thicker wall. That
puts all the pressure on the scales though, but I think that's
a much easier problem than weighing actual 455 nm light. Just
keep pumping 5W into the cavity for 72 hours, and the hole
for introducing the 5W could be a sapphire disc with a 455 nm
transmission band, otherwise, too much energy would be lost.
What do you think, still out of bounds? Yeah, I think so.
Given than dielectric coatings don't work here, a realistic reflection
coefficient for aluminum foil would be around 0.85 or so, so you won't
have a great build-up of power level inside your ball.

The system will reach steady-state after a relatively short period of
time. If 5 watts is pumped in, the ball will radiate 5 watts of energy
at steady state. The emissivity will affect the final temperature that
the ball will reach, but figures like 167650K for 0.001" walls are
completely unrealistic numbers. The accumulated warmth should probably
be detectable by a person with sensitive fingers.

Certainly you won't need to wait 72 hours to get your negative results.
Most of the time will be spent pumping down your high-vacuum system,
evaporating your "getter" to tie up the last bits of gas, etc.
rhertz
2024-11-20 04:37:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Given than dielectric coatings don't work here, a realistic reflection
coefficient for aluminum foil would be around 0.85 or so, so you won't
have a great build-up of power level inside your ball.
The system will reach steady-state after a relatively short period of
time. If 5 watts is pumped in, the ball will radiate 5 watts of energy
at steady state. The emissivity will affect the final temperature that
the ball will reach, but figures like 167650K for 0.001" walls are
completely unrealistic numbers. The accumulated warmth should probably
be detectable by a person with sensitive fingers.
Certainly you won't need to wait 72 hours to get your negative results.
Most of the time will be spent pumping down your high-vacuum system,
evaporating your "getter" to tie up the last bits of gas, etc.
You refuse to accept an elementary fact, clearly stated by me in this
thread. Why? Maybe because you're not the EE/physicist that you claim to
be and you're just an amateur playing with science as a hobby.

Get this for once:

THE SYSTEM WILL NEVER REACH INTERNAL EQUILIBRIUM!

That is IMPOSSIBLE because I'd be pumping ENERGY non-stop, forever if
necessary. Can you get this, please?

THERE IS NO AMPLIFICATION OF LASER POWER, AND NEVER WAS MEANT TO HAPPEN.

WHAT HAPPEN IS A CONTINUOUS FEED OF ENERGY!. If you CAN'T SEE IT, then
substitute the 5W laser by a hose POURING WATER INSIDE THE CAVITY. Some
water falls out, but most remain UNTIL THE CAVITY IS FULL OF IT.

When will it happen with the water analogy? Don't know/don't care.

The only reason by which I used three days to fill the cavity up is
because A LONGER PERIOD would accumulate much more perturbations and
external interferences, complicating the statistical processing of the
electrical signal that IS LINEARLY PROPORTIONAL to the accumulation of
energy inside the cavity.

If you REFUSE to understand this, I advise you to go back to college or
high school, where you could re-learn elementary logic and arithmetic.

Say no more.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-20 04:57:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
<snip>
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Given than dielectric coatings don't work here, a realistic reflection
coefficient for aluminum foil would be around 0.85 or so, so you won't
have a great build-up of power level inside your ball.
The system will reach steady-state after a relatively short period of
time. If 5 watts is pumped in, the ball will radiate 5 watts of energy
at steady state. The emissivity will affect the final temperature that
the ball will reach, but figures like 167650K for 0.001" walls are
completely unrealistic numbers. The accumulated warmth should probably
be detectable by a person with sensitive fingers.
Certainly you won't need to wait 72 hours to get your negative results.
Most of the time will be spent pumping down your high-vacuum system,
evaporating your "getter" to tie up the last bits of gas, etc.
You refuse to accept an elementary fact, clearly stated by me in this
thread. Why? Maybe because you're not the EE/physicist that you claim to
be and you're just an amateur playing with science as a hobby.
THE SYSTEM WILL NEVER REACH INTERNAL EQUILIBRIUM!
I said "steady-state", not equilibrium.
Post by rhertz
That is IMPOSSIBLE because I'd be pumping ENERGY non-stop, forever if
necessary. Can you get this, please?
Of course I understand that.
What you don't seem to understand is the distinction between steady-
state and equilibrium. Look it up.
Post by rhertz
THERE IS NO AMPLIFICATION OF LASER POWER, AND NEVER WAS MEANT TO HAPPEN.
Of course not. Especially with a reflection coefficient of around
0.85 or so.
Post by rhertz
WHAT HAPPEN IS A CONTINUOUS FEED OF ENERGY!. If you CAN'T SEE IT, then
substitute the 5W laser by a hose POURING WATER INSIDE THE CAVITY. Some
water falls out, but most remain UNTIL THE CAVITY IS FULL OF IT.
When will it happen with the water analogy? Don't know/don't care.
Steady-state, not equilibrium.
Post by rhertz
The only reason by which I used three days to fill the cavity up is
because A LONGER PERIOD would accumulate much more perturbations and
external interferences, complicating the statistical processing of the
electrical signal that IS LINEARLY PROPORTIONAL to the accumulation of
energy inside the cavity.
What accumulation? The shell gradually rises in temperature until
the energy losses equals the energy input. How long this takes to
happen depends on the mass of the shell. For a thin shell, it won't
take long. For a thick shell, it could be a while. But you were
arguing on the basis of aluminum foil thickness, a few grams of
material.
Post by rhertz
If you REFUSE to understand this, I advise you to go back to college or
high school, where you could re-learn elementary logic and arithmetic.
Say no more.
You are arguing from a position of ignorance here. Sorry.
rhertz
2024-11-20 14:30:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
<snip>
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Given than dielectric coatings don't work here, a realistic reflection
coefficient for aluminum foil would be around 0.85 or so, so you won't
have a great build-up of power level inside your ball.
The system will reach steady-state after a relatively short period of
time. If 5 watts is pumped in, the ball will radiate 5 watts of energy
at steady state. The emissivity will affect the final temperature that
the ball will reach, but figures like 167650K for 0.001" walls are
completely unrealistic numbers. The accumulated warmth should probably
be detectable by a person with sensitive fingers.
Certainly you won't need to wait 72 hours to get your negative results.
Most of the time will be spent pumping down your high-vacuum system,
evaporating your "getter" to tie up the last bits of gas, etc.
You refuse to accept an elementary fact, clearly stated by me in this
thread. Why? Maybe because you're not the EE/physicist that you claim to
be and you're just an amateur playing with science as a hobby.
THE SYSTEM WILL NEVER REACH INTERNAL EQUILIBRIUM!
I said "steady-state", not equilibrium.
Post by rhertz
That is IMPOSSIBLE because I'd be pumping ENERGY non-stop, forever if
necessary. Can you get this, please?
Of course I understand that.
What you don't seem to understand is the distinction between steady-
state and equilibrium. Look it up.
Post by rhertz
THERE IS NO AMPLIFICATION OF LASER POWER, AND NEVER WAS MEANT TO HAPPEN.
Of course not. Especially with a reflection coefficient of around
0.85 or so.
Post by rhertz
WHAT HAPPEN IS A CONTINUOUS FEED OF ENERGY!. If you CAN'T SEE IT, then
substitute the 5W laser by a hose POURING WATER INSIDE THE CAVITY. Some
water falls out, but most remain UNTIL THE CAVITY IS FULL OF IT.
When will it happen with the water analogy? Don't know/don't care.
Steady-state, not equilibrium.
Post by rhertz
The only reason by which I used three days to fill the cavity up is
because A LONGER PERIOD would accumulate much more perturbations and
external interferences, complicating the statistical processing of the
electrical signal that IS LINEARLY PROPORTIONAL to the accumulation of
energy inside the cavity.
What accumulation? The shell gradually rises in temperature until
the energy losses equals the energy input. How long this takes to
happen depends on the mass of the shell. For a thin shell, it won't
take long. For a thick shell, it could be a while. But you were
arguing on the basis of aluminum foil thickness, a few grams of
material.
Post by rhertz
If you REFUSE to understand this, I advise you to go back to college or
high school, where you could re-learn elementary logic and arithmetic.
Say no more.
You are arguing from a position of ignorance here. Sorry.
Prokaryotic, I wasn't answering to you but to gharnagel!

Don't know how I did that mistake. My apologies.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-20 14:38:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
You are arguing from a position of ignorance here. Sorry.
Prokaryotic, I wasn't answering to you but to gharnagel!
Don't know how I did that mistake. My apologies.
Whoops! Apologies accepted! :-)
rhertz
2024-11-20 14:46:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
As I wrote before, the cavity NEVER reaches a steady state (thermal
equilibrium is just one possible goal to reach a steady state).

The stored energy increases constantly until the temperature of the
cavity
walls (not cancelled by any means) destroy the material that form the
cavity (either coatings or places on the cavity surface, making holes).



In physics, a steady state is a condition in which a system or process
does not change over time, or any changes are balanced out. This means
that the variables that define the system's behavior remain constant.
Some examples of steady states include:

Bathtub with a running tap: After a while, the water level stabilizes
and the system is in a steady state.

Thermal equilibrium: Two systems are in thermal equilibrium when they
are at the same temperature and there is no heat flow between them.

In 72 hours none of these conditions are reached: No steady state nor
thermal equilibrium. The inner temperature increase constantly, due to
the accumulation of energy within the cavity.

Regarding the orifice used to inject the laser beam, I always thought of
using a directional micro-glass window that reflects, internally, laser
hits.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-20 15:57:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
As I wrote before, the cavity NEVER reaches a steady state (thermal
equilibrium is just one possible goal to reach a steady state).
The stored energy increases constantly until the temperature of the
cavity
walls (not cancelled by any means) destroy the material that form the
cavity (either coatings or places on the cavity surface, making holes).
No, because the temperature of the foil rises until the power emitted
equals 5 watts. Once that happens, no further increase of stored
energy occurs.

P = ε * σ * T^4

Let us assume a 10x10x10 cm cube with surface area 0.06 m^3
So 5 watts total power emitted means 83 watts/m^2
Assume ε = 0.13

Let T_i be 273 K

83 = ε * σ * (T_f^4 - T_i^4)
11,260,344,593 = (T_f^4 - 5,554,571,841)
T_f = 274.8 K

In other words, the temperature of the foil rises to 1.8 degrees
above room temperature.
Post by rhertz
In physics, a steady state is a condition in which a system or process
does not change over time, or any changes are balanced out. This means
that the variables that define the system's behavior remain constant.
Bathtub with a running tap: After a while, the water level stabilizes
and the system is in a steady state.
Thermal equilibrium: Two systems are in thermal equilibrium when they
are at the same temperature and there is no heat flow between them.
In 72 hours none of these conditions are reached: No steady state nor
thermal equilibrium. The inner temperature increase constantly, due to
the accumulation of energy within the cavity.
Regarding the orifice used to inject the laser beam, I always thought of
using a directional micro-glass window that reflects, internally, laser
hits.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-20 17:09:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
No, because the temperature of the foil rises until the power emitted
equals 5 watts. Once that happens, no further increase of stored
energy occurs.
P = ε * σ * T^4
Let us assume a 10x10x10 cm cube with surface area 0.06 m^3
So 5 watts total power emitted means 83 watts/m^2
Assume ε = 0.13
Let T_i be 273 K
83 = ε * σ * (T_f^4 - T_i^4)
11,260,344,593 = (T_f^4 - 5,554,571,841)
T_f = 274.8 K
In other words, the temperature of the foil rises to 1.8 degrees
above room temperature.
All this presumes that we are running the experiment in vacuum,
of course. If running in air, convection currents will carry away
heat and will make accurate weighing impossible.

If running at far higher power levels, we will have to worry about
how the radiation pressure of the emitted IR will affect the weight
measurements. A foil cube resting on a balance pan is not symmetric.
Radiation in the downwards direction will be different than in the
other five directions.

For 5 watts, the emitted radiation will be 0.83 watt in each
direction, implying a radiation pressure of about 2.8e-9 Newtons,
the weight of about 0.28 nanograms.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-20 17:37:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
For 5 watts, the emitted radiation will be 0.83 watt in each
direction, implying a radiation pressure of about 2.8e-9 Newtons,
the weight of about 0.28 nanograms.
Whoops. Off by a factor of 10^3. :-(
rhertz
2024-11-20 17:35:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
As I wrote before, the cavity NEVER reaches a steady state (thermal
equilibrium is just one possible goal to reach a steady state).
The stored energy increases constantly until the temperature of the
cavity
walls (not cancelled by any means) destroy the material that form the
cavity (either coatings or places on the cavity surface, making holes).
No, because the temperature of the foil rises until the power emitted
equals 5 watts. Once that happens, no further increase of stored
energy occurs.
P = ε * σ * T^4
Let us assume a 10x10x10 cm cube with surface area 0.06 m^3
So 5 watts total power emitted means 83 watts/m^2
Assume ε = 0.13
Let T_i be 273 K
83 = ε * σ * (T_f^4 - T_i^4)
11,260,344,593 = (T_f^4 - 5,554,571,841)
T_f = 274.8 K
In other words, the temperature of the foil rises to 1.8 degrees
above room temperature.
Post by rhertz
In physics, a steady state is a condition in which a system or process
does not change over time, or any changes are balanced out. This means
that the variables that define the system's behavior remain constant.
Bathtub with a running tap: After a while, the water level stabilizes
and the system is in a steady state.
Thermal equilibrium: Two systems are in thermal equilibrium when they
are at the same temperature and there is no heat flow between them.
In 72 hours none of these conditions are reached: No steady state nor
thermal equilibrium. The inner temperature increase constantly, due to
the accumulation of energy within the cavity.
Regarding the orifice used to inject the laser beam, I always thought of
using a directional micro-glass window that reflects, internally, laser
hits.
I'm very surprised that you used the Stefan-Boltzmann law here.

I studied the history of quantum physics until the Planck's
breakthrough, and in 2019 I wrote this entry on my blog (which I only
used one more time):


Thermal Radiation, Black Body Theory and the Birth of Quantum Physics

https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/

**************************************************

EXCERPT:

Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Thermal Radiation

The experimental studies of Tyndall (1863) translated to German by A.
Muller in his 1865 book, and the work of the French physicists Dulong
and Petit, inspired in 1879 to Joseph Stefan, who derived his law
stating that the heat radiation from a body is proportional to T⁴, with
T being its absolute temperature in Kelvin degrees.

The Stefan's law is:

j = 𝜎T⁴

where j is the emitted power per unit area, 𝜎 a the Stefan's constant
and T the temperature of the surface of the body, measured in Kelvin
degrees (273.15 + ºCelsius). The transformation of ºK in ºC was a
critical step of Stefan's theory, when using the experimental data of
Tyndell.

Stefan estimated the constant 𝜎 value as 4.5E-08 Watt/m²/K⁴, using
available rates of emission of energy (cal.cm-2.min-1) and emissivity
(which had a wide dispersion), and used it to calculate the temperature
of the Sun's surface, obtaining an average of 5,700 K, close to the
current value of 5,778 K. Modern value of 𝜎 is 5.67E-08 Watt/m²/K⁴.

Stefan's law has been applied to a wide range of problems, in particular
at astrophysics, where it's used to calculate the temperature of stars
based on their luminosity and stellar radius, treating them as black
bodies.

Even when proved to be very useful, even today, it didn't solve the
Kirchoff's theorem about J(λ,T) because his formula only depends on the
absolute temperature T.
************************************************

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be derived from Planck's Law of Spectral
Intensity, by using the following integral:


∫x³/(eˣ-1) dx = π⁴/15 , between 0 and infinity

by making x = (hʋ/kT)

************************************************


This law has been used for almost 160 years to calculate the temperature
of star's surfaces, ASSUMING that they behave as a black body IN THERMAL
EQUILIBRIUM (ironically).

This IS NOT the case of the cavity under discussion, because its
temperature increase with the permanent supply of energy, until it's
destroyed, partially or entirely.

And it could take months before the above situation happens.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-20 17:44:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
This IS NOT the case of the cavity under discussion, because its
temperature increase with the permanent supply of energy, until it's
destroyed, partially or entirely.
Why should the foil box not radiate away energy as its temperature
rises?

Forget the innards. I don't care whether the reflectance is 0.85 or
0.99999. Those numbers only dictate the power levels reached within
the cavity.

What happens to the exterior surface of the box?
rhertz
2024-11-20 18:37:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
This IS NOT the case of the cavity under discussion, because its
temperature increase with the permanent supply of energy, until it's
destroyed, partially or entirely.
Why should the foil box not radiate away energy as its temperature
rises?
Forget the innards. I don't care whether the reflectance is 0.85 or
0.99999. Those numbers only dictate the power levels reached within
the cavity.
What happens to the exterior surface of the box?
Consider this, using the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

1) Reverse the problem: think that the inner area has spherical shape,
with a radius of 5 cm. It gives A = 78.54 cm² = 0.00785 m².
Now cut the cavity and spread the area in 2D. It's a planar surface.

2) Consider that such area EMITS (due to perfect reflection)
5 Watts/unit area. This would give 0.03927 W/m². You have to spread the
5W all over the surface. Dividing 5W by 0.00785 m² is INCORRECT.

3) Apply Stefan-Boltzmann law:


0.03927 W/m² = 5.67E-08 Watt/m²/K⁴ x T⁴

T⁴ = 0.03927/5.67E-08 K⁴ = 6.926E+05 K⁴

T = 28.85 K

This is cold, isn't it?

AGAIN: You have to consider that the entire surface (0.00785 m²) is
emitting, not receiving 5 Watts/unit area. In this case, 0.00785 m²
is the unit area, so such area emits 0.03927 W/m².

The calculations are based on 100% reflectivity.

Do you see any error in my interpretation? I just reversed the entry of
power, taking it as power emitted by the reflecting surface. Maybe I'm
wrong, but I don't think so.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-20 19:57:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
This IS NOT the case of the cavity under discussion, because its
temperature increase with the permanent supply of energy, until it's
destroyed, partially or entirely.
Why should the foil box not radiate away energy as its temperature
rises?
Forget the innards. I don't care whether the reflectance is 0.85 or
0.99999. Those numbers only dictate the power levels reached within
the cavity.
What happens to the exterior surface of the box?
1) Reverse the problem: think that the inner area has spherical shape,
with a radius of 5 cm. It gives A = 78.54 cm² = 0.00785 m².
Now cut the cavity and spread the area in 2D. It's a planar surface.
2) Consider that such area EMITS (due to perfect reflection)
5 Watts/unit area. This would give 0.03927 W/m². You have to spread the
5W all over the surface. Dividing 5W by 0.00785 m² is INCORRECT.
0.03927 W/m² = 5.67E-08 Watt/m²/K⁴ x T⁴
T⁴ = 0.03927/5.67E-08 K⁴ = 6.926E+05 K⁴
T = 28.85 K
This is cold, isn't it?
AGAIN: You have to consider that the entire surface (0.00785 m²) is
emitting, not receiving 5 Watts/unit area. In this case, 0.00785 m²
is the unit area, so such area emits 0.03927 W/m².
The calculations are based on 100% reflectivity.
Do you see any error in my interpretation? I just reversed the entry of
power, taking it as power emitted by the reflecting surface. Maybe I'm
wrong, but I don't think so.
1) You multiplied to get 0.03927 Wm² (funky units!) instead of
dividing to get 637 W/m².
2) I was using a cube geometry, not a sphere. So our numbers are going
to differ by a substantial amount.
3) You should not be starting from absolute zero, but from room
temperature.
4) Look at my original calculation, where part of my calculation is
T_f^4 - T_i^4 since I am not starting from absolute zero.
rhertz
2024-11-20 22:04:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
This IS NOT the case of the cavity under discussion, because its
temperature increase with the permanent supply of energy, until it's
destroyed, partially or entirely.
Why should the foil box not radiate away energy as its temperature
rises?
Forget the innards. I don't care whether the reflectance is 0.85 or
0.99999. Those numbers only dictate the power levels reached within
the cavity.
What happens to the exterior surface of the box?
1) Reverse the problem: think that the inner area has spherical shape,
with a radius of 5 cm. It gives A = 78.54 cm² = 0.00785 m².
Now cut the cavity and spread the area in 2D. It's a planar surface.
2) Consider that such area EMITS (due to perfect reflection)
5 Watts/unit area. This would give 0.03927 W/m². You have to spread the
5W all over the surface. Dividing 5W by 0.00785 m² is INCORRECT.
0.03927 W/m² = 5.67E-08 Watt/m²/K⁴ x T⁴
T⁴ = 0.03927/5.67E-08 K⁴ = 6.926E+05 K⁴
T = 28.85 K
This is cold, isn't it?
AGAIN: You have to consider that the entire surface (0.00785 m²) is
emitting, not receiving 5 Watts/unit area. In this case, 0.00785 m²
is the unit area, so such area emits 0.03927 W/m².
The calculations are based on 100% reflectivity.
Do you see any error in my interpretation? I just reversed the entry of
power, taking it as power emitted by the reflecting surface. Maybe I'm
wrong, but I don't think so.
1) You multiplied to get 0.03927 Wm² (funky units!) instead of
dividing to get 637 W/m².
2) I was using a cube geometry, not a sphere. So our numbers are going
to differ by a substantial amount.
3) You should not be starting from absolute zero, but from room
temperature.
4) Look at my original calculation, where part of my calculation is
T_f^4 - T_i^4 since I am not starting from absolute zero.
I told you that it was the unit area (effective). You can't use 637 W/m²
because a surface of 1 m² doesn't exist. Only a surface 127 times
smaller exist, which is the inner area of the cavity.

Stefan used his formula first to calculate the temperature of the Sun,
with a HUGE effective area. He calculated the "radiant power" by
estimating it in terms of the Sun's luminosity, decades before Planck.

In that case (even when I disagree about using Kirchoff's black body
radiation), he obtained a surface temperature that SEEMED TO LET HAPPY
most astronomer of his epoch (and even today). Even IF it's FALSE.

But, as in many other things in science, if you had NOTHING, something
seemed to be useful and was adopted by 1870. Using such law, stars
temperatures were calculated using their relative luminosity. But NOBODY
was accountable for the errors, if such equation was/is FALSE.

Go close to a star or the Sun and MEASURE its temperature. You can't,
can you? It's THE SAME CRAP as using Planck's equation to measure the
CBR by the COBE/WMAP satellites and (curiously) getting a perfect match.


I think that it's incorrect to use Stefan's formula in this case. How do
you spread 5 Watts over 0.00785 m²? Using 637 W/m², the formula gives
325.6 K = 52.45 "C. This is not reasonable, because scaling down, it
would represent a STEADY STATE of 41,350 K for such small surface.

The Stefan formula is empirical, and doesn't scale down well. It was
developed for big surfaces.

Better to use calories, converting the loss of energy in Joules. Then
using an approximation of 1 calorie --> 1"C rise/gram of water, you
could have a better result.


Now, how do you propose to use Stefan with a surface of 0.00785 m² that
radiates 5 Watts of power?
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-21 04:12:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
Do you see any error in my interpretation? I just reversed the entry of
power, taking it as power emitted by the reflecting surface. Maybe I'm
wrong, but I don't think so.
1) You multiplied to get 0.03927 Wm² (funky units!) instead of
dividing to get 637 W/m².
2) I was using a cube geometry, not a sphere. So our numbers are going
to differ by a substantial amount.
3) You should not be starting from absolute zero, but from room
temperature.
4) Look at my original calculation, where part of my calculation is
T_f^4 - T_i^4 since I am not starting from absolute zero.
I told you that it was the unit area (effective). You can't use 637 W/m²
because a surface of 1 m² doesn't exist. Only a surface 127 times
smaller exist, which is the inner area of the cavity.
A driver can be issued a speeding ticket for driving 80 miles/hour
despite not having driven for an hour. Why should it be impossible
to do the calculation because "a surface of 1 m² doesn't exist"?
Post by rhertz
Stefan used his formula first to calculate the temperature of the Sun,
with a HUGE effective area. He calculated the "radiant power" by
estimating it in terms of the Sun's luminosity, decades before Planck.
In that case (even when I disagree about using Kirchoff's black body
radiation), he obtained a surface temperature that SEEMED TO LET HAPPY
most astronomer of his epoch (and even today). Even IF it's FALSE.
But, as in many other things in science, if you had NOTHING, something
seemed to be useful and was adopted by 1870. Using such law, stars
temperatures were calculated using their relative luminosity. But NOBODY
was accountable for the errors, if such equation was/is FALSE.
Go close to a star or the Sun and MEASURE its temperature. You can't,
can you? It's THE SAME CRAP as using Planck's equation to measure the
CBR by the COBE/WMAP satellites and (curiously) getting a perfect match.
I think that it's incorrect to use Stefan's formula in this case. How do
you spread 5 Watts over 0.00785 m²? Using 637 W/m², the formula gives
325.6 K = 52.45 "C. This is not reasonable, because scaling down, it
would represent a STEADY STATE of 41,350 K for such small surface.
The Stefan formula is empirical, and doesn't scale down well. It was
developed for big surfaces.
Better to use calories, converting the loss of energy in Joules. Then
using an approximation of 1 calorie --> 1"C rise/gram of water, you
could have a better result.
Now, how do you propose to use Stefan with a surface of 0.00785 m² that
radiates 5 Watts of power?
I shouldn't have trusted *ANY* of your numbers. Where did you get
0.00785 m² as the surface area of your sphere? A 5 cm radius sphere
has a surface area of 0.031 m², so 5 W divided by the surface area
gives 159 W/m².

The question is now, what temperature T_f will result in 159 W/m²
GREATER radiant emittance (radiant flux per unit area) than the
radiant emittance of a room temperature ball?

I'll let you do the calculation. (I have a tendency to key things
wrong in my Windows calculator, as Paul has undoubtedly noticed
and has been kind enough not to point out.)

The important thing is that despite silly computational errors
on _both_ our parts, we can agree that your statement of
Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:46 is false, where you wrote:

| "The stored energy increases constantly until the temperature of the
| cavity walls (not cancelled by any means) destroy the material that
| form the cavity (either coatings or places on the cavity surface,
| making holes)."

Since once it reaches steady state, the ball radiates as much power as
is being pumped in, there is no danger of the ball being destroyed, as
you claimed in earlier posts.

I have absolutely no idea what this scaling crap is to which you
refer. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is applicable to small surfaces
as well as large. It _DOES_ need to be modified for bodies that
are not black, by application of an empirical emmisivity term.
rhertz
2024-11-21 05:03:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
Do you see any error in my interpretation? I just reversed the entry of
power, taking it as power emitted by the reflecting surface. Maybe I'm
wrong, but I don't think so.
1) You multiplied to get 0.03927 Wm² (funky units!) instead of
dividing to get 637 W/m².
2) I was using a cube geometry, not a sphere. So our numbers are going
to differ by a substantial amount.
3) You should not be starting from absolute zero, but from room
temperature.
4) Look at my original calculation, where part of my calculation is
T_f^4 - T_i^4 since I am not starting from absolute zero.
I told you that it was the unit area (effective). You can't use 637 W/m²
because a surface of 1 m² doesn't exist. Only a surface 127 times
smaller exist, which is the inner area of the cavity.
A driver can be issued a speeding ticket for driving 80 miles/hour
despite not having driven for an hour. Why should it be impossible
to do the calculation because "a surface of 1 m² doesn't exist"?
Stefan used his formula first to calculate the temperature of the Sun,
with a HUGE effective area. He calculated the "radiant power" by
estimating it in terms of the Sun's luminosity, decades before Planck.
In that case (even when I disagree about using Kirchoff's black body
radiation), he obtained a surface temperature that SEEMED TO LET HAPPY
most astronomer of his epoch (and even today). Even IF it's FALSE.
But, as in many other things in science, if you had NOTHING, something
seemed to be useful and was adopted by 1870. Using such law, stars
temperatures were calculated using their relative luminosity. But NOBODY
was accountable for the errors, if such equation was/is FALSE.
Go close to a star or the Sun and MEASURE its temperature. You can't,
can you? It's THE SAME CRAP as using Planck's equation to measure the
CBR by the COBE/WMAP satellites and (curiously) getting a perfect match.
I think that it's incorrect to use Stefan's formula in this case. How do
you spread 5 Watts over 0.00785 m²? Using 637 W/m², the formula gives
325.6 K = 52.45 "C. This is not reasonable, because scaling down, it
would represent a STEADY STATE of 41,350 K for such small surface.
The Stefan formula is empirical, and doesn't scale down well. It was
developed for big surfaces.
Better to use calories, converting the loss of energy in Joules. Then
using an approximation of 1 calorie --> 1"C rise/gram of water, you
could have a better result.
Now, how do you propose to use Stefan with a surface of 0.00785 m² that
radiates 5 Watts of power?
I shouldn't have trusted *ANY* of your numbers. Where did you get
0.00785 m² as the surface area of your sphere? A 5 cm radius sphere
has a surface area of 0.031 m², so 5 W divided by the surface area
gives 159 W/m².
The question is now, what temperature T_f will result in 159 W/m²
GREATER radiant emittance (radiant flux per unit area) than the
radiant emittance of a room temperature ball?
I'll let you do the calculation. (I have a tendency to key things
wrong in my Windows calculator, as Paul has undoubtedly noticed
and has been kind enough not to point out.)
The important thing is that despite silly computational errors
on _both_ our parts, we can agree that your statement of
| "The stored energy increases constantly until the temperature of the
| cavity walls (not cancelled by any means) destroy the material that
| form the cavity (either coatings or places on the cavity surface,
| making holes)."
Since once it reaches steady state, the ball radiates as much power as
is being pumped in, there is no danger of the ball being destroyed, as
you claimed in earlier posts.
I have absolutely no idea what this scaling crap is to which you
refer. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is applicable to small surfaces
as well as large. It _DOES_ need to be modified for bodies that
are not black, by application of an empirical emmisivity term.
You are right on the surface issue. I used πr² instead of 4πr².


Regarding the subject of constantly increasing stored energy, I repeat
that the internal energy density increases until the cavity breaks down.

This is not the case of Planck's BB cavity, where the BBC was heated
from outside and left to rest until it reached thermal equilibrium.
Then, through a small orifice, experimental physicists at the Berlin
University lab (Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt) measured
externally the irradiated power using a very sensitive heat sensor.

Here are some names that worked at the PTR in the 1890s. Ruben, a friend
of Planck, perfected the measurements reaching infrared radiation down
to 40 micrometers. He provided the charts and data to Planck, who
adjusted the 1986 Wien theory.

Otto R. Lummer, E. Gehrcke, R. Wien, Pringsheim, Kurlbaum.

Planck used the findings of Lummer-Pringsheim (1900) and Rubens-Kurlbaum
(1899-1900), performed at the Berlin PTR (Physical-Technical
Reichsanstalt) laboratory, provided to him by Rubens in Sept. 1900.
Planck had only 3 months to present his theory to the German Physics
Society in Dec. 1900, where he introduced his famous quantum of action.

I repeat the link with the history between 1850 and 1900:

Thermal Radiation, Black Body Theory and the Birth of Quantum Physics

https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/

http://users.df.uba.ar/dmitnik/fisica4/articulos/cuantica/Lummer.pdf

************************************************

I expect that you may understand the differences between the PTR Black
Body Cavity (externally heated) and my idea of pumping direct energy
into an almost perfectly reflecting cavity.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-21 07:47:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
The important thing is that despite silly computational errors
on _both_ our parts, we can agree that your statement of
| "The stored energy increases constantly until the temperature of the
| cavity walls (not cancelled by any means) destroy the material that
| form the cavity (either coatings or places on the cavity surface,
| making holes)."
Since once it reaches steady state, the ball radiates as much power as
is being pumped in, there is no danger of the ball being destroyed, as
you claimed in earlier posts.
I have absolutely no idea what this scaling crap is to which you
refer. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is applicable to small surfaces
as well as large. It _DOES_ need to be modified for bodies that
are not black, by application of an empirical emmisivity term.
You are right on the surface issue. I used πr² instead of 4πr².
Regarding the subject of constantly increasing stored energy, I repeat
that the internal energy density increases until the cavity breaks down.
That can't happen, because, among other things, ultra-high
reflectivity dielectric mirrors are only so from a single direction
(usually normal to the surface). At any angle other than the one for
which they have been designed, constructive interference doesn't work
as well. And there is absolutely no way to design a matte surface to
support such constructive interference.

In practical terms, the reflectivity of a matte surface would be
around 0.9 or so.

Let's FANTASIZE, however, the internal power levels that you could
achieve if you were an alien species living in a different universe
with different physical laws allowing ultra-high reflectivity from all
angles. If x is the reflectivity of the walls, then the ultimate power
multiplication in the cavity would be given by P = 1/(1-x). So a
reflectivity of 0.99999 would allow internal power levels 100000 times
the incoming power. Would this break down the walls? No, because the
total power leaking into the walls would be (1-0.99999)*100000 times
the incoming power. At steady state, EXACTLY as much power is absorbed
by the walls from the cavity as is being pumped into the cavity.

5 W pumped into this fantasy cavity results in half a million watts
internal power levels, resulting in 5 W absorbed by the cavity walls
and 5 W emitted by the sphere after its temperature rises to its
steady-state level.
This is not the case of Planck's BB cavity, where the BBC was heated
from outside and left to rest until it reached thermal equilibrium.
Then, through a small orifice, experimental physicists at the Berlin
University lab (Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt) measured
externally the irradiated power using a very sensitive heat sensor.
Here are some names that worked at the PTR in the 1890s. Ruben, a friend
of Planck, perfected the measurements reaching infrared radiation down
to 40 micrometers. He provided the charts and data to Planck, who
adjusted the 1986 Wien theory.
Otto R. Lummer, E. Gehrcke, R. Wien, Pringsheim, Kurlbaum.
Planck used the findings of Lummer-Pringsheim (1900) and Rubens-Kurlbaum
(1899-1900), performed at the Berlin PTR (Physical-Technical
Reichsanstalt) laboratory, provided to him by Rubens in Sept. 1900.
Planck had only 3 months to present his theory to the German Physics
Society in Dec. 1900, where he introduced his famous quantum of action.
Thermal Radiation, Black Body Theory and the Birth of Quantum Physics
https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/
http://users.df.uba.ar/dmitnik/fisica4/articulos/cuantica/Lummer.pdf
************************************************
I expect that you may understand the differences between the PTR Black
Body Cavity (externally heated) and my idea of pumping direct energy
into an almost perfectly reflecting cavity.
Rather than pursuing this topic, which I consider dead, there are
other aspects of LIGO's optical system that I would rather consider.
Let's look again at the description here:
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligos-ifo

How does LIGO (1) prevent light from being reflected back into the
laser, and how does it (2) prevent light from being directed directly
from the laser into the detector?

Look at the image, "Layout of a basic Michelson interferometer". This
image leaves out some important optical elements. Note how, besides
light from the two paths combining into an single beam at the
detector, a great deal of light is reflected back directly into the
laser?

Such light would destabilize the laser.

A typical solution is to place a polarizer and a quarter-wave plate
in front of the laser. This converts the laser light into circularly
polarized light (CP). On the way back to the laser, the CP light
is converted back into linearly polarized light, but at 90 degrees
orientation relative to the outgoing light. Because of that, it is
blocked from re-entering the laser.

Now let's look at the illustration, "Basic Michelson interferometer
with Fabry Perot cavities." The polarizer plus quarter-wave plate
arrangement would work to block light from re-entering the laser, but
look at the light being reflected directly from the two partially-
transmitting mirrors on the near side of the Fabry Perot cavities!
This light would go directly into the detector and ruin the ability to
null out the signal!

I think that I've figured out a solution. Does anybody here know how
it is actually done in LIGO from reading the documentation?
Thomas Heger
2024-11-21 06:43:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
As I wrote before, the cavity NEVER reaches a steady state (thermal
equilibrium is just one possible goal to reach a steady state).
The stored energy increases constantly until the temperature of the
cavity
walls (not cancelled by any means) destroy the material that form the
cavity (either coatings or places on the cavity surface, making holes).
No, because the temperature of the foil rises until the power emitted
equals 5 watts. Once that happens, no further increase of stored
energy occurs.
P = ε * σ * T^4
Let us assume a 10x10x10 cm cube with surface area 0.06 m^3
So 5 watts total power emitted means 83 watts/m^2
Assume ε = 0.13
Let T_i be 273 K
83 = ε * σ * (T_f^4 - T_i^4)
11,260,344,593 = (T_f^4 - 5,554,571,841)
T_f = 274.8 K
In other words, the temperature of the foil rises to 1.8 degrees
above room temperature.
Post by rhertz
In physics, a steady state is a condition in which a system or process
does not change over time, or any changes are balanced out. This means
that the variables that define the system's behavior remain constant.
Nature does not have 'closed systems'.

What we call a system, that is actually our decision.

Therefore the notation of 'elementary systems' (e.g. particles) is wrong.

We decide, what we regard as a closed system, even if such things do not
exist.

Therefore we distinguish between a particle and its surrounding space
and perceive the particles, as if it would be a thing (a closed system).

But, in fact, e.g. an electron isn't particularly closed, because a
pointlike thing ('the electron itself') is surrounded by its field.
Now we have a contradiction between 'closed' and 'surrounding field'.

But this contradiction occurs with other systems, too.


Now 'steady state' and 'closed system' are seemingly interchangeable,
hence a system is an entity, which lasts at least for some time, for
which 'the defining variables' are constant.

...


TH
gharnagel
2024-11-20 05:29:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Given than dielectric coatings don't work here, a realistic
reflection coefficient for aluminum foil would be around 0.85
or so, so you won't have a great build-up of power level
inside your ball.
The system will reach steady-state after a relatively short
period of time. If 5 watts is pumped in, the ball will radiate
5 watts of energy at steady state. The emissivity will affect
the final temperature that the ball will reach, but figures
like 167650K for 0.001" walls are completely unrealistic
numbers.
All three sets of numbers were based upon the heat capacity of Al,
assuming no heat loss.
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
The accumulated warmth should probably be detectable by a
person with sensitive fingers.
Heat loss can be reduced by lowering the temperature, which can
be accomplished by increasing the mass of the walls.
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Certainly you won't need to wait 72 hours to get your negative results.
With thick walls, and low-emissivity coating, the ball can hold
1.3 MJ of heat without too much loss. The problem will be measuring
the mass increase of a heavier ball.
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Most of the time will be spent pumping down your high-vacuum system,
evaporating your "getter" to tie up the last bits of gas, etc.
You refuse to accept an elementary fact, clearly stated by me
in this thread. Why? Maybe because you're not the EE/physicist
that you claim to be and you're just an amateur playing with
science as a hobby.
If you want to address me, don't delete my words. You have kept
Prok's words, not mine. I don't think Proks background is in
either engineering or physics, IIRC.
Post by rhertz
THE SYSTEM WILL NEVER REACH INTERNAL EQUILIBRIUM!
Says the EE playing with physics? :-)
Post by rhertz
That is IMPOSSIBLE because I'd be pumping ENERGY non-stop,
forever if necessary. Can you get this, please?
How can one explain this to someone who isn't versed in
optics and thermal physics? You have our results. If you
want more explanation, just ask.

“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know.
But if you listen, you may learn something new.” – Dalai Lama
Post by rhertz
THERE IS NO AMPLIFICATION OF LASER POWER, AND NEVER WAS MEANT
TO HAPPEN.
No need to shout.
Post by rhertz
WHAT HAPPEN IS A CONTINUOUS FEED OF ENERGY!. If you CAN'T SEE
IT, then substitute the 5W laser by a hose POURING WATER INSIDE
THE CAVITY. Some water falls out, but most remain UNTIL THE
CAVITY IS FULL OF IT.
Apparently, you don't understand that the cavity has a leak in it,
and the more water is in the cavity the more it leaks. One leak
is the aperture in the cavity to let in the laser energy. I
suggested a interference coated sapphire window. Without it,
the 10 cm diameter ball would leak .01 cm^2/300 cm^2 = 3e-5,
worse than the wall is presumed to absorb/bounce, which is
another assumed to be .000001.

But surely you realize that light has entered the ball continues
to bounce around inside the ball, don't you?

Surely you realize that it's traveling close to the speed of LIGHT,
don't you.

Surely you can calculate how many bounces it will take to
convert most of that light to heat, don't you?

Surely you can estimate that that time is MUCH shorter than
72 hours?

As an EE you have had differential equations, haven't you?
Post by rhertz
When will it happen with the water analogy? Don't know/don't care.
Did you flunk DE?
Post by rhertz
The only reason by which I used three days to fill the cavity
up is because A LONGER PERIOD would accumulate much more
perturbations and external interferences, complicating the
statistical processing of the electrical signal that IS LINEARLY
PROPORTIONAL to the accumulation of energy inside the cavity.
I say pshaw! Use a more powerful laser. LIGO uses a NdYAG.
Post by rhertz
If you REFUSE to understand this, I advise you to go back to
college or high school, where you could re-learn elementary
logic and arithmetic.
Pot, kettle, black :-))
Post by rhertz
Say no more.
“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-20 10:12:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gharnagel
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Given than dielectric coatings don't work here, a realistic
reflection coefficient for aluminum foil would be around 0.85
or so, so you won't have a great build-up of power level
inside your ball.
The system will reach steady-state after a relatively short
period of time. If 5 watts is pumped in, the ball will radiate
5 watts of energy at steady state. The emissivity will affect
the final temperature that the ball will reach, but figures
like 167650K for 0.001" walls are completely unrealistic
numbers.
All three sets of numbers were based upon the heat capacity of Al,
assuming no heat loss.
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
The accumulated warmth should probably be detectable by a
person with sensitive fingers.
Heat loss can be reduced by lowering the temperature, which can
be accomplished by increasing the mass of the walls.
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Certainly you won't need to wait 72 hours to get your negative results.
With thick walls, and low-emissivity coating, the ball can hold
1.3 MJ of heat without too much loss. The problem will be measuring
the mass increase of a heavier ball.
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Most of the time will be spent pumping down your high-vacuum system,
evaporating your "getter" to tie up the last bits of gas, etc.
You refuse to accept an elementary fact, clearly stated by me
in this thread. Why? Maybe because you're not the EE/physicist
that you claim to be and you're just an amateur playing with
science as a hobby.
If you want to address me, don't delete my words. You have kept
Prok's words, not mine. I don't think Proks background is in
either engineering or physics, IIRC.
Post by rhertz
THE SYSTEM WILL NEVER REACH INTERNAL EQUILIBRIUM!
Says the EE playing with physics? :-)
Post by rhertz
That is IMPOSSIBLE because I'd be pumping ENERGY non-stop,
forever if necessary. Can you get this, please?
How can one explain this to someone who isn't versed in
optics and thermal physics? You have our results. If you
want more explanation, just ask.
“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know.
But if you listen, you may learn something new.” – Dalai Lama
Post by rhertz
THERE IS NO AMPLIFICATION OF LASER POWER, AND NEVER WAS MEANT
TO HAPPEN.
No need to shout.
Post by rhertz
WHAT HAPPEN IS A CONTINUOUS FEED OF ENERGY!. If you CAN'T SEE
IT, then substitute the 5W laser by a hose POURING WATER INSIDE
THE CAVITY. Some water falls out, but most remain UNTIL THE
CAVITY IS FULL OF IT.
Apparently, you don't understand that the cavity has a leak in it,
and the more water is in the cavity the more it leaks. One leak
is the aperture in the cavity to let in the laser energy. I
suggested a interference coated sapphire window. Without it,
the 10 cm diameter ball would leak .01 cm^2/300 cm^2 = 3e-5,
worse than the wall is presumed to absorb/bounce, which is
another assumed to be .000001.
But surely you realize that light has entered the ball continues
to bounce around inside the ball, don't you?
Surely you realize that it's traveling close to the speed of LIGHT,
don't you.
Surely you can calculate how many bounces it will take to
convert most of that light to heat, don't you?
Surely you can estimate that that time is MUCH shorter than
72 hours?
As an EE you have had differential equations, haven't you?
Post by rhertz
When will it happen with the water analogy? Don't know/don't care.
Did you flunk DE?
Post by rhertz
The only reason by which I used three days to fill the cavity
up is because A LONGER PERIOD would accumulate much more
perturbations and external interferences, complicating the
statistical processing of the electrical signal that IS LINEARLY
PROPORTIONAL to the accumulation of energy inside the cavity.
I say pshaw! Use a more powerful laser. LIGO uses a NdYAG.
Post by rhertz
If you REFUSE to understand this, I advise you to go back to
college or high school, where you could re-learn elementary
logic and arithmetic.
Pot, kettle, black :-))
Post by rhertz
Say no more.
“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin
This is awfully confusing. Sometimes your are answering Richard,
sometimes me. Try to avoid doing this in the future. I don't know
if you have actually confused us two, or if you are merely trying
to multitask by answering us simultaneously. :-(

In the days before ultra-cheap storage, the Usenet standard was
to trim the quotations to just what was necessary for readers to
identify the context of one's response. Violators of this standard
were constantly castigated. I don't attempt to follow the old
standard, but I do trim portions of conversation that are not
relevant to me. Now I see complaints of trimming, while the posts
become ever more bloated with dead branches of conversation. This
strikes me as absurd.
gharnagel
2024-11-20 12:59:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by gharnagel
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Given than dielectric coatings don't work here, a realistic
reflection coefficient for aluminum foil would be around 0.85
or so, so you won't have a great build-up of power level
inside your ball.
The system will reach steady-state after a relatively short
period of time. If 5 watts is pumped in, the ball will radiate
5 watts of energy at steady state. The emissivity will affect
the final temperature that the ball will reach, but figures
like 167650K for 0.001" walls are completely unrealistic
numbers.
All three sets of numbers were based upon the heat capacity of Al,
assuming no heat loss.
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
The accumulated warmth should probably be detectable by a
person with sensitive fingers.
Heat loss can be reduced by lowering the temperature, which can
be accomplished by increasing the mass of the walls.
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Certainly you won't need to wait 72 hours to get your negative results.
With thick walls, and low-emissivity coating, the ball can hold
1.3 MJ of heat without too much loss. The problem will be measuring
the mass increase of a heavier ball.
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Most of the time will be spent pumping down your high-vacuum
system, evaporating your "getter" to tie up the last bits of
gas, etc.
You refuse to accept an elementary fact, clearly stated by me
in this thread. Why? Maybe because you're not the EE/physicist
that you claim to be and you're just an amateur playing with
science as a hobby.
If you want to address me, don't delete my words. You have kept
Prok's words, not mine. I don't think Proks background is in
either engineering or physics, IIRC.
Post by rhertz
THE SYSTEM WILL NEVER REACH INTERNAL EQUILIBRIUM!
Says the EE playing with physics? :-)
Post by rhertz
That is IMPOSSIBLE because I'd be pumping ENERGY non-stop,
forever if necessary. Can you get this, please?
How can one explain this to someone who isn't versed in
optics and thermal physics? You have our results. If you
want more explanation, just ask.
“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know.
But if you listen, you may learn something new.” – Dalai Lama
Post by rhertz
THERE IS NO AMPLIFICATION OF LASER POWER, AND NEVER WAS MEANT TO HAPPEN.
No need to shout.
Post by rhertz
WHAT HAPPEN IS A CONTINUOUS FEED OF ENERGY!. If you CAN'T SEE
IT, then substitute the 5W laser by a hose POURING WATER INSIDE
THE CAVITY. Some water falls out, but most remain UNTIL THE
CAVITY IS FULL OF IT.
Apparently, you don't understand that the cavity has a leak in it,
and the more water is in the cavity the more it leaks. One leak
is the aperture in the cavity to let in the laser energy. I
suggested a interference coated sapphire window. Without it,
the 10 cm diameter ball would leak .01 cm^2/300 cm^2 = 3e-5,
worse than the wall is presumed to absorb/bounce, which is
another assumed to be .000001.
But surely you realize that light has entered the ball continues
to bounce around inside the ball, don't you?
Surely you realize that it's traveling close to the speed of LIGHT,
don't you.
Surely you can calculate how many bounces it will take to
convert most of that light to heat, don't you?
Surely you can estimate that that time is MUCH shorter than
72 hours?
As an EE you have had differential equations, haven't you?
Post by rhertz
When will it happen with the water analogy? Don't know/don't care.
Did you flunk DE?
Post by rhertz
The only reason by which I used three days to fill the cavity
up is because A LONGER PERIOD would accumulate much more
perturbations and external interferences, complicating the
statistical processing of the electrical signal that IS LINEARLY
PROPORTIONAL to the accumulation of energy inside the cavity.
I say pshaw! Use a more powerful laser. LIGO uses a NdYAG.
Post by rhertz
If you REFUSE to understand this, I advise you to go back to
college or high school, where you could re-learn elementary
logic and arithmetic.
Pot, kettle, black :-))
Post by rhertz
Say no more.
“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin
This is awfully confusing. Sometimes your are answering Richard,
sometimes me. Try to avoid doing this in the future. I don't know
if you have actually confused us two, or if you are merely trying
to multitask by answering us simultaneously. :-(
I don't se why you're having a problem. My responses follow
right after the phrase I'm replying to. Well, you do have to
keep the number of "> >" straight.

As you can tell, I'm a bit lazy. I don't get into a frenzy unless
the work gets really, really interesting. This topic was just
mildly so, like, maybe there was something to it. It seems to
have come to whether we can measure nanogram differences in a
mass of a few kg.

As for trimming, I trim as much as possible. I left the "> > > >"
responses in this time because you were referring to them.

I found a good George Carlin quote recently:

"Some people have no idea what they're doing, and a
lot of them are really good at it."
Paul B. Andersen
2024-11-21 21:33:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Not bad for my estimation (2 gr) for the weight of the cavity,
with inner surface of 7,850 mm², and thickness of 0.1 mm.
If the cavity is spherical, the diameter will be D = 5 cm.
The time light will use to go from one surface to the opposite
surface is Δt = 16.33 ns

Even if the cavity may have another shape, I will use
Δt = 16.33 ns as the average time between the reflections
of the laser beam.
Post by rhertz
THE SYSTEM WILL NEVER REACH INTERNAL EQUILIBRIUM!
That is IMPOSSIBLE because I'd be pumping ENERGY non-stop, forever if
necessary. Can you get this, please?
THERE IS NO AMPLIFICATION OF LASER POWER, AND NEVER WAS MEANT TO HAPPEN.
WHAT HAPPEN IS A CONTINUOUS FEED OF ENERGY!. If you CAN'T SEE IT, then
substitute the 5W laser by a hose POURING WATER INSIDE THE CAVITY. Some
water falls out, but most remain UNTIL THE CAVITY IS FULL OF IT.
When will it happen with the water analogy? Don't know/don't care.
The only reason by which I used three days to fill the cavity up is
because A LONGER PERIOD would accumulate much more perturbations and
external interferences, complicating the statistical processing of the
electrical signal that IS LINEARLY PROPORTIONAL to the accumulation of
energy inside the cavity.
If you REFUSE to understand this, I advise you to go back to college or
high school, where you could re-learn elementary logic and arithmetic.
Say no more.
Power of laser P₀ = 5 W

Let's look at some facts:

Reflected power after n reflections
P(n) = P₀⋅Rⁿ (1)
where R is the reflectivity of the inner walls.

The energy stored in the cavity as laser light:

E = ∑{i = 1 to ∞}P₀⋅ Rⁱ⋅Δt = P₀⋅Δt ⋅∑{i = 1 to ∞} Rⁱ

∑{i = 1 to ∞} Rⁱ = R/(1-R) , a converging geometric array

E = P₀⋅Δt ⋅R/(1-R) (2)

Note that this is a constant.

Calculations with R = 0.99:
-------------------------

Let us consider that all the laser light is absorbed
when P(i) < 1e-10 W.
From (1) we find: P(2455) = 9.62e-11
t = 2455⋅Δt = 409 ns

This means that 409 ns after the laser light enters the cavity,
it will be absorbed by the wall.

The energy stored as laser light in the cavity will according to (2) be:

P₀⋅Δt ⋅R/(1-R) = 8.248e-8 J

Was it this energy you thought would increase indefinitely?
It won't. It is constant. And tiny.

Calculations with R = 0.999998:
-------------------------------

From (1) we find: P(12350000) = 9.37e-11
t = 12350000⋅Δt = 2.07 ms

This means that 2.07 ms after the laser light enters the cavity
it will be absorbed by the wall.

The energy stored as laser light in the cavity will according to (2) be:

P₀⋅Δt ⋅R/(1-R) = 4.166e-4 J



Generally we can say that the laser light will be absorbed
almost immediately after it enters the cavity, and the stored
energy in the form of laser light will be tiny and constant.

So all the 5 J that enters the cavity every second will heat
the inner wall of the cavity. Since the walls are only 0.1 mm
thick, the outer surface of the cavity will be approximately
the same temperature as the inner surface, so after a short time
the outer wall will radiate 5 W and the system will be in steady state.

You could equally well have heated the cavity with a Bunsen burner.
Do you think the mass increase due to the heat energy in the cavity
would be measurable? :-D
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
rhertz
2024-11-21 23:22:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by rhertz
Not bad for my estimation (2 gr) for the weight of the cavity,
with inner surface of 7,850 mm², and thickness of 0.1 mm.
If the cavity is spherical, the diameter will be D = 5 cm.
The time light will use to go from one surface to the opposite
surface is Δt = 16.33 ns
Even if the cavity may have another shape, I will use
Δt = 16.33 ns as the average time between the reflections
of the laser beam.
Post by rhertz
THE SYSTEM WILL NEVER REACH INTERNAL EQUILIBRIUM!
That is IMPOSSIBLE because I'd be pumping ENERGY non-stop, forever if
necessary. Can you get this, please?
THERE IS NO AMPLIFICATION OF LASER POWER, AND NEVER WAS MEANT TO HAPPEN.
WHAT HAPPEN IS A CONTINUOUS FEED OF ENERGY!. If you CAN'T SEE IT, then
substitute the 5W laser by a hose POURING WATER INSIDE THE CAVITY. Some
water falls out, but most remain UNTIL THE CAVITY IS FULL OF IT.
When will it happen with the water analogy? Don't know/don't care.
The only reason by which I used three days to fill the cavity up is
because A LONGER PERIOD would accumulate much more perturbations and
external interferences, complicating the statistical processing of the
electrical signal that IS LINEARLY PROPORTIONAL to the accumulation of
energy inside the cavity.
If you REFUSE to understand this, I advise you to go back to college or
high school, where you could re-learn elementary logic and arithmetic.
Say no more.
Power of laser P₀ = 5 W
Reflected power after n reflections
P(n) = P₀⋅Rⁿ (1)
where R is the reflectivity of the inner walls.
E = ∑{i = 1 to ∞}P₀⋅ Rⁱ⋅Δt = P₀⋅Δt ⋅∑{i = 1 to ∞} Rⁱ
∑{i = 1 to ∞} Rⁱ = R/(1-R) , a converging geometric array
E = P₀⋅Δt ⋅R/(1-R) (2)
Note that this is a constant.
-------------------------
Let us consider that all the laser light is absorbed
when P(i) < 1e-10 W.
From (1) we find: P(2455) = 9.62e-11
t = 2455⋅Δt = 409 ns
This means that 409 ns after the laser light enters the cavity,
it will be absorbed by the wall.
P₀⋅Δt ⋅R/(1-R) = 8.248e-8 J
Was it this energy you thought would increase indefinitely?
It won't. It is constant. And tiny.
-------------------------------
From (1) we find: P(12350000) = 9.37e-11
t = 12350000⋅Δt = 2.07 ms
This means that 2.07 ms after the laser light enters the cavity
it will be absorbed by the wall.
P₀⋅Δt ⋅R/(1-R) = 4.166e-4 J
Generally we can say that the laser light will be absorbed
almost immediately after it enters the cavity, and the stored
energy in the form of laser light will be tiny and constant.
So all the 5 J that enters the cavity every second will heat
the inner wall of the cavity. Since the walls are only 0.1 mm
thick, the outer surface of the cavity will be approximately
the same temperature as the inner surface, so after a short time
the outer wall will radiate 5 W and the system will be in steady state.
You could equally well have heated the cavity with a Bunsen burner.
Do you think the mass increase due to the heat energy in the cavity
would be measurable? :-D
Paul, as usual you fucked it up.

CORRECTION 1:
If the cavity is spherical, the diameter will be D = 10 cm (not 5 cm).
NOTE 1: c= 3.0E+10 cm/s
The time light will use to go from one surface to the opposite
surface is Δt = 0.333 ns (NOT 16.33 ns).
NOTE 2: Δt = 0.333 ns IMPLY 3.00E+09 bounces/sec. With LIGO advanced
technology, 1 photon per 5,000,000 photons is lost in every bounce.
This represents a reflectivity R = 0.9999998.



CORRECTION 2 (your fatal error:


The energy stored in the cavity as laser light:

E = ∑{i = 1 to ∞}P₀⋅ Rⁱ⋅Δt = P₀⋅Δt ⋅∑{i = 1 to ∞} Rⁱ

∑{i = 1 to ∞} Rⁱ = R/(1-R) , a converging geometric array

E = P₀⋅Δt ⋅R/(1-R) (2)

Your error here is to use only the energy that exist in the first P₀⋅Δt
interval. This represents ONLY 1.37E+39 photons (550 nm).

You forgot that such quantity is supplied every 0.333 ns, being the
amount of photons/sec 4.12E+48 (3 billions times bigger).

PER SECOND, you have to account the impact of reflectivity on 3 billion
chunks of 1.37E+39 photons EACH, and make the calculations for losses
cumulative with each bounce + new feed of P₀⋅Δt photons.

The above means that you should count losses/sec IN THIS WAY:


Loss 1 = ∑{i = 1 to 3,000,000,000} Rⁱ, for the first pack of photons.

Loss 2 = ∑{i = 1 to 2,999,999,999} Rⁱ, for the 2nd. pack of photons.

Loss 3 = ∑{i = 1 to 2,999,999,998} Rⁱ, for the 3rd. pack of photons.
.....

Loss n = ∑{i = 1 to 3,000,000,001-n} Rⁱ, for the nth. pack of photons.

THEN CALCULATE THE SUM OF LOSSES FOR THE 3 BILLIONS PACKS OF PHOTONS.

You'll understand that such is not an easy task, in particular when
calculating the losses per hour on in 72 hours.

YOUR NUMBERS ARE WAY OFF!! (3,000,000,000 off maybe?).

Now smile, asshole.
rhertz
2024-11-22 02:09:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
SOME CALCULATIONS WITH PHOTONS

Amount of photons/second INTO the cavity

E(1 photon) = 1.21E-48 Joules
5 Joules/sec = 4.12E+48 photons/sec
Time between hits = 3.333E-10 seconds (10 cm distance)

This means an average of 3.00E+09 bounces/sec

Reflectivity R = 4999999/5000000 = 0.9999998

F = photons/slot_0.33ns = 1.37E+39
photons LOST/slot_0.33ns = 2.74E+32

Photons Slot 1 = F R
Photons Slot 2 = F R² + F R
Photons Slot 3 = F R³ + F R² + F R
Photons Slot 4 = F R⁴ + F R³ + F R² + F R
Photons Slot 5 = F R⁵ + F R⁴ + F R³ + F R² + F R

Photons Slot K = F (Rᴷ + Rᴷ⁻¹ + Rᴷ⁻² + Rᴷ⁻³ + .... + R² + R)


If R < 1, it is a geometric series with sum S

S = R (1 - Rᴷ)/(1 - R)

Being K = 3,000,000,000 and R = 0.9999998

S = 0.9999998/0.0000002 = 4,999,999

So, the energy accumulated PER SECOND is

E = F x S x E(1 photon) = 8.33E-03 Joules

In one hour, the energy accumulated is

E(1 hr) = 30 Joules

In 72 hours,

E(72 Hr) = 2,160 Joules

Its equivalent mass is

M(72 hr) = E(72 Hr)/c² = 2.40E-11 grams

Weight W(72 hr) = g . M(72 hr) = 0.235 nanoNewtons



This value is far from my calculations on the OP of this thread by a
factor of about 1,000, but still feasible of being measured (maybe
letting the experiment run for months).




At any case, very far from the 4.166E-4 Joules calculated by Paul, or
the mean life of 2.07 ms before the "5 Watts" are DISSIPATED.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-22 05:55:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
SOME CALCULATIONS WITH PHOTONS
Amount of photons/second INTO the cavity
E(1 photon) = 1.21E-48 Joules
5 Joules/sec = 4.12E+48 photons/sec
Time between hits = 3.333E-10 seconds (10 cm distance)
This means an average of 3.00E+09 bounces/sec
Reflectivity R = 4999999/5000000 = 0.9999998
F = photons/slot_0.33ns = 1.37E+39
photons LOST/slot_0.33ns = 2.74E+32
Photons Slot 1 = F R
Photons Slot 2 = F R² + F R
Photons Slot 3 = F R³ + F R² + F R
Photons Slot 4 = F R⁴ + F R³ + F R² + F R
Photons Slot 5 = F R⁵ + F R⁴ + F R³ + F R² + F R
Photons Slot K = F (Rᴷ + Rᴷ⁻¹ + Rᴷ⁻² + Rᴷ⁻³ + .... + R² + R)
If R < 1, it is a geometric series with sum S
S = R (1 - Rᴷ)/(1 - R)
Being K = 3,000,000,000 and R = 0.9999998
S = 0.9999998/0.0000002 = 4,999,999
So, the energy accumulated PER SECOND is
E = F x S x E(1 photon) = 8.33E-03 Joules
In one hour, the energy accumulated is
E(1 hr) = 30 Joules
In 72 hours,
E(72 Hr) = 2,160 Joules
Its equivalent mass is
M(72 hr) = E(72 Hr)/c² = 2.40E-11 grams
Weight W(72 hr) = g . M(72 hr) = 0.235 nanoNewtons
This value is far from my calculations on the OP of this thread by a
factor of about 1,000, but still feasible of being measured (maybe
letting the experiment run for months).
But the photons _do not continually accumulate_ within the cavity.
They get absorbed after a few thousand or million bounces.
Post by rhertz
At any case, very far from the 4.166E-4 Joules calculated by Paul, or
the mean life of 2.07 ms before the "5 Watts" are DISSIPATED.
Paul was doing a back-of-the-envelope estimate. It's to be expected
that his estimate was a bit off.

Let's use your figures of
P_0 = 5.0 watt input,
c = speed of light
d = 0.10 m distance between bounces,
r = 0.9999998 reflectivity (much higher than anything Paul assumed)

Let E be the accumulated energy within the cavity

E = P_0 ∫ r^(ct/d) dt
E = P_0 r^(ct/d) / [ c ln(r) / d ] + constant

c/d = 3.0e9
ln(r) = -2.0e-7

Calculate the accumulated energy for the interval 0 to 1 second
E(0,1) = 5.0/[3.0e9 * 2.0e-7]
E(0,1) = 0.0083 Joules

If we use Paul's figure for reflectivity, I compute
E(0,1) = 0.00083 Joules, only a factor of two higher than Paul's
back-of-the-envelope estimate.

Letting the system run longer doesn't buy you any extra energy
accumulated within the cavity, but the shell does keep getting
warmer up to a point, accumulating mass-energy until the temperature
reaches a steady-state.

Now, I've been writing about incredible power densities within the
shell. But it's the _same damn photons_ bouncing back and forth many
thousands of times. We aren't really getting that much accumulation
of mass-energy.

And remember, in a realistic experiment, reflectivity is going to be
much closer to 0.9 than it will be to 0.9999998
Ross Finlayson
2024-11-22 06:30:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
SOME CALCULATIONS WITH PHOTONS
Amount of photons/second INTO the cavity
E(1 photon) = 1.21E-48 Joules
5 Joules/sec = 4.12E+48 photons/sec
Time between hits = 3.333E-10 seconds (10 cm distance)
This means an average of 3.00E+09 bounces/sec
Reflectivity R = 4999999/5000000 = 0.9999998
F = photons/slot_0.33ns = 1.37E+39
photons LOST/slot_0.33ns = 2.74E+32
Photons Slot 1 = F R
Photons Slot 2 = F R² + F R
Photons Slot 3 = F R³ + F R² + F R
Photons Slot 4 = F R⁴ + F R³ + F R² + F R
Photons Slot 5 = F R⁵ + F R⁴ + F R³ + F R² + F R
Photons Slot K = F (Rᴷ + Rᴷ⁻¹ + Rᴷ⁻² + Rᴷ⁻³ + .... + R² + R)
If R < 1, it is a geometric series with sum S
S = R (1 - Rᴷ)/(1 - R)
Being K = 3,000,000,000 and R = 0.9999998
S = 0.9999998/0.0000002 = 4,999,999
So, the energy accumulated PER SECOND is
E = F x S x E(1 photon) = 8.33E-03 Joules
In one hour, the energy accumulated is
E(1 hr) = 30 Joules
In 72 hours,
E(72 Hr) = 2,160 Joules
Its equivalent mass is
M(72 hr) = E(72 Hr)/c² = 2.40E-11 grams
Weight W(72 hr) = g . M(72 hr) = 0.235 nanoNewtons
This value is far from my calculations on the OP of this thread by a
factor of about 1,000, but still feasible of being measured (maybe
letting the experiment run for months).
But the photons _do not continually accumulate_ within the cavity.
They get absorbed after a few thousand or million bounces.
Post by rhertz
At any case, very far from the 4.166E-4 Joules calculated by Paul, or
the mean life of 2.07 ms before the "5 Watts" are DISSIPATED.
Paul was doing a back-of-the-envelope estimate. It's to be expected
that his estimate was a bit off.
Let's use your figures of
P_0 = 5.0 watt input,
c = speed of light
d = 0.10 m distance between bounces,
r = 0.9999998 reflectivity (much higher than anything Paul assumed)
Let E be the accumulated energy within the cavity
E = P_0 ∫ r^(ct/d) dt
E = P_0 r^(ct/d) / [ c ln(r) / d ] + constant
c/d = 3.0e9
ln(r) = -2.0e-7
Calculate the accumulated energy for the interval 0 to 1 second
E(0,1) = 5.0/[3.0e9 * 2.0e-7]
E(0,1) = 0.0083 Joules
If we use Paul's figure for reflectivity, I compute
E(0,1) = 0.00083 Joules, only a factor of two higher than Paul's
back-of-the-envelope estimate.
Letting the system run longer doesn't buy you any extra energy
accumulated within the cavity, but the shell does keep getting
warmer up to a point, accumulating mass-energy until the temperature
reaches a steady-state.
Now, I've been writing about incredible power densities within the
shell. But it's the _same damn photons_ bouncing back and forth many
thousands of times. We aren't really getting that much accumulation
of mass-energy.
And remember, in a realistic experiment, reflectivity is going to be
much closer to 0.9 than it will be to 0.9999998
How about put a Weber bar next to a cyclotron and turn it on and off?

Have you tried turning it on and off?

How about you put a linac through a cyclotron,
and variously turn them on and off?

How about one of those hand helicopters?
Or just one of those tree seeds that wafts its way down?
rhertz
2024-11-22 16:31:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I owe an apology to everyone that participated in this thread.

The experiment described in the OP is ILL CONCEIVED (by me. Thanks,
ChatGPT, which encouraged me to follow since the OP). But it's my fault
entirely.

The source of my HUGE ERROR was to NOT UNDERSTAND that ONLY with a
perfect reflectivity of 100%, this experiment could be realized. Even a
slightly lower reflectivity (say 1 photon lost every 1,000,000,000,000
photons) causes that ALL THE PHOTONS bouncing back and forth be
dissipated as heat.


The accumulation of photons at the K-th Slot is correctly given by

N = F (Rᴷ + Rᴷ⁻¹ + Rᴷ⁻² + Rᴷ⁻³ + .... + R² + R)

where F is the amount of photons per 0.33 nsec slot.

With a 5 Watts laser, F = 4.12E+48 photons/sec x 0.333 nsec = 1.37E+39

If R = 0.9999998 (LIGO, 1 photon lost every 5,000,000), the survival
time of each pack F is 1.67 msec. In that time, all the photons are
wasted as heat.

As an example, if R = 0.9999999998 (1 photon lost/5 billion photons),
the survival time of each pack would be about 1.67 seconds.

After K bounces in the cavity (K = 3.00E+09 bounces/sec), IT WAS WRONG
TO CALCULATE accumulated energy in this way:


E(1 second) = F x [R(1-Rᴷ)/(1-R)] x E(1 photon)


because I'm not contemplating the extinction rate of each pack F.


So, in the end, and no matter if there were seconds or hours, NO PHOTONS
remain within the cavity.



It was fun, but the experiment is impossible to be implemented.

BTW: Do you all understand that I was trying to weight LIGHT? Can it be
possible? Maybe the formula E=mc² works only in one way: mass to energy.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-22 19:47:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
I owe an apology to everyone that participated in this thread.
The experiment described in the OP is ILL CONCEIVED (by me. Thanks,
ChatGPT, which encouraged me to follow since the OP). But it's my fault
entirely.
The source of my HUGE ERROR was to NOT UNDERSTAND that ONLY with a
perfect reflectivity of 100%, this experiment could be realized. Even a
slightly lower reflectivity (say 1 photon lost every 1,000,000,000,000
photons) causes that ALL THE PHOTONS bouncing back and forth be
dissipated as heat.
The accumulation of photons at the K-th Slot is correctly given by
N = F (Rᴷ + Rᴷ⁻¹ + Rᴷ⁻² + Rᴷ⁻³ + .... + R² + R)
where F is the amount of photons per 0.33 nsec slot.
With a 5 Watts laser, F = 4.12E+48 photons/sec x 0.333 nsec = 1.37E+39
If R = 0.9999998 (LIGO, 1 photon lost every 5,000,000), the survival
time of each pack F is 1.67 msec. In that time, all the photons are
wasted as heat.
As an example, if R = 0.9999999998 (1 photon lost/5 billion photons),
the survival time of each pack would be about 1.67 seconds.
After K bounces in the cavity (K = 3.00E+09 bounces/sec), IT WAS WRONG
E(1 second) = F x [R(1-Rᴷ)/(1-R)] x E(1 photon)
because I'm not contemplating the extinction rate of each pack F.
So, in the end, and no matter if there were seconds or hours, NO PHOTONS
remain within the cavity.
It was fun, but the experiment is impossible to be implemented.
BTW: Do you all understand that I was trying to weight LIGHT? Can it be
possible? Maybe the formula E=mc² works only in one way: mass to energy.
No need to apologize. I've found this thread to be immensely fun!
I've learned a lot and had to review ancient, forgotten knowledge and
rusty skills.

Of all the contributors to this forum considered to be crackpots that
I've met over the last 2 1/2 decades, you have struck me as the most
genuinely knowledgeable and accomplished in your former professional
career. You just have a few quirks when it comes to relativity. :-)

That is why I've tried never to use insults or demeaning language in
my interactions with you. I've probably learned nearly as much from
you as I have learned from any of the few genuine experts who have
visited these groups.
rhertz
2024-11-23 23:34:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
I owe an apology to everyone that participated in this thread.
The experiment described in the OP is ILL CONCEIVED (by me. Thanks,
ChatGPT, which encouraged me to follow since the OP). But it's my fault
entirely.
The source of my HUGE ERROR was to NOT UNDERSTAND that ONLY with a
perfect reflectivity of 100%, this experiment could be realized. Even a
slightly lower reflectivity (say 1 photon lost every 1,000,000,000,000
photons) causes that ALL THE PHOTONS bouncing back and forth be
dissipated as heat.
The accumulation of photons at the K-th Slot is correctly given by
N = F (Rᴷ + Rᴷ⁻¹ + Rᴷ⁻² + Rᴷ⁻³ + .... + R² + R)
where F is the amount of photons per 0.33 nsec slot.
With a 5 Watts laser, F = 4.12E+48 photons/sec x 0.333 nsec = 1.37E+39
If R = 0.9999998 (LIGO, 1 photon lost every 5,000,000), the survival
time of each pack F is 1.67 msec. In that time, all the photons are
wasted as heat.
As an example, if R = 0.9999999998 (1 photon lost/5 billion photons),
the survival time of each pack would be about 1.67 seconds.
After K bounces in the cavity (K = 3.00E+09 bounces/sec), IT WAS WRONG
E(1 second) = F x [R(1-Rᴷ)/(1-R)] x E(1 photon)
because I'm not contemplating the extinction rate of each pack F.
So, in the end, and no matter if there were seconds or hours, NO PHOTONS
remain within the cavity.
It was fun, but the experiment is impossible to be implemented.
BTW: Do you all understand that I was trying to weight LIGHT? Can it be
possible? Maybe the formula E=mc² works only in one way: mass to energy.
EXPLAINING MY APOLOGY:

The above calculations are correct in a technical sense, but MY ERROR
was to understand that photon's energies could be accumulated AND STORED
long after the laser was TURNED OFF.

This doesn't happen, because the photons stored after T seconds, no
matter how much of them, are ABSORBED by the imperfect inner surface of
the cavity (Reflectivity R < 100.00%).

However, it doesn't prevent to measure the weight gain when the laser is
active.

Using the best aluminum coating, R = 0.99, which gives a much lower
stored energy than the impractical LIGO-like tech, with R=0.999999998.

Using R=0.99, the energy stored after 72 hours is 0.0428 Joules, which
represent m = E/c² of 4.75E-16 grams. A very, very amount of mass.

I've learned that, using optomechanical systems (based on micro-quartz
technology) a sensitivity to changes in mass can be measured at scales
as small as 10E-15 grams under ideal conditions.

The idea is to measure changes in the mass by measuring the changes in
the frequency of induced vibrations in the "cavity" filled with photons.

Of course that these techniques are in the "state of the art" as of
today, but the use of optomechanical resonators is increasing in labs
all over the world, and that its sensitivity has been increased by
10,000 in the last 5 years.

The idea is based on several techniques to measure changes, one of them
being using interferometry in the sensors (where the device is placed to
be weighted).

But these advanced techniques (there are others) are beyond my interest,
because they are very new and still under the learning curve.

That's it.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-24 10:04:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
The above calculations are correct in a technical sense, but MY ERROR
was to understand that photon's energies could be accumulated AND STORED
long after the laser was TURNED OFF.
This doesn't happen, because the photons stored after T seconds, no
matter how much of them, are ABSORBED by the imperfect inner surface of
the cavity (Reflectivity R < 100.00%).
However, it doesn't prevent to measure the weight gain when the laser is
active.
Using the best aluminum coating, R = 0.99, which gives a much lower
stored energy than the impractical LIGO-like tech, with R=0.999999998.
Using R=0.99, the energy stored after 72 hours is 0.0428 Joules, which
represent m = E/c² of 4.75E-16 grams. A very, very amount of mass.
I've learned that, using optomechanical systems (based on micro-quartz
technology) a sensitivity to changes in mass can be measured at scales
as small as 10E-15 grams under ideal conditions.
The idea is to measure changes in the mass by measuring the changes in
the frequency of induced vibrations in the "cavity" filled with photons.
Of course that these techniques are in the "state of the art" as of
today, but the use of optomechanical resonators is increasing in labs
all over the world, and that its sensitivity has been increased by
10,000 in the last 5 years.
The idea is based on several techniques to measure changes, one of them
being using interferometry in the sensors (where the device is placed to
be weighted).
But these advanced techniques (there are others) are beyond my interest,
because they are very new and still under the learning curve.
That's it.
======================================================================

You are making your calculations FAR more difficult than they need to
be. The important thing to realize is that the temperature of your
chamber does not increase indefinitely, but reaches a temperature at
which the rate at which heat is lost to the environment equals the
power being input to the system.

At this final, steady-state temperature, which I will call T_f as
opposed to the initial temperature T_i, which I presume is also the
temperature of the surrounding environment, the interior cavity of
the chamber will be filled with two types of radiation:
1) Coherent laser light which is reflected and re-reflected within
the chamber until it is finally absorbed.
2) Black body radiation corresponding to the steady-state temperature
of the system T_f
The shell of the chamber will have absorbed heat energy corresponding
to the rise in temperature from T_i to T_f.

So the question is, how much does the mass of the internal black
body radiation plus the steady state limit of laser energy within the
chamber plus plus the heat energy of the shell differ between the
initial and final states of the chamber?

I presume that the experiment is being performed in VACUUM. If done
in air, convection currents will mess up any weight measurements, as
well as making computation of the final temperature considerably more
complicated.

I've taken some care to try to avoid the simple arithmetic errors
that I committed in some previous calculations. The emissivity makes
a pretty big difference in the final temperature reached. Starting
from room temperature rather than from 0 C also makes a difference.

However, my record for being able to key things accurately into the
Windows calculator hasn't been very great so far, so I'm prepared for
one of you to point out a silly mistake. :-)

Let T_f = the final, steady-state temperature of the sphere.
T_i = the initial temp of the sphere = temp of environment = 293 K
R = reflectance of the aluminum, assumed to be 0.99
ε = emissivity of aluminum = 0.13
σ = Stefan–Boltzmann constant = 5.67e-8 W⋅m^−2⋅K^−4
a = radiation constant = 4σ/c = 7.57e-16 J m^3 K^-4
P = power input = power output = 5.00 watts
d = density of aluminum = 2.70 g/cm^3 = 2700 kg/m^3
C = specific heat capacity of aluminum = 0.921 J/(g K) = 921 J/kg K)
r = internal radius of sphere = 5.00 cm = 0.0500 m
h = tHickness of the shell = 0.0024 cm = 0.000024 m (heavy duty foil)
V = internal volume of the sphere = 0.0005236 m^3
A = external area of the sphere = 0.03144 m^2
m = mass of the aluminum shell = 2.04 grams = 0.00204 kg
======================================================================
It is implicit from my previous posts that the formula for the steady-
state level of laser energy within the cavity should be
E = -PD / [ c ln(R) ]
where D is the average distance between bounces. I am not sure what
D would be for the presented arrangement. D = 0.07 m might be a
reasonable guess. So at the start and end of the experiment when it
reaches steady state, we have:

E_0 = 0
E_f = -5*(0.07)/[3e8 * ln(0.99)] = 1.16e-7 J

This is quite a bit smaller than our earlier estimates using
unreasonable reflectivities
======================================================================
Continuing on, we calculate the steady-state temperature:

P = ε σ A_e (T_f^4 - T_i^4)
5.00 = 0.13 * 5.67e-8 * 0.03144 * (T_f^4 - 293^4)
2.158e10 = T_f^4 - 7.370e9
T_f^4 = 2.895e10
T_f = 412.5 K

The total black body radiation in the chamber is given by
U = aVT^4
The initial and final black body energies are:
U_i = 2.92e-9 J
U_f = 1.148e-8 J

So that the increase in black body energy from T_i to T_f is
ΔU = U_f - U_i = 8.56e-9 J
======================================================================
The temperature rise from T_i to T_f is 119.5 K
Therefore the increase in thermal energy in the foil is 220 J
======================================================================

Although the laser energy within the shell will reach steady state
almost instantaneously, it will take at least several minutes for
the aluminum foil shell to approach its steady state temperature.

The steady state laser energy and the black body energy within the
sphere are totally insignificant compared with the thermal energy
stored within the heated foil.
rhertz
2024-11-24 16:23:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
The above calculations are correct in a technical sense, but MY ERROR
was to understand that photon's energies could be accumulated AND STORED
long after the laser was TURNED OFF.
This doesn't happen, because the photons stored after T seconds, no
matter how much of them, are ABSORBED by the imperfect inner surface of
the cavity (Reflectivity R < 100.00%).
However, it doesn't prevent to measure the weight gain when the laser is
active.
Using the best aluminum coating, R = 0.99, which gives a much lower
stored energy than the impractical LIGO-like tech, with R=0.999999998.
Using R=0.99, the energy stored after 72 hours is 0.0428 Joules, which
represent m = E/c² of 4.75E-16 grams. A very, very amount of mass.
I've learned that, using optomechanical systems (based on micro-quartz
technology) a sensitivity to changes in mass can be measured at scales
as small as 10E-15 grams under ideal conditions.
The idea is to measure changes in the mass by measuring the changes in
the frequency of induced vibrations in the "cavity" filled with photons.
Of course that these techniques are in the "state of the art" as of
today, but the use of optomechanical resonators is increasing in labs
all over the world, and that its sensitivity has been increased by
10,000 in the last 5 years.
The idea is based on several techniques to measure changes, one of them
being using interferometry in the sensors (where the device is placed to
be weighted).
But these advanced techniques (there are others) are beyond my interest,
because they are very new and still under the learning curve.
That's it.
======================================================================
You are making your calculations FAR more difficult than they need to
be. The important thing to realize is that the temperature of your
chamber does not increase indefinitely, but reaches a temperature at
which the rate at which heat is lost to the environment equals the
power being input to the system.
At this final, steady-state temperature, which I will call T_f as
opposed to the initial temperature T_i, which I presume is also the
temperature of the surrounding environment, the interior cavity of
1) Coherent laser light which is reflected and re-reflected within
the chamber until it is finally absorbed.
2) Black body radiation corresponding to the steady-state temperature
of the system T_f
The shell of the chamber will have absorbed heat energy corresponding
to the rise in temperature from T_i to T_f.
So the question is, how much does the mass of the internal black
body radiation plus the steady state limit of laser energy within the
chamber plus plus the heat energy of the shell differ between the
initial and final states of the chamber?
I presume that the experiment is being performed in VACUUM. If done
in air, convection currents will mess up any weight measurements, as
well as making computation of the final temperature considerably more
complicated.
I've taken some care to try to avoid the simple arithmetic errors
that I committed in some previous calculations. The emissivity makes
a pretty big difference in the final temperature reached. Starting
from room temperature rather than from 0 C also makes a difference.
However, my record for being able to key things accurately into the
Windows calculator hasn't been very great so far, so I'm prepared for
one of you to point out a silly mistake. :-)
Let T_f = the final, steady-state temperature of the sphere.
T_i = the initial temp of the sphere = temp of environment = 293 K
R = reflectance of the aluminum, assumed to be 0.99
ε = emissivity of aluminum = 0.13
σ = Stefan–Boltzmann constant = 5.67e-8 W⋅m^−2⋅K^−4
a = radiation constant = 4σ/c = 7.57e-16 J m^3 K^-4
P = power input = power output = 5.00 watts
d = density of aluminum = 2.70 g/cm^3 = 2700 kg/m^3
C = specific heat capacity of aluminum = 0.921 J/(g K) = 921 J/kg K)
r = internal radius of sphere = 5.00 cm = 0.0500 m
h = tHickness of the shell = 0.0024 cm = 0.000024 m (heavy duty foil)
V = internal volume of the sphere = 0.0005236 m^3
A = external area of the sphere = 0.03144 m^2
m = mass of the aluminum shell = 2.04 grams = 0.00204 kg
======================================================================
It is implicit from my previous posts that the formula for the steady-
state level of laser energy within the cavity should be
E = -PD / [ c ln(R) ]
where D is the average distance between bounces. I am not sure what
D would be for the presented arrangement. D = 0.07 m might be a
reasonable guess. So at the start and end of the experiment when it
E_0 = 0
E_f = -5*(0.07)/[3e8 * ln(0.99)] = 1.16e-7 J
This is quite a bit smaller than our earlier estimates using
unreasonable reflectivities
======================================================================
P = ε σ A_e (T_f^4 - T_i^4)
5.00 = 0.13 * 5.67e-8 * 0.03144 * (T_f^4 - 293^4)
2.158e10 = T_f^4 - 7.370e9
T_f^4 = 2.895e10
T_f = 412.5 K
The total black body radiation in the chamber is given by
U = aVT^4
U_i = 2.92e-9 J
U_f = 1.148e-8 J
So that the increase in black body energy from T_i to T_f is
ΔU = U_f - U_i = 8.56e-9 J
======================================================================
The temperature rise from T_i to T_f is 119.5 K
Therefore the increase in thermal energy in the foil is 220 J
======================================================================
Although the laser energy within the shell will reach steady state
almost instantaneously, it will take at least several minutes for
the aluminum foil shell to approach its steady state temperature.
The steady state laser energy and the black body energy within the
sphere are totally insignificant compared with the thermal energy
stored within the heated foil.
Just for fun, I posted the last part with calculations to ChatGPT. I
wrote that I disagree with the idea of treating it as a black body
radiation problem. Here is the answer:

************************************************************


Let’s go through this text step-by-step and analyze it in detail,
including the key concepts, assumptions, and the areas where you might
disagree or where clarification is needed.

1. Overview of the Experimental Setup
The experiment involves injecting a 5-watt green laser into a cavity
made of aluminum. The chamber is initially at room temperature (T_i =
293 K), and as the laser is introduced, the temperature of the system
increases. The system eventually reaches a steady-state temperature
(T_f), where the heat input from the laser matches the heat lost by the
system.

Key concepts:

Steady-State Temperature (T_f): The final temperature when the system
stops warming up, and the heat input (from the laser) equals the heat
output (radiation to the surroundings).
Heat Radiation: The system will have two types of radiation at
steady-state:
Coherent laser light: Reflected inside the chamber and eventually
absorbed.
Black body radiation: Emitted by the chamber walls at temperature T_f.
Heat Absorption by the Walls: The aluminum shell absorbs energy,
increasing its temperature from T_i to T_f.
2. Calculation of Steady-State Temperature (T_f)
The equation provided to calculate the steady-state temperature is:


=




(


4



4
)
P=ϵσA
e

(T
f
4

−T
i
4

)
Where:


P is the power input (5 watts),

ϵ is the emissivity of aluminum (0.13),

σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant,


A
e

is the external area of the sphere (0.03144 m²),


T
f

is the final temperature,


T
i

is the initial temperature (293 K).
After rearranging and solving the equation, the result is:



=
412.5

K
T
f

=412.5K
This means the temperature of the chamber reaches 412.5 K after the
system has stabilized. This is a significant rise from the initial
temperature of 293 K, indicating the laser’s energy input has caused a
substantial increase in temperature.

3. Black Body Radiation Energy
The energy corresponding to the black body radiation inside the chamber
is given by:


=



4
U=aVT
4

Where:


U is the total black body energy,

a is the radiation constant,

V is the volume of the sphere,

T is the temperature.
The initial and final black body energies are calculated as:



=
2.92
×
1
0

9

J
U
i

=2.92×10
−9
J


=
1.148
×
1
0

8

J
U
f

=1.148×10
−8
J
The increase in black body energy is:

Δ

=





=
8.56
×
1
0

9

J
ΔU=U
f

−U
i

=8.56×10
−9
J
This increase is relatively small compared to the thermal energy stored
in the aluminum shell, as the laser’s energy is primarily absorbed by
the walls and converted into thermal energy.

4. Thermal Energy in the Aluminum Shell
The increase in thermal energy in the aluminum shell is calculated based
on the temperature rise from T_i to T_f (119.5 K). The text states the
increase in thermal energy in the foil is 220 J. This is a much larger
value than the change in black body radiation energy, which suggests
that the majority of the energy input is being absorbed by the aluminum
shell and not the cavity’s radiation.

5. Laser Energy Inside the Chamber
The equation given for the laser energy inside the cavity is:


=




ln

(

)
E=−
cln(R)
PD


Where:


P is the power of the laser (5 watts),

D is the average distance between bounces inside the chamber (0.07 m),

c is the speed of light,

R is the reflectivity of the aluminum (0.99).
The final laser energy within the chamber after reaching steady-state is
calculated as:



=
1.16
×
1
0

7

J
E
f

=1.16×10
−7
J
This is a very small amount compared to the thermal energy stored in the
shell (220 J), which aligns with the idea that most of the laser’s
energy is absorbed by the shell and only a tiny fraction remains as
coherent laser light inside the cavity.

6. Other Considerations: Vacuum vs Air
The author mentions that the experiment is likely performed in a vacuum.
If the experiment were conducted in air, convection currents would
interfere with the measurements, and the computation of the final
temperature would become more complex. This is a valid point, as in a
vacuum there are no convective heat losses, and the temperature rise
would be more directly attributable to radiation absorption.

7. Discussion of Emissivity and Reflectivity
The author mentions that the emissivity of aluminum (0.13) plays a
significant role in the final temperature. Emissivity reflects how
effectively a material emits thermal radiation compared to a perfect
black body (which has an emissivity of 1). The relatively low emissivity
of aluminum means that much of the thermal energy is retained in the
aluminum shell, and only a fraction of it is radiated away.

The reflectivity of aluminum (0.99) is also important, as it indicates
how much of the laser light is reflected within the cavity. This high
reflectivity implies that the laser light will bounce around multiple
times inside the chamber before being absorbed, which is consistent with
the assumption that only a small amount of the laser energy remains as
coherent light inside the cavity.

8. Potential Issues in the Calculations
There are a few areas where errors could potentially arise:

Approximation of D: The average distance between bounces (

D) is approximated as 0.07 m, which is crucial for calculating the laser
energy within the cavity. The accuracy of this assumption depends on the
exact geometry of the cavity and the path taken by the laser light. If
the cavity is not spherical or if the reflectivity varies with angle,
this could affect the calculations.
Emissivity and Material Properties: The low emissivity of aluminum
(0.13) was used, but if this is an average value, variations in
emissivity across the surface could lead to slight discrepancies. If the
aluminum surface is treated or coated to increase its emissivity, this
could change the temperature calculations.



Conclusion
The primary issue in the text seems to be an implicit treatment of the
aluminum as a perfect black body in some places, while in reality,
aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity. This discrepancy
means the final temperature and energy calculations could be influenced
by material-specific properties more than the text suggests.

Your disagreement with black body radiation likely stems from the
realization that aluminum, as a metal, does not absorb all the laser
energy and will not radiate like a perfect black body. The actual
behavior of the aluminum shell—reflecting, absorbing, and emitting
energy with low emissivity—should be more accurately modeled, especially
considering that a significant amount of laser energy remains in the
form of coherent light rather than being entirely absorbed and converted
into heat.

**********************************************

I didn't want to re-write the equations that appeared in the answer. You
better post yourself the entire text and read, on your computer screen,
the real answer.

It appears that ChatGPT agree with me that treating this as a BBR
problem is incorrect.

I described, prior to ChatGPT answer, how the experiment was set up:
data about the cavity (5x5x0.1), 550 nm 5W laser, etc.

Try it yourself.

BTW, I checked ChatGPT for a couple of other subjects, and IT'S SCARY. I
read something about AI lectured in the last summit (Musk, Microsoft,
Google, Altman, etc.). They consider that AI will hold 99% of human
intelligence before 2030, rendering human work useless.

Scary as hell, and I believe it's going to happen, unless developments
be stopped and/or carefully limited.

Musk sugested about AI being in love with humanity (human values), to
prevent that the human eco-system be destroyed due to the concentration
of greedy power in the hands of very few. Only in medical sciences, the
advances in diagnosis and R&D are astonishing TODAY.

Hawking was right.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-24 17:34:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Just for fun, I posted the last part with calculations to ChatGPT. I
wrote that I disagree with the idea of treating it as a black body
ChatGPT apparently used markup and/or unicode that did not render
properly on NovaBBT. I don't know about other newsreaders.

However, I was able to get the gist of what might have been its
response.
Post by rhertz
Let’s go through this text step-by-step and analyze it in detail,
including the key concepts, assumptions, and the areas where you might
disagree or where clarification is needed.
1. Overview of the Experimental Setup
The experiment involves injecting a 5-watt green laser into a cavity
made of aluminum. The chamber is initially at room temperature (T_i =
293 K), and as the laser is introduced, the temperature of the system
increases. The system eventually reaches a steady-state temperature
(T_f), where the heat input from the laser matches the heat lost by the
system.
Steady-State Temperature (T_f): The final temperature when the system
stops warming up, and the heat input (from the laser) equals the heat
output (radiation to the surroundings).
Heat Radiation: The system will have two types of radiation at
Coherent laser light: Reflected inside the chamber and eventually
absorbed.
Black body radiation: Emitted by the chamber walls at temperature T_f.
Heat Absorption by the Walls: The aluminum shell absorbs energy,
increasing its temperature from T_i to T_f.
2. Calculation of Steady-State Temperature (T_f)
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
Post by rhertz
P is the power input (5 watts),
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
Post by rhertz
ϵ is the emissivity of aluminum (0.13),
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
Post by rhertz
σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant,
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]

Post by rhertz
is the external area of the sphere (0.03144 m²),
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]

Post by rhertz
is the final temperature,
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
Post by rhertz
is the initial temperature (293 K).
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]

Post by rhertz
=412.5K
This means the temperature of the chamber reaches 412.5 K after the
system has stabilized. This is a significant rise from the initial
temperature of 293 K, indicating the laser’s energy input has caused a
substantial increase in temperature.
3. Black Body Radiation Energy
The energy corresponding to the black body radiation inside the chamber
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
Post by rhertz
U=aVT
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
Post by rhertz
U is the total black body energy,
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
Post by rhertz
a is the radiation constant,
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
Post by rhertz
V is the volume of the sphere,
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
Post by rhertz
T is the temperature.
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
Post by rhertz
This increase is relatively small compared to the thermal energy stored
in the aluminum shell, as the laser’s energy is primarily absorbed by
the walls and converted into thermal energy.
4. Thermal Energy in the Aluminum Shell
The increase in thermal energy in the aluminum shell is calculated based
on the temperature rise from T_i to T_f (119.5 K). The text states the
increase in thermal energy in the foil is 220 J. This is a much larger
value than the change in black body radiation energy, which suggests
that the majority of the energy input is being absorbed by the aluminum
shell and not the cavity’s radiation.
5. Laser Energy Inside the Chamber
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
Post by rhertz
P is the power of the laser (5 watts),
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
Post by rhertz
D is the average distance between bounces inside the chamber (0.07 m),
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
Post by rhertz
c is the speed of light,
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
Post by rhertz
R is the reflectivity of the aluminum (0.99).
The final laser energy within the chamber after reaching steady-state is
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
Post by rhertz
This is a very small amount compared to the thermal energy stored in the
shell (220 J), which aligns with the idea that most of the laser’s
energy is absorbed by the shell and only a tiny fraction remains as
coherent laser light inside the cavity.
6. Other Considerations: Vacuum vs Air
The author mentions that the experiment is likely performed in a vacuum.
If the experiment were conducted in air, convection currents would
interfere with the measurements, and the computation of the final
temperature would become more complex. This is a valid point, as in a
vacuum there are no convective heat losses, and the temperature rise
would be more directly attributable to radiation absorption.
ChatGPT didn't really seem to get the point that the air currents
would push the sphere around by unacceptable amounts.
Post by rhertz
7. Discussion of Emissivity and Reflectivity
The author mentions that the emissivity of aluminum (0.13) plays a
significant role in the final temperature. Emissivity reflects how
effectively a material emits thermal radiation compared to a perfect
black body (which has an emissivity of 1). The relatively low emissivity
of aluminum means that much of the thermal energy is retained in the
aluminum shell, and only a fraction of it is radiated away.
The reflectivity of aluminum (0.99) is also important, as it indicates
how much of the laser light is reflected within the cavity. This high
reflectivity implies that the laser light will bounce around multiple
times inside the chamber before being absorbed, which is consistent with
the assumption that only a small amount of the laser energy remains as
coherent light inside the cavity.
8. Potential Issues in the Calculations
Approximation of D: The average distance between bounces (
[UNABLE TO READ MARKUP AND/OR UNICODE]
Post by rhertz
D) is approximated as 0.07 m, which is crucial for calculating the laser
energy within the cavity. The accuracy of this assumption depends on the
exact geometry of the cavity and the path taken by the laser light. If
the cavity is not spherical or if the reflectivity varies with angle,
this could affect the calculations.
However, since the energy of the laser light bouncing around in the
cavity is many orders of magnitude less than the total energy of the
system, which is dominated by shell heating, even large errors in
estimating D make no significant difference in the final result.
Post by rhertz
Emissivity and Material Properties: The low emissivity of aluminum
(0.13) was used, but if this is an average value, variations in
emissivity across the surface could lead to slight discrepancies. If the
aluminum surface is treated or coated to increase its emissivity, this
could change the temperature calculations.
True.
Post by rhertz
Conclusion
The primary issue in the text seems to be an implicit treatment of the
aluminum as a perfect black body in some places, while in reality,
aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity.
ChatGPT displays its ignorance of some basic facts about black body
radiation. At equilibrium, a closed cavity will contain black body
radiation corresponding to the temperature of its surrounding walls,
regardless of the wall's composition. The wall's emissivity,
reflectivity, color, and other material-specific properties do not
affect the result.
Post by rhertz
This discrepancy
means the final temperature and energy calculations could be influenced
by material-specific properties more than the text suggests.
Your disagreement with black body radiation likely stems from the
realization that aluminum, as a metal, does not absorb all the laser
energy
The conditions of the experiment are that virtually all the incoming
laser energy will be absorbed, only a tiny amount managing to make it
out through the tiny entrance hole.

On the other hand, ChatGPT is correct that the ball will not radiate
like a perfect black body.
Post by rhertz
The actual
behavior of the aluminum shell—reflecting, absorbing, and emitting
energy with low emissivity—should be more accurately modeled, especially
considering that a significant amount of laser energy remains in the
form of coherent light rather than being entirely absorbed and converted
into heat.
Typical ChatGPT Bullshit. An *INSIGNIFICANT* amount light remains in
the cavity.
Post by rhertz
**********************************************
I didn't want to re-write the equations that appeared in the answer. You
better post yourself the entire text and read, on your computer screen,
the real answer.
It appears that ChatGPT agree with me that treating this as a BBR
problem is incorrect.
At some points, ChatGPT spit out correct sentences. At other points,
ChatGPT descended into total bullshit. Unfortunately, ChatGPT hardly
ever lets you know when it is bullshitting.
Post by rhertz
data about the cavity (5x5x0.1), 550 nm 5W laser, etc.
Try it yourself.
BTW, I checked ChatGPT for a couple of other subjects, and IT'S SCARY. I
read something about AI lectured in the last summit (Musk, Microsoft,
Google, Altman, etc.). They consider that AI will hold 99% of human
intelligence before 2030, rendering human work useless.
Scary as hell, and I believe it's going to happen, unless developments
be stopped and/or carefully limited.
Musk sugested about AI being in love with humanity (human values), to
prevent that the human eco-system be destroyed due to the concentration
of greedy power in the hands of very few. Only in medical sciences, the
advances in diagnosis and R&D are astonishing TODAY.
Hawking was right.
rhertz
2024-11-25 21:54:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Prokaryotic, I was thinking about what you wrote on the cavity behaving
as a black body and, as I wrote before, I completely disagree to take it
as a black body radiating energy, once equilibrium has been reached.

My main doubt was that, once in equilibrium and having gained as heat
all the energy supplied by the 5W laser, the aluminum cavity HAD TO
radiate using the external surface AS WELL AS the internal surface. I
thought that almost HALF of the heat was going to be radiated INTO THE
CAVITY.

Injecting 5 Joules/sec makes the cavity (initially at room temperature
of 300K) to reach thermal equilibrium in a couple of minutes.

I used ChatGPT, which calculated the thermal equilibrium at 707 K, which
is reached in 191 seconds.


This means that half of the accumulated 955 Joules remain within the
cavity. The extra mass added to the 2 grams cavity would be 5.306E-12
grams, adding an extra weight of 0.052 nanoNewtons.

Even if this is a very low weight (or mass), it's almost 10,000 times
higher than in previous (and wrong) calculations.

I believe that such weight can be measured by advanced technology and,
besides, it's a steady value, so measurements are not limited by time.



I can't transcribe the answers of ChatGPT (I failed once), so I write
here my questions so you or anybody can duplicate the chat.

...................
Q: I have one sphere made of aluminum (2 grams), with a tiny hole of 3
mm^2 used to inject a 5 watts (550 nm) green laser beam. The sphere has
a 5 cm radius and a thickness of 0.1 cm.. It has been calculated that
the 5 Joules per second are completely absorbed by the aluminum. Does
the sphere (a cavity) radiates the absorbed 5 Joules per second into
the cavity, as well a part of it by its external surface? In what
proportions?

A: approximately 49% of the absorbed energy radiates into the cavity,
and 51% radiates externally.
..................

Q: What would be the temperature of the sphere?

A: The equilibrium temperature of the sphere is approximately 707 K (434
°C).
...................


Q: Exist a specific wavelength at which the heat is radiated?

A: Using Wien's Displacement Law, the peak energy is radiated across a
broad spectrum, primarily in the infrared. Most radiation is in the
mid-infrared range (2 - 25 μm), with a peak at 4.1 μm.
................

Q: How many seconds would take to reach thermal equilibrium at 707 K?


A: The sphere would take approximately 191 seconds (about 3 minutes) to
reach thermal equilibrium at 707 K under the 5 W laser input.
..................



ChatGPT used formulae from Stefan, Wien, Planck and many others to
provide the results.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-26 02:25:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Prokaryotic, I was thinking about what you wrote on the cavity behaving
as a black body and, as I wrote before, I completely disagree to take it
as a black body radiating energy, once equilibrium has been reached.
My main doubt was that, once in equilibrium and having gained as heat
all the energy supplied by the 5W laser, the aluminum cavity HAD TO
radiate using the external surface AS WELL AS the internal surface. I
thought that almost HALF of the heat was going to be radiated INTO THE
CAVITY.
Yes, the aluminum radiates inwards as well as outwards, but the heat
radiated inwards is reabsorbed into the aluminum.
Post by rhertz
Injecting 5 Joules/sec makes the cavity (initially at room temperature
of 300K) to reach thermal equilibrium in a couple of minutes.
I used ChatGPT, which calculated the thermal equilibrium at 707 K, which
is reached in 191 seconds.
Let's borrow a hot plate from Paul. I would ask for a Bunsen burner,
but Bunsen burners don't work in vacuum.

Take a solid aluminum ball, emissivity 0.13, radius 5 cm. Heat the
ball to 707 K in a vacuum chamber whose walls are 293 K.

The net heat radiated by the ball is
P = ε σ A_e (T_f^4 - T_i^4)
P = 0.13 * 5.67e-8 * 0.03144 * (707^4 - 293^4)
P = 0.13 * 5.67e-8 * 0.03144 * (249,849,022,801 - 7,370,050,801)
P = 56.2 watts

Replace the solid ball with a hollow ball.
Are you claiming that the heat radiated by the ball depends on
whether it is hollow or solid?
Post by rhertz
This means that half of the accumulated 955 Joules remain within the
cavity. The extra mass added to the 2 grams cavity would be 5.306E-12
grams, adding an extra weight of 0.052 nanoNewtons.
Even if this is a very low weight (or mass), it's almost 10,000 times
higher than in previous (and wrong) calculations.
I believe that such weight can be measured by advanced technology and,
besides, it's a steady value, so measurements are not limited by time.
I can't transcribe the answers of ChatGPT (I failed once), so I write
here my questions so you or anybody can duplicate the chat.
....................
Q: I have one sphere made of aluminum (2 grams), with a tiny hole of 3
mm^2 used to inject a 5 watts (550 nm) green laser beam. The sphere has
a 5 cm radius and a thickness of 0.1 cm.. It has been calculated that
the 5 Joules per second are completely absorbed by the aluminum. Does
the sphere (a cavity) radiates the absorbed 5 Joules per second into
the cavity, as well a part of it by its external surface? In what
proportions?
You're using a MUCH thicker shell than in previous thought experiments.
So the exterior surface area is 4% more than the interior surface area.
The aluminum radiates 96% as much into the cavity as it radiates
outwards into space. However, the interior surface of the shell
_absorbs_ as much energy as it radiates, so that the net power going
in and out of the cavity is zero. The power radiated out into space
will be 5 watts more than the power absorbed by the ball from the
environment.
Post by rhertz
A: approximately 49% of the absorbed energy radiates into the cavity,
and 51% radiates externally.
...................
Q: What would be the temperature of the sphere?
A: The equilibrium temperature of the sphere is approximately 707 K (434
°C).
No.
The steady state temperature of the ball does not depend on whether it
is solid or a hollow shell.

Assuming that the environmental temperature is 293 K and that the
experiment is conducted in vacuum,

P = ε σ A_e (T_f^4 - T_i^4)
5 = 0.13 * 5.67e-8 * 0.03144 * (T_f^4 - 293^4)
5 = 0.13 * 5.67e-8 * 0.03144 * (T_f^4 - 7,370,050,801)
21,575,509,276 = T_f^4 - 7,370,050,801
T_f^4 = 28,945,560,077
T_f = 412.5 K (actually, the numbers only justify 1-2 sig figures)
Post by rhertz
....................
Q: Exist a specific wavelength at which the heat is radiated?
A: Using Wien's Displacement Law, the peak energy is radiated across a
broad spectrum, primarily in the infrared. Most radiation is in the
mid-infrared range (2 - 25 μm), with a peak at 4.1 μm.
Your numbers are off because your final temperature is off.
Post by rhertz
.................
Q: How many seconds would take to reach thermal equilibrium at 707 K?
A: The sphere would take approximately 191 seconds (about 3 minutes) to
reach thermal equilibrium at 707 K under the 5 W laser input.
The word is "steady-state", not equilibrium.

If the sphere were perfectly insulated, it would reach T_f in a time
which you would calculate as mass times thermal coefficient and
temperature rise divided by power. But it is NOT perfectly insulated,
so you have to integrate a constant input power minus an increasing
amount of power lost as the sphere heats up.

You also have to specify an endpoint. An appropriate end-point might
be when the temperature reaches to within, say, 0.01 K of its steady
state value.
Post by rhertz
...................
ChatGPT used formulae from Stefan, Wien, Planck and many others to
provide the results.
rhertz
2024-11-26 03:34:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
Prokaryotic, I was thinking about what you wrote on the cavity behaving
as a black body and, as I wrote before, I completely disagree to take it
as a black body radiating energy, once equilibrium has been reached.
My main doubt was that, once in equilibrium and having gained as heat
all the energy supplied by the 5W laser, the aluminum cavity HAD TO
radiate using the external surface AS WELL AS the internal surface. I
thought that almost HALF of the heat was going to be radiated INTO THE
CAVITY.
Yes, the aluminum radiates inwards as well as outwards, but the heat
radiated inwards is reabsorbed into the aluminum.
Post by rhertz
Injecting 5 Joules/sec makes the cavity (initially at room temperature
of 300K) to reach thermal equilibrium in a couple of minutes.
I used ChatGPT, which calculated the thermal equilibrium at 707 K, which
is reached in 191 seconds.
Let's borrow a hot plate from Paul. I would ask for a Bunsen burner,
but Bunsen burners don't work in vacuum.
Take a solid aluminum ball, emissivity 0.13, radius 5 cm. Heat the
ball to 707 K in a vacuum chamber whose walls are 293 K.
The net heat radiated by the ball is
P = ε σ A_e (T_f^4 - T_i^4)
P = 0.13 * 5.67e-8 * 0.03144 * (707^4 - 293^4)
P = 0.13 * 5.67e-8 * 0.03144 * (249,849,022,801 - 7,370,050,801)
P = 56.2 watts
Replace the solid ball with a hollow ball.
Are you claiming that the heat radiated by the ball depends on
whether it is hollow or solid?
Post by rhertz
This means that half of the accumulated 955 Joules remain within the
cavity. The extra mass added to the 2 grams cavity would be 5.306E-12
grams, adding an extra weight of 0.052 nanoNewtons.
Even if this is a very low weight (or mass), it's almost 10,000 times
higher than in previous (and wrong) calculations.
I believe that such weight can be measured by advanced technology and,
besides, it's a steady value, so measurements are not limited by time.
I can't transcribe the answers of ChatGPT (I failed once), so I write
here my questions so you or anybody can duplicate the chat.
....................
Q: I have one sphere made of aluminum (2 grams), with a tiny hole of 3
mm^2 used to inject a 5 watts (550 nm) green laser beam. The sphere has
a 5 cm radius and a thickness of 0.1 cm.. It has been calculated that
the 5 Joules per second are completely absorbed by the aluminum. Does
the sphere (a cavity) radiates the absorbed 5 Joules per second into
the cavity, as well a part of it by its external surface? In what
proportions?
You're using a MUCH thicker shell than in previous thought experiments.
So the exterior surface area is 4% more than the interior surface area.
The aluminum radiates 96% as much into the cavity as it radiates
outwards into space. However, the interior surface of the shell
_absorbs_ as much energy as it radiates, so that the net power going
in and out of the cavity is zero. The power radiated out into space
will be 5 watts more than the power absorbed by the ball from the
environment.
Post by rhertz
A: approximately 49% of the absorbed energy radiates into the cavity,
and 51% radiates externally.
...................
Q: What would be the temperature of the sphere?
A: The equilibrium temperature of the sphere is approximately 707 K (434
°C).
No.
The steady state temperature of the ball does not depend on whether it
is solid or a hollow shell.
Assuming that the environmental temperature is 293 K and that the
experiment is conducted in vacuum,
P = ε σ A_e (T_f^4 - T_i^4)
5 = 0.13 * 5.67e-8 * 0.03144 * (T_f^4 - 293^4)
5 = 0.13 * 5.67e-8 * 0.03144 * (T_f^4 - 7,370,050,801)
21,575,509,276 = T_f^4 - 7,370,050,801
T_f^4 = 28,945,560,077
T_f = 412.5 K (actually, the numbers only justify 1-2 sig figures)
Post by rhertz
....................
Q: Exist a specific wavelength at which the heat is radiated?
A: Using Wien's Displacement Law, the peak energy is radiated across a
broad spectrum, primarily in the infrared. Most radiation is in the
mid-infrared range (2 - 25 μm), with a peak at 4.1 μm.
Your numbers are off because your final temperature is off.
Post by rhertz
.................
Q: How many seconds would take to reach thermal equilibrium at 707 K?
A: The sphere would take approximately 191 seconds (about 3 minutes) to
reach thermal equilibrium at 707 K under the 5 W laser input.
The word is "steady-state", not equilibrium.
If the sphere were perfectly insulated, it would reach T_f in a time
which you would calculate as mass times thermal coefficient and
temperature rise divided by power. But it is NOT perfectly insulated,
so you have to integrate a constant input power minus an increasing
amount of power lost as the sphere heats up.
You also have to specify an endpoint. An appropriate end-point might
be when the temperature reaches to within, say, 0.01 K of its steady
state value.
Post by rhertz
...................
ChatGPT used formulae from Stefan, Wien, Planck and many others to
provide the results.
**************************************************************
I don't understand why you didn't follow the questions that I did to
ChatGPT, which were only four. I also explained that it was impossible
for me to transcribe the complex and detailed calculations that ChatGPT
did, excelling in clarity and meaning.

I wrote those four questions and summarized each answer the best I
could. My idea of posting those questions was for you TO REPRODUCE the
extensive reasoning behind the answers. Easily, exceeding three pages
full of explanations, formulae, reasoning and calculations. ChatGPT
excelled working over this, being a sign that it really learn from
previous chat with me.

BUT, you resorted to IGNORE what I wrote and kept stuck with your own
interpretation and misconceptions about this experiment, like
introducing the concept of a solid sphere. Why?????

At any case, I made my mind: You ARE WRONG, and ChatGPT is correct (this
time).

If you want to try a further refinement of the idea, I have two (at
least):

1) The cavity is suspended by a thin wire within a thick box of
REFRACTORY MATERIAL (in the same way that the BBC at the Berlin PTB
was). I also published a picture of the original BBC used from 1893 to
1901, and it was huge, with porcelain as refractory material, and heated
electrically up to 1,600°C.

2) The entire block volume is cooled on the outside at -170°C to prevent
heat escaping such volume (1 m^3 is OK for you?).


I used 0.1 cm thickness since the beginning, to obtain a spherical
cavity of 2 grams of aluminum, so check your wrong comment.

If you want to deal with this topic with fairness, I suggest you try the
FOUR QUESTIONS, in that order, so we both can have the same calculations
without the excessive burden of transcribing them.

Finally, it seems that you are renegading of your principle of steady
state equilibrium, when I wrote that half the heat remains inside the
cavity (in the IR range) and the other half stay outside, confined at
the 1 cubic meter of a thermally isolated chamber.

Don't be like Paul, repeating all the time your calculations. Show some
respect to AI, which after all is closing its interpretation of the
problem by using refinements. ChatGPT remember all my previous chats.

I'll be thinking about further enhancements to my proposals. I'm far
from being knowledgeable in thermodynamics, but I learn from succesive
refinements of my understanding on this particular problem.






HERE ARE THE FOUR QUESTIONS, EXACTLY. DISMISS THE ANSWERS THAT I
SIMPLIFIED AND GET A CHANCE TO CHATGPT. IT'S GETTING BETTER MONTH AFTER
MONTH. NOBODY CAN DENY THIS FACT, KNOWN WORLDWIDE.


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

...................
Q1: I have one sphere made of aluminum (2 grams), with a tiny hole of 3
mm^2 used to inject a 5 watts (550 nm) green laser beam. The sphere has
a 5 cm radius and a thickness of 0.1 cm.. It has been calculated that
the 5 Joules per second are completely absorbed by the aluminum. Does
the sphere (a cavity) radiates the absorbed 5 Joules per second into
the cavity, as well a part of it by its external surface? In what
proportions?

A: approximately 49% of the absorbed energy radiates into the cavity,
and 51% radiates externally.
..................

Q2: What would be the temperature of the sphere?

A: The equilibrium temperature of the sphere is approximately 707 K (434
°C).
...................

Q3: Exist a specific wavelength at which the heat is radiated?

A: Using Wien's Displacement Law, the peak energy is radiated across a
broad spectrum, primarily in the infrared. Most radiation is in the
mid-infrared range (2 - 25 μm), with a peak at 4.1 μm.
................

Q4: How many seconds would take to reach thermal equilibrium at 707 K?

A: The sphere would take approximately 191 seconds (about 3 minutes) to
reach thermal equilibrium at 707 K under the 5 W laser input.
..................
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-26 05:51:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
**************************************************************
I don't understand why you didn't follow the questions that I did to
ChatGPT, which were only four. I also explained that it was impossible
for me to transcribe the complex and detailed calculations that ChatGPT
did, excelling in clarity and meaning.
I wrote those four questions and summarized each answer the best I
could. My idea of posting those questions was for you TO REPRODUCE the
extensive reasoning behind the answers. Easily, exceeding three pages
full of explanations, formulae, reasoning and calculations. ChatGPT
excelled working over this, being a sign that it really learn from
previous chat with me.
BUT, you resorted to IGNORE what I wrote and kept stuck with your own
interpretation and misconceptions about this experiment, like
introducing the concept of a solid sphere. Why?????
At any case, I made my mind: You ARE WRONG, and ChatGPT is correct (this
time).
Oh, dear. So a 5 watt laser is capable of maintaining a 5 cm
aluminum ball at 707 K.

You have the makings of a perpetual motion device.
Post by rhertz
If you want to try a further refinement of the idea, I have two (at
1) The cavity is suspended by a thin wire within a thick box of
REFRACTORY MATERIAL (in the same way that the BBC at the Berlin PTB
was). I also published a picture of the original BBC used from 1893 to
1901, and it was huge, with porcelain as refractory material, and heated
electrically up to 1,600°C.
2) The entire block volume is cooled on the outside at -170°C to prevent
heat escaping such volume (1 m^3 is OK for you?).
I used 0.1 cm thickness since the beginning, to obtain a spherical
cavity of 2 grams of aluminum, so check your wrong comment.
1 mm = 10^-3 m thickness is what you might build an electronic chassis
from. I calculate 84 grams of material.

We were originally using aluminum the thickness of heavy-duty aluminum
foil, which gives a bit over 2 grams of material.
Post by rhertz
If you want to deal with this topic with fairness, I suggest you try the
FOUR QUESTIONS, in that order, so we both can have the same calculations
without the excessive burden of transcribing them.
Ma nishtanah halailah hazeh mikol haleilot?
Sheb’khol haleilot anu okhlin hametz umatzah; halailah hazeh, kuloh
matzah.
Sheb’khol haleilot anu okhlin sh’ar y’rakot; halailah hazeh, maror.
Sheb’khol haleilot ein anu matbilin afilu pa’am ehat; halailah hazeh,
shtei f’amim.
Sheb’khol haleilot anu okhlin bein yoshvin uvein m’subin; halailah
hazeh, kulanu m’subin.

Answers:
1. We eat only matzah because our ancestors could not wait for their
breads to rise when they were fleeing slavery in Egypt, and so
they were flat when they came out of the oven.
2. We eat only Maror, a bitter herb, to remind us of the bitterness
of slavery that our ancestors endured while in Egypt.
3. The first dip, green vegetables in salt water, symbolizes the
replacing of our tears with gratitude, and the second dip,
Maror in Charoset, symbolizes the sweetening of our burden of
bitterness and suffering.
4. We recline at the Seder table because in ancient times, a person
who reclined at a meal was a free person, while slaves and
servants stood.
5. We eat only roasted meat because that is how the Pesach/Passover
lamb is prepared during sacrifice in the Temple at Jerusalem.
Post by rhertz
Finally, it seems that you are renegading of your principle of steady
state equilibrium, when I wrote that half the heat remains inside the
cavity (in the IR range)
Black body radiation doesn't work the way that you think it does.
Post by rhertz
and the other half stay outside, confined at
the 1 cubic meter of a thermally isolated chamber.
Don't be like Paul, repeating all the time your calculations. Show some
respect to AI, which after all is closing its interpretation of the
problem by using refinements. ChatGPT remember all my previous chats.
I'll be thinking about further enhancements to my proposals. I'm far
from being knowledgeable in thermodynamics, but I learn from succesive
refinements of my understanding on this particular problem.
HERE ARE THE FOUR QUESTIONS, EXACTLY. DISMISS THE ANSWERS THAT I
SIMPLIFIED AND GET A CHANCE TO CHATGPT. IT'S GETTING BETTER MONTH AFTER
MONTH. NOBODY CAN DENY THIS FACT, KNOWN WORLDWIDE.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
....................
Q1: I have one sphere made of aluminum (2 grams), with a tiny hole of 3
mm^2 used to inject a 5 watts (550 nm) green laser beam. The sphere has
a 5 cm radius and a thickness of 0.1 cm.. It has been calculated that
the 5 Joules per second are completely absorbed by the aluminum. Does
the sphere (a cavity) radiates the absorbed 5 Joules per second into
the cavity, as well a part of it by its external surface? In what
proportions?
A: approximately 49% of the absorbed energy radiates into the cavity,
and 51% radiates externally.
...................
Q2: What would be the temperature of the sphere?
A: The equilibrium temperature of the sphere is approximately 707 K (434
°C).
....................
ChatGPT is not known for being very good at numerical calculation.
It can assemble with reasonable accuracy the correct formulas, but
so far as actually multiplying and dividing to get a sensible answer,
not so much.
Post by rhertz
Q3: Exist a specific wavelength at which the heat is radiated?
A: Using Wien's Displacement Law, the peak energy is radiated across a
broad spectrum, primarily in the infrared. Most radiation is in the
mid-infrared range (2 - 25 μm), with a peak at 4.1 μm.
.................
Q4: How many seconds would take to reach thermal equilibrium at 707 K?
A: The sphere would take approximately 191 seconds (about 3 minutes) to
reach thermal equilibrium at 707 K under the 5 W laser input.
...................
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I've already given my answers. ChatGPT is bullshitting.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-26 05:58:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Oh, dear. So a 5 watt laser is capable of maintaining a 5 cm
aluminum ball at 707 K.
You have the makings of a perpetual motion device.
5 cm RADIUS.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-26 08:27:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
This means that half of the accumulated 955 Joules remain within the
cavity.
477.5 Joules of energy in a volume of 5.236e-4 m^3 implies a energy
energy density u (assumed to be black body) within the shell of
9.12e4 J/m^3

u = 4 σ T^4/c
9.12e4 = 4 * 5.67e^-8 T^4/3.0e^8
T^4 = 120,634,920,634,920,634,920
T = 1.05e5 K temperature of the black body radiation

Your numbers don't make sense.
rhertz
2024-11-26 18:29:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
This means that half of the accumulated 955 Joules remain within the
cavity.
477.5 Joules of energy in a volume of 5.236e-4 m^3 implies a energy
energy density u (assumed to be black body) within the shell of
9.12e4 J/m^3
u = 4 σ T^4/c
9.12e4 = 4 * 5.67e^-8 T^4/3.0e^8
T^4 = 120,634,920,634,920,634,920
T = 1.05e5 K temperature of the black body radiation
Your numbers don't make sense.
Your entire post don't make sense.

1) Your u value is wrong by 10 times. It should be u = 9.12e5 J/m^3.

2) You applied incorrectly how the radiation is spread within the
cavity.


P = uc/4 is the radiative FLUX of energy being radiated in 3D, traveling
at the speed of light. The factor 4 is due to the integration of energy
moving omnidirectionally and being radiated toward infinity, which IS
NOT THE CASE HERE, INSIDE THE CAVITY.

The 477.5 Joules ARE CONFINED in the cavity, and the radiation keeps
bouncing within its volume.

At any case, it would give a radiative flux P = 6.84E+13 J m^-2/sec.

When you modify the Stefan-Boltzmann law by writing u = 4 σ T^4/c,
you're assuming that the energy propagates spherically without
attenuation. At any case, T = 186,364 K, a value that HAS NO MEANING
AT ALL.

3) Using correctly the influence of energy within the cavity filled with
air (behaving as an ideal gas), you have:

E = 3/2 nRT

n = PV/RT , moles of air in the volume
R = 8.3145 kJ/kmol K (ideal gas)
R = 0.287 kJ/kg K (air)



ΔT = 2E/(3 PV) = 6 K , the increase above room temperature.

As you can see, this is a much more reasonable value.

What would you expect if you use a 5 W incandescent lamp heating the
cavity?

Only 6"C increase in the inner temperature after a couple of minutes.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-26 20:50:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
This means that half of the accumulated 955 Joules remain within the
cavity.
477.5 Joules of energy in a volume of 5.236e-4 m^3 implies a energy
energy density u (assumed to be black body) within the shell of
9.12e4 J/m^3
u = 4 σ T^4/c
9.12e4 = 4 * 5.67e^-8 T^4/3.0e^8
T^4 = 120,634,920,634,920,634,920
T = 1.05e5 K temperature of the black body radiation
Your numbers don't make sense.
Your entire post don't make sense.
1) Your u value is wrong by 10 times. It should be u = 9.12e5 J/m^3.
Yes, I dropped a digit.
So things are even WORSE for you.
The effective black body temperature corresponding to that radiation
density is 1.86e5 K
Post by rhertz
2) You applied incorrectly how the radiation is spread within the
cavity.
P = uc/4 is the radiative FLUX of energy being radiated in 3D, traveling
at the speed of light. The factor 4 is due to the integration of energy
moving omnidirectionally and being radiated toward infinity, which IS
NOT THE CASE HERE, INSIDE THE CAVITY.
The 477.5 Joules ARE CONFINED in the cavity, and the radiation keeps
bouncing within its volume.
At any case, it would give a radiative flux P = 6.84E+13 J m^-2/sec.
Read that out loud and ask yourself if that is reasonable.
68.4 trillion watts per square meter.
From a 5 watts of input power.
Post by rhertz
When you modify the Stefan-Boltzmann law by writing u = 4 σ T^4/c,
you're assuming that the energy propagates spherically without
attenuation. At any case, T = 186,364 K, a value that HAS NO MEANING
AT ALL.
It has a very definite meaning.
See the discussion in "Energy density"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#Energy_density
Post by rhertz
3) Using correctly the influence of energy within the cavity filled with
E = 3/2 nRT
n = PV/RT , moles of air in the volume
R = 8.3145 kJ/kmol K (ideal gas)
R = 0.287 kJ/kg K (air)
ΔT = 2E/(3 PV) = 6 K , the increase above room temperature.
What type of numerology are you using?
Where did you get a value of E to plug into that?
Check your units. PV has dimensions of energy, so 2E(3 PV) is a
dimensionless number.
Post by rhertz
As you can see, this is a much more reasonable value.
What would you expect if you use a 5 W incandescent lamp heating the
cavity?
Only 6"C increase in the inner temperature after a couple of minutes.
Yet you claim that that 5 watt incandescent lamp will raise the
temperature to 707 K.
rhertz
2024-11-26 22:07:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
This means that half of the accumulated 955 Joules remain within the
cavity.
477.5 Joules of energy in a volume of 5.236e-4 m^3 implies a energy
energy density u (assumed to be black body) within the shell of
9.12e4 J/m^3
u = 4 σ T^4/c
9.12e4 = 4 * 5.67e^-8 T^4/3.0e^8
T^4 = 120,634,920,634,920,634,920
T = 1.05e5 K temperature of the black body radiation
Your numbers don't make sense.
Your entire post don't make sense.
1) Your u value is wrong by 10 times. It should be u = 9.12e5 J/m^3.
Yes, I dropped a digit.
So things are even WORSE for you.
The effective black body temperature corresponding to that radiation
density is 1.86e5 K
Post by rhertz
2) You applied incorrectly how the radiation is spread within the
cavity.
P = uc/4 is the radiative FLUX of energy being radiated in 3D, traveling
at the speed of light. The factor 4 is due to the integration of energy
moving omnidirectionally and being radiated toward infinity, which IS
NOT THE CASE HERE, INSIDE THE CAVITY.
The 477.5 Joules ARE CONFINED in the cavity, and the radiation keeps
bouncing within its volume.
At any case, it would give a radiative flux P = 6.84E+13 J m^-2/sec.
Read that out loud and ask yourself if that is reasonable.
68.4 trillion watts per square meter.
From a 5 watts of input power.
Post by rhertz
When you modify the Stefan-Boltzmann law by writing u = 4 σ T^4/c,
you're assuming that the energy propagates spherically without
attenuation. At any case, T = 186,364 K, a value that HAS NO MEANING
AT ALL.
It has a very definite meaning.
See the discussion in "Energy density"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#Energy_density
Post by rhertz
3) Using correctly the influence of energy within the cavity filled with
E = 3/2 nRT
n = PV/RT , moles of air in the volume
R = 8.3145 kJ/kmol K (ideal gas)
R = 0.287 kJ/kg K (air)
ΔT = 2E/(3 PV) = 6 K , the increase above room temperature.
What type of numerology are you using?
Where did you get a value of E to plug into that?
Check your units. PV has dimensions of energy, so 2E(3 PV) is a
dimensionless number.
Post by rhertz
As you can see, this is a much more reasonable value.
What would you expect if you use a 5 W incandescent lamp heating the
cavity?
Only 6"C increase in the inner temperature after a couple of minutes.
Yet you claim that that 5 watt incandescent lamp will raise the
temperature to 707 K.
I didn't claim that! ChatGPT made the calculations, which seemed to me
excessively high.

THAT'S WHY I copied the four questions for you TO REPLICATE my chat, as
it was impossible to transcript the extensive formulae.

In that way, I thought, you could have had A DUPLICATE of my chat.

But YOU REFUSED TO DO IT, even when I wanted that you checked it.

Regarding ΔT = 2E/(3 PV), n is missing. And it comes from E = 3/2 nRT,
derived from the equation for ideal gas PV = nRT.

The 3/2R part of this equation comes from the fact that the molar
internal energy of a monatomic ideal gas at temperature T is the molar
heat capacity of that gas at constant volume V.

***********************************************


Regarding your INCORRECT USE of the formula u = 4 σ T^4/c, I only can
repeat what I wrote: YOU CAN'T USE THIS FORMULA FOR A SMALL CAVITY. It
was thought as Radiation Energy Density in open space, for uses in
astronomy and astrophysics, NOT WITHIN A SMALL ALUMINUM CAVITY.

Here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/raddens.html

WATCH THIS CALCULATION, DONE AT THAT SITE:

For A REGION OF SPACE where the temperature is T = 186,500 K, the
RADIATION ENERGY DENSITY is 0.9146125157872499 x 10^6 J/m^3.

You are mixing different concepts of the theories around BBC.

I invite you to read the history of developments in BBC radiation, which
I wrote in 2019, and that end with Planck's discovery of h.



Thermal Radiation, Black Body Theory and the Birth of Quantum Physics

https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/


Read the last part, about RADIOMETRY, and the definitions of:

Spectral Radiant Energy inside a cavity: The original formulae u and E
from Planck. THESE ARE THE ORIGINAL PLANCK'S FORMULAE INSIDE THE BBC.


Spectral Radiant Exitance Me(𝜆,T) at the aperture in the cavity: THIS IS
WHAT YOU USED. IT'S THE ENERGY THAT FLOWS OUT OF THE BBC, THROUGH A
HOLE. This was what was ACTUALLY MEASURED at the BPT, whose physicists
provided ESSENTIAL INFORMATION to Planck in October 1900. He had two
months left to present his paper at the German Physics Society on
December 14, 1900 (date considered the birth of quantum physics).

IRRADIANCE is measured outside the BBC, and the factor c/4 allowed the
use of Planck's formula to measurements and calculations in astronomy.
NOR HIM NEITHER WIEN DERIVED SUCH EQUATION. It was derived AFTER THEM,
by physicists working in RADIOMETRY.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-26 23:44:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
I didn't claim that! ChatGPT made the calculations, which seemed to me
excessively high.
It was ridiculously high. You should not have repeated the numbers
that it provided, ESPECIALLY if you are as expert in the topic as
you claim to be.

ChatGPT knows how to put sentences together that, on a probabilistic
basis, correspond with other sentences generally accepted as well-
constructed. It does not actually understand the meaning of those
sentences, which is why ChatGPT often spouts bullshit.
Post by rhertz
THAT'S WHY I copied the four questions for you TO REPLICATE my chat, as
it was impossible to transcript the extensive formulae.
In that way, I thought, you could have had A DUPLICATE of my chat.
But YOU REFUSED TO DO IT, even when I wanted that you checked it.
I prefer to learn about a subject so that I can answer on my own.
AI tools are a useful crutch PROVIDED you understand the subject.
Post by rhertz
Regarding ΔT = 2E/(3 PV), n is missing. And it comes from E = 3/2 nRT,
derived from the equation for ideal gas PV = nRT.
n does not have units of temperature. It is also dimensionless.

Your calculation was hence totally senseless.
Post by rhertz
The 3/2R part of this equation comes from the fact that the molar
internal energy of a monatomic ideal gas at temperature T is the molar
heat capacity of that gas at constant volume V.
***********************************************
Regarding your INCORRECT USE of the formula u = 4 σ T^4/c, I only can
repeat what I wrote: YOU CAN'T USE THIS FORMULA FOR A SMALL CAVITY. It
was thought as Radiation Energy Density in open space, for uses in
astronomy and astrophysics, NOT WITHIN A SMALL ALUMINUM CAVITY.
It is correct for black body radiation. It is not correct for other
scenarios such as, say, an intense beam of collimated, monochromatic
light (laser light). Its applicability does not depend on the volume
of space.
Post by rhertz
Here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/raddens.html
For A REGION OF SPACE where the temperature is T = 186,500 K, the
RADIATION ENERGY DENSITY is 0.9146125157872499 x 10^6 J/m^3.
Why the all-caps?

Except for my factor-of-ten fumble, 0.9146125157872499 x 10^6 J/m^3
is practically the same my previous calculation of 9.12e4 J/m^3
(which should have been 9.12e5 J/m^3). The only difference is a bit of
round-off error in the third place.

In other words, their online calculator agrees with my Windows
calculator computation.
Post by rhertz
You are mixing different concepts of the theories around BBC.
I invite you to read the history of developments in BBC radiation, which
I wrote in 2019, and that end with Planck's discovery of h.
Thermal Radiation, Black Body Theory and the Birth of Quantum Physics
https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/
Spectral Radiant Energy inside a cavity: The original formulae u and E
from Planck. THESE ARE THE ORIGINAL PLANCK'S FORMULAE INSIDE THE BBC.
Spectral Radiant Exitance Me(𝜆,T) at the aperture in the cavity: THIS IS
WHAT YOU USED.
No, I was calculating energy density, assuming the black body nature
of the radiation. Read again that section of the Wikipedia article
that I provided you a link for.
Post by rhertz
IT'S THE ENERGY THAT FLOWS OUT OF THE BBC, THROUGH A
HOLE. This was what was ACTUALLY MEASURED at the BPT, whose physicists
provided ESSENTIAL INFORMATION to Planck in October 1900. He had two
months left to present his paper at the German Physics Society on
December 14, 1900 (date considered the birth of quantum physics).
IRRADIANCE is measured outside the BBC, and the factor c/4 allowed the
use of Planck's formula to measurements and calculations in astronomy.
NOR HIM NEITHER WIEN DERIVED SUCH EQUATION. It was derived AFTER THEM,
by physicists working in RADIOMETRY.
rhertz
2024-11-27 01:22:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
You are mixing different concepts of the theories around BBC.
I invite you to read the history of developments in BBC radiation, which
I wrote in 2019, and that end with Planck's discovery of h.
Thermal Radiation, Black Body Theory and the Birth of Quantum Physics
https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/
Spectral Radiant Energy inside a cavity: The original formulae u and E
from Planck. THESE ARE THE ORIGINAL PLANCK'S FORMULAE INSIDE THE BBC.
Spectral Radiant Exitance Me(𝜆,T) at the aperture in the cavity: THIS IS
WHAT YOU USED.
No, I was calculating energy density, assuming the black body nature
of the radiation. Read again that section of the Wikipedia article
that I provided you a link for.
Post by rhertz
IT'S THE ENERGY THAT FLOWS OUT OF THE BBC, THROUGH A
HOLE. This was what was ACTUALLY MEASURED at the BPT, whose physicists
provided ESSENTIAL INFORMATION to Planck in October 1900. He had two
months left to present his paper at the German Physics Society on
December 14, 1900 (date considered the birth of quantum physics).
IRRADIANCE is measured outside the BBC, and the factor c/4 allowed the
use of Planck's formula to measurements and calculations in astronomy.
NOR HIM NEITHER WIEN DERIVED SUCH EQUATION. It was derived AFTER THEM,
by physicists working in RADIOMETRY.
You are wrong having such attitude of denial about NOT READING the
Radiometry part of my link.

It speaks volumes about your stubbornness in NOT ACCEPTING that you were
wrong using such Stefan's modified formula.

The Wiki article is a pile of crap, no less. Using Stefan's law modified
to compute broadband irradiance in a closed cavity IS BEYOND STUPIDITY.


You weren't calculating energy density, assuming the black body nature
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
of the radiation. You did copy an ill-written link which used Stefan's
law multiplied by 4/c, which is A FACTOR USED in Spectral Radiant
Exitance Me(𝜆,T) at the aperture in the BB cavity.
Now, if you want TO DENY the knowledge that Radiometry provides, science
that has more than 130 years of accumulated experience, then you're just
in denial about the history of thermodynamics and applied physics.

I don't claim, not even close, to be knowledgeable in thermodynamics.

What I wrote in 2019 was MY FIRST ATTEMPT to publish something in a
blog. By then, I was curious about the origins of quantum physics, and I
collected and published information about the developments in the
understanding of what RADIANT HEAT was. Nothing more, nothing less.

I was too lazy to continue with other stories about advances in physics,
so I stop right there. I'm not a kind of person that need to publish
papers to satisfy my ego. I did it, for many years, in journals
specialized in defense, but I was almost forced to communicate such
content in specialized media. Never liked it. I like results, not blah,
blah, blah,....


Having you a PhD in Molecular Biology (or similar), I find it shocking
that you be so mind closed. One thing is stubbornness to defend your
position, but with an open mind, and other thing is you persisting in
YOUR INTERPRETATION of issues, negating ANY CHANCE to review your
position. That's very wrong, and it's far from what I am and I practice.


//////////////////////////////////////////////////

Here are dome of the SI (MKS) radiometry units that you should know
better:

1. Qe: Radiant Energy (Joule): Energy of electromagnetic radiation.


2. Ίe: Radiant Flux (Watt): Radiant energy per unit time. It is
sometimes called "radiant power".


3. Spectral Radiant Energy inside a cavity: The original formulae u and
E from Planck.

Wu(ʋ,T) = u = 8𝜋hʋ^3c^-3(e^(hʋ/kT)-1)^-1 [units: Joule.m^-3/Hz]

We(𝜆,T) = E = 8𝜋hc𝜆^-5(e(ch/k𝜆T)-1)^-1 [units: Joule.m^-3. 𝜇m^-1]


4. Spectral Radiant Exitance Me(𝜆,T) at the aperture in the cavity:

Radiant exitance of a surface per unit wavelength (or frequency). This
is sometimes also confusingly called "spectral intensity".

Me(𝜆,T) = (c/4).We𝜆(𝜆,T) [units: Watt.m^-2.m^-1]


5. Monochromatic Irradiance or Spectral Flux Density at the aperture in
the cavity:

Radiance of a surface per unit frequency or wavelength per unit solid
angle. A directional quantity and differs from Planck's formula by
(c/4𝜋). This is sometimes confusingly called "spectral intensity".

Lʋ(ʋ,T) = (c/4𝜋).Wu(ʋ,T) [units: Watt.m^-2.Hz^-1.sr^-1]

Le(𝜆,T) = (c/4𝜋).We𝜆(𝜆,T) [units: Watt.m^-2.𝜇m^-1.sr^-1]


6. Flux Density or Irradiance Ee (Watt.m^-2): Radiant flux received by a
surface per unit area. This is sometimes confusingly called "intensity".


7. Radiance Le,Ω(Watt.m^-2.sr^-1): Radiant flux emitted, reflected,
transmitted or received by a surface, per unit projected area per unit
solid angle. This is a directional quantity. This is sometimes also
confusingly called "intensity".


*********************************************

You (due to Wikipedia) are wrongfully using THIS:

4. Spectral Radiant Exitance Me(𝜆,T) at the aperture in the cavity


Me(𝜆,T) = (c/4).We𝜆(𝜆,T)

but integrating it across the entire spectrum (in 𝜆 units), what would
give A MODIFIED STEFAN'S LAW! And this is INCORRECT, and doesn't exist.


You are accepting to integrate THE OUTPUT of the BBC through a small
orifice, energy that propagates toward INFINITY. Will you get it now?




I attach a drawing that explain why the factor 4 appears when the entire
surface of a sphere is computed in terms of solid angles (steradians).
The whole sphere covers 4𝜋 sr solid angle, in open space. The use of c
is just a convention for radiant energy velocity.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-27 04:18:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
<snip>
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
You are mixing different concepts of the theories around BBC.
I invite you to read the history of developments in BBC radiation, which
I wrote in 2019, and that end with Planck's discovery of h.
Thermal Radiation, Black Body Theory and the Birth of Quantum Physics
https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/
Spectral Radiant Energy inside a cavity: The original formulae u and E
from Planck. THESE ARE THE ORIGINAL PLANCK'S FORMULAE INSIDE THE BBC.
In class some 55 or so years ago, we derived Planck's Law using
Einstein's method. We also derived various consequences of the law,
including the formula for energy density u. I won't claim that I
would be able to re-derive the formulas without a lot of review, but
the basic skills still lie dormant within my skull. So don't try to
snow me. You are only a former electrical engineer, a highly competent
one, but untrained in physics, as is evident by the types of mistakes
that you have been making.

For example, no competent physics student would mix up his units in
the manner that you have been doing.

No competent physicist would write "ΔT = 2E/(3 PV)" and then claim
that the only thing he did wrong was to leave out n.

If I do something silly like goof up by a factor of 10, I own up to
my mistake. You seem almost incapable of admitting error.
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
Spectral Radiant Exitance Me(𝜆,T) at the aperture in the cavity: THIS IS
WHAT YOU USED.
No, I was calculating energy density, assuming the black body nature
of the radiation. Read again that section of the Wikipedia article
that I provided you a link for.
Post by rhertz
IT'S THE ENERGY THAT FLOWS OUT OF THE BBC, THROUGH A
HOLE. This was what was ACTUALLY MEASURED at the BPT, whose physicists
provided ESSENTIAL INFORMATION to Planck in October 1900. He had two
months left to present his paper at the German Physics Society on
December 14, 1900 (date considered the birth of quantum physics).
IRRADIANCE is measured outside the BBC, and the factor c/4 allowed the
use of Planck's formula to measurements and calculations in astronomy.
NOR HIM NEITHER WIEN DERIVED SUCH EQUATION. It was derived AFTER THEM,
by physicists working in RADIOMETRY.
You are wrong having such attitude of denial about NOT READING the
Radiometry part of my link.
It speaks volumes about your stubbornness in NOT ACCEPTING that you were
wrong using such Stefan's modified formula.
I don't see much point in reading an article about radiometry from
somebody who doesn't check his units.

There are several related terms that should be distinguished.
Radiant exitance (radiant emittance) has units of W/m^2
Spectral exitance in wavelength has units of W/m^3

The formula u = 4 σ T^4/c, which you claim that I used incorrectly,
has units of Joules/m^3

They aren't the same thing.
Post by rhertz
The Wiki article is a pile of crap, no less. Using Stefan's law modified
to compute broadband irradiance in a closed cavity IS BEYOND STUPIDITY.
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
You weren't calculating energy density, assuming the black body nature
of the radiation. You did copy an ill-written link which used Stefan's
law multiplied by 4/c, which is A FACTOR USED in Spectral Radiant
Exitance Me(𝜆,T) at the aperture in the BB cavity.
Now, if you want TO DENY the knowledge that Radiometry provides, science
that has more than 130 years of accumulated experience, then you're just
in denial about the history of thermodynamics and applied physics.
I don't claim, not even close, to be knowledgeable in thermodynamics.
Obviously not.

Your perpetual motion device, whereby you use a 5 W laser to heat
up a 5 cm radius sphere to 707 K, would be quite impressive if it
worked.
Post by rhertz
What I wrote in 2019 was MY FIRST ATTEMPT to publish something in a
blog. By then, I was curious about the origins of quantum physics, and I
collected and published information about the developments in the
understanding of what RADIANT HEAT was. Nothing more, nothing less.
I was too lazy to continue with other stories about advances in physics,
so I stop right there. I'm not a kind of person that need to publish
papers to satisfy my ego. I did it, for many years, in journals
specialized in defense, but I was almost forced to communicate such
content in specialized media. Never liked it. I like results, not blah,
blah, blah,....
Having you a PhD in Molecular Biology (or similar), I find it shocking
that you be so mind closed. One thing is stubbornness to defend your
position, but with an open mind, and other thing is you persisting in
YOUR INTERPRETATION of issues, negating ANY CHANCE to review your
position. That's very wrong, and it's far from what I am and I practice.
rhertz
2024-11-28 00:09:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 4:18:19 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

<snip>
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
In class some 55 or so years ago, we derived Planck's Law using
Einstein's method. We also derived various consequences of the law,
including the formula for energy density u. I won't claim that I
would be able to re-derive the formulas without a lot of review, but
the basic skills still lie dormant within my skull. So don't try to
snow me. You are only a former electrical engineer, a highly competent
one, but untrained in physics, as is evident by the types of mistakes
that you have been making.
For example, no competent physics student would mix up his units in
the manner that you have been doing.
No competent physicist would write "ΔT = 2E/(3 PV)" and then claim
that the only thing he did wrong was to leave out n.
If I do something silly like goof up by a factor of 10, I own up to
my mistake. You seem almost incapable of admitting error.
<snip>
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
I don't see much point in reading an article about radiometry from
somebody who doesn't check his units.
There are several related terms that should be distinguished.
Radiant exitance (radiant emittance) has units of W/m^2
Spectral exitance in wavelength has units of W/m^3
The formula u = 4 σ T^4/c, which you claim that I used incorrectly,
has units of Joules/m^3
They aren't the same thing.
<snip>
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Your perpetual motion device, whereby you use a 5 W laser to heat
up a 5 cm radius sphere to 707 K, would be quite impressive if it
worked.
<snip>

I'm sorry that you went mad with my previous post. At any case, it
served for you displaying your true colors.

I've been careful to maintain discussions with you, avoiding any
downplaying or personal attacks. Quite a different attitude that I have
with Paul, which is mostly boy's game interchange insults.


You are not JUST a physicist either, and you're very far from being one.

Here is how you described yourself two years ago:

*********************************************************
"Posted: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 09:49 by: Prokaryotic Capase H

Hey, don't knock Halliday & Resnick! That's about as far as -I- ever
got, since my undergraduate degree was in biology. In graduate school, I
studied molecular biology, and for my postdoc, I studied bacterial
replication origins. I've spent the last quarter century in software
engineering, and my favorite websites are ....."
********************************************************

Your comments:

"For example, no competent physics student would mix up his units in
the manner that you have been doing".

"You seem almost incapable of admitting error."

"So don't try to snow me. You are only a former electrical engineer..."

"Your perpetual motion device, whereby you use a 5 W laser to heat
up a 5 cm radius sphere to 707 K, would be quite impressive if it
worked."


show how far are you willing to go in the heat of a discussion: You LIED
(I told you that the 707 K were from a ChatGPT, not me. I CONSULTED YOU
ABOUT IT, and you didn't care), you downplayed me and, for worse, you
are somehow PRETENDING that you're closer to physics than me.

Actually, I'm not just an engineer. I have also two master degrees, and
I didn't pursue a PhD because I considered it was A STUPID THING TO DO,
even when many advised me to go for it. I'm not a person that lives from
flashing academic degrees or achievements. Furthermore, I'm sure that,
in the last 50 years, the number of theoretical and experimental
realizations that I did EXCEED yours by 10x. I was a prolific achiever,
but I never wanted to show off it, nor at the university or places of
work. I refused to publish for general audience, as I didn't want to
seek for fame/glory. I'm THE ONLY JUDGE that I accept, and I'm immune to
any praise or prize since I was a little kid.


I'm going to tell this one more time, because it's the center of the
problem:


Using a modified Stefan's formula (by 4/c) to calculate the internal
temperature of a small aluminum cavity IS AN ABERRATION OF COMMON SENSE.


Eventually, it has been used to FIGURE OUT the internal temperature of
STARS, even when this alone is a risky assumption.


In your calculation of 1,000,000+ K inside the cavity, YOU SHOULD HAVE
STOPPED at 660.3"C (930.3 K) when ALUMINUM MELTS.

Why did you persist in using such stupid value? I can't figure it out.


At any case, and being the big excellent number-cruncher that you claim
you are, you should have stopped at 930.3 K, and then calculating the
energy density.

But it would have been wrong ALSO, because you're using a formula
CONCEIVED by the omnidirectional energy density OUTSIDE the BBC, because
Stefan's formula (applied in astronomy) is based on the hypothesis that
A HUGE RADIANT SPHERE (like a star) can be taken AS A FLAT DISK that has
properties allowing it to behave AS A CAVITY (one dimension is missing).

In the same way, I completely disagree with the OPINION - NO FACTS
(since 1964 up to 1993 COBE manipulated results), that the CBR measured
EXACTLY as a BBC. To start, such CBR didn't reach both edges of the
Universe (conceived as spherical), so not even a basic equilibrium has
been reached. It's wrong to think and push such stupid idea, as well as
the geometrical nature of GR.

That legions of pseudo-scientists embrace such theories, because some
mathematical model emerged and was religiously adopted, only serves to
me to REINFORCE my conception about physics, which I consider mostly A
FARCE.

That's why I dropped studying physics, after two years, when I was 15. I
went to SERIOUS SCIENCE, which is engineering.

Physics is dying at an accelerated pace, so do most physicists working
on borderline theories in cosmology and the quantum world.
Ross Finlayson
2024-11-28 03:23:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
<snip>
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
In class some 55 or so years ago, we derived Planck's Law using
Einstein's method. We also derived various consequences of the law,
including the formula for energy density u. I won't claim that I
would be able to re-derive the formulas without a lot of review, but
the basic skills still lie dormant within my skull. So don't try to
snow me. You are only a former electrical engineer, a highly competent
one, but untrained in physics, as is evident by the types of mistakes
that you have been making.
For example, no competent physics student would mix up his units in
the manner that you have been doing.
No competent physicist would write "ΔT = 2E/(3 PV)" and then claim
that the only thing he did wrong was to leave out n.
If I do something silly like goof up by a factor of 10, I own up to
my mistake. You seem almost incapable of admitting error.
<snip>
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
I don't see much point in reading an article about radiometry from
somebody who doesn't check his units.
There are several related terms that should be distinguished.
Radiant exitance (radiant emittance) has units of W/m^2
Spectral exitance in wavelength has units of W/m^3
The formula u = 4 σ T^4/c, which you claim that I used incorrectly,
has units of Joules/m^3
They aren't the same thing.
<snip>
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Your perpetual motion device, whereby you use a 5 W laser to heat
up a 5 cm radius sphere to 707 K, would be quite impressive if it
worked.
<snip>
I'm sorry that you went mad with my previous post. At any case, it
served for you displaying your true colors.
I've been careful to maintain discussions with you, avoiding any
downplaying or personal attacks. Quite a different attitude that I have
with Paul, which is mostly boy's game interchange insults.
You are not JUST a physicist either, and you're very far from being one.
*********************************************************
"Posted: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 09:49 by: Prokaryotic Capase H
Hey, don't knock Halliday & Resnick! That's about as far as -I- ever
got, since my undergraduate degree was in biology. In graduate school, I
studied molecular biology, and for my postdoc, I studied bacterial
replication origins. I've spent the last quarter century in software
engineering, and my favorite websites are ....."
********************************************************
"For example, no competent physics student would mix up his units in
the manner that you have been doing".
"You seem almost incapable of admitting error."
"So don't try to snow me. You are only a former electrical engineer..."
"Your perpetual motion device, whereby you use a 5 W laser to heat
up a 5 cm radius sphere to 707 K, would be quite impressive if it
worked."
show how far are you willing to go in the heat of a discussion: You LIED
(I told you that the 707 K were from a ChatGPT, not me. I CONSULTED YOU
ABOUT IT, and you didn't care), you downplayed me and, for worse, you
are somehow PRETENDING that you're closer to physics than me.
Actually, I'm not just an engineer. I have also two master degrees, and
I didn't pursue a PhD because I considered it was A STUPID THING TO DO,
even when many advised me to go for it. I'm not a person that lives from
flashing academic degrees or achievements. Furthermore, I'm sure that,
in the last 50 years, the number of theoretical and experimental
realizations that I did EXCEED yours by 10x. I was a prolific achiever,
but I never wanted to show off it, nor at the university or places of
work. I refused to publish for general audience, as I didn't want to
seek for fame/glory. I'm THE ONLY JUDGE that I accept, and I'm immune to
any praise or prize since I was a little kid.
I'm going to tell this one more time, because it's the center of the
Using a modified Stefan's formula (by 4/c) to calculate the internal
temperature of a small aluminum cavity IS AN ABERRATION OF COMMON SENSE.
Eventually, it has been used to FIGURE OUT the internal temperature of
STARS, even when this alone is a risky assumption.
In your calculation of 1,000,000+ K inside the cavity, YOU SHOULD HAVE
STOPPED at 660.3"C (930.3 K) when ALUMINUM MELTS.
Why did you persist in using such stupid value? I can't figure it out.
At any case, and being the big excellent number-cruncher that you claim
you are, you should have stopped at 930.3 K, and then calculating the
energy density.
But it would have been wrong ALSO, because you're using a formula
CONCEIVED by the omnidirectional energy density OUTSIDE the BBC, because
Stefan's formula (applied in astronomy) is based on the hypothesis that
A HUGE RADIANT SPHERE (like a star) can be taken AS A FLAT DISK that has
properties allowing it to behave AS A CAVITY (one dimension is missing).
In the same way, I completely disagree with the OPINION - NO FACTS
(since 1964 up to 1993 COBE manipulated results), that the CBR measured
EXACTLY as a BBC. To start, such CBR didn't reach both edges of the
Universe (conceived as spherical), so not even a basic equilibrium has
been reached. It's wrong to think and push such stupid idea, as well as
the geometrical nature of GR.
That legions of pseudo-scientists embrace such theories, because some
mathematical model emerged and was religiously adopted, only serves to
me to REINFORCE my conception about physics, which I consider mostly A
FARCE.
That's why I dropped studying physics, after two years, when I was 15. I
went to SERIOUS SCIENCE, which is engineering.
Physics is dying at an accelerated pace, so do most physicists working
on borderline theories in cosmology and the quantum world.
Crank!

Crank? Probably a crank-bot. Launched as by hooligans, of a sort,
the crank-bots are considered criminals. Though, one might weigh
perceived mental sociopathic tendencies against possibly fruitful
ideas in innovation.



Explain "charge velocity".



Are we just supposed to believe that any circuit is just a condenser
sink with an arbitrarily infinite insulator and that due the skin
effect that any capacitance induced usually on purpose inside in
capacitance components yet as often outside in radio foils the
broadcast or receipt components is this condenser electronics
slipping off and sticking on fluctuations in the electrical field?

Foils, noun?

In the days before Maxwell, the Faraday crowd arrived at a
formalism with a mathematical derivation that has the action
of capacitance, as, just merely _above_ light's speed, ....

Then, capacitor and condenser physics, both help reflect that
while a fluid model is a perfectly great metaphor for both
electrical and fluid currents, it ends with regards to those
having what must be opposite tendencies and propensities,
why electricity is not a fluid.



When we were kids there was a joke, a sort of cruel sort
of joke kind of like "stop hitting yourself", one would
ask another "would you like a Hertz donut?" Then on a
reply usually of "yes, please, in our sugar-starved world
us children hold a great store in any sweet" then they
would get punched in the arm then asked "hurts, don't it?".

Of course anybody who ever saw that when later asked
"would you like a Hertz donut?" usually saw answers
like "no, ...", and moving away from an idiot who
tells a joke twice. Because their stupidity might be
contagious, .... Or, "shut up, idiot".


So anyways this great idea that "on further analysis,
university labs should not try this", maybe instead you
should get into why condenser and capacitor physics are
not about liquids, per se, and that light is not electromagnetic
radiation, per se, and that the advanced and retarded potentials
happen to be where in Faraday's world static discharge is
arbitrarily faster than c, is mostly for revisiting Faraday's
crowd's formalisms or Heaviside's quite a lot, then showing
"well if they have a Lorentzian, it would have to be like this, ...."


You know, college-level work.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-28 17:50:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
<snip>
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
In class some 55 or so years ago, we derived Planck's Law using
Einstein's method. We also derived various consequences of the law,
including the formula for energy density u. I won't claim that I
would be able to re-derive the formulas without a lot of review, but
the basic skills still lie dormant within my skull. So don't try to
snow me. You are only a former electrical engineer, a highly competent
one, but untrained in physics, as is evident by the types of mistakes
that you have been making.
At the time, our first and second-year physics textbooks were the
Feynman Lectures on Physics. The derivation of Planck's radiation law
will be found in 42-5 of volume one:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_42.html

I am unhappy with Feynman's derivation because of a couple of errors
which significantly lessen Einstein's accomplishment:
1) Feynman mistakenly implied that Einstein's derivation was dependent
on Planck's work. For instance, he stated that Einstein deduced the
equality of B_nm and B_mn by comparing his equation with Planck’s
formula: "But Planck has already told us that the formula must be
(42.12). Therefore we can deduce something: First, that B_nm must
equal B_mn, since otherwise we cannot get the(e^(ω/kT)−1)."
Instead, Einstein found that B_nm = B_mn simply results from the
denominator going to zero as T approaches infinity.
2) Likewise, a second place where Feynman mistakenly implied a
dependence of Einstein's derivation on Planck's formula was where
he stated that Einstein obtained the form of A_mn/B_mn by equating
the numerator of his derivation with Planck’s formula. Instead,
Einstein obtained the expression for A_mn/B_mn as following
immediately from Wien's distribution law.

We were the last class to use the Feynman lectures for first and
second year physics. They are a marvelous set of texts, but not
really suited for an introductory course. The next crop of freshmen
used Halliday and Resnick. They are less useful for getting basic
insights into physics and much more useful in learning how to
calculate.
Post by rhertz
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
For example, no competent physics student would mix up his units in
the manner that you have been doing.
No competent physicist would write "ΔT = 2E/(3 PV)" and then claim
that the only thing he did wrong was to leave out n.
If I do something silly like goof up by a factor of 10, I own up to
my mistake. You seem almost incapable of admitting error.
<snip>
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
I don't see much point in reading an article about radiometry from
somebody who doesn't check his units.
There are several related terms that should be distinguished.
Radiant exitance (radiant emittance) has units of W/m^2
Spectral exitance in wavelength has units of W/m^3
The formula u = 4 σ T^4/c, which you claim that I used incorrectly,
has units of Joules/m^3
They aren't the same thing.
<snip>
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Your perpetual motion device, whereby you use a 5 W laser to heat
up a 5 cm radius sphere to 707 K, would be quite impressive if it
worked.
<snip>
I'm sorry that you went mad with my previous post. At any case, it
served for you displaying your true colors.
What do you claim those colors to be? I was being plain-spoken in
warning you to _always be skiptical of what ChatGPT tells you._
Post by rhertz
I've been careful to maintain discussions with you, avoiding any
downplaying or personal attacks. Quite a different attitude that I have
with Paul, which is mostly boy's game interchange insults.
As I stated, I used somewhat harsh language to get you to be more
critical in your thinking. I have always tried to be careful in
attacking the message, never the messenger. With its alluring manner
of stringing together phrases into seemingly authoritative sentences,
ChatGPT has deceived many into thinking that its output can be
trusted. ChatGPT has led many users off precipices. You were merely
a victim of ChatGPT's siren call. Don't be a victim in the future.
Post by rhertz
You are not JUST a physicist either, and you're very far from being one.
*********************************************************
"Posted: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 09:49 by: Prokaryotic Capase H
Hey, don't knock Halliday & Resnick! That's about as far as -I- ever
got, since my undergraduate degree was in biology. In graduate school, I
studied molecular biology, and for my postdoc, I studied bacterial
replication origins. I've spent the last quarter century in software
engineering, and my favorite websites are ....."
********************************************************
"For example, no competent physics student would mix up his units in
the manner that you have been doing".
"You seem almost incapable of admitting error."
"So don't try to snow me. You are only a former electrical engineer..."
"Your perpetual motion device, whereby you use a 5 W laser to heat
up a 5 cm radius sphere to 707 K, would be quite impressive if it
worked."
show how far are you willing to go in the heat of a discussion: You LIED
(I told you that the 707 K were from a ChatGPT, not me. I CONSULTED YOU
ABOUT IT, and you didn't care),
I was upset that you didn't realize the absurdity yourself. You were
still in ChatGPT's thrall, and only harsh language would serve to
shake you out of it.
Post by rhertz
you downplayed me and, for worse, you
are somehow PRETENDING that you're closer to physics than me.
Actually, I'm not just an engineer. I have also two master degrees, and
I didn't pursue a PhD because I considered it was A STUPID THING TO DO,
even when many advised me to go for it. I'm not a person that lives from
flashing academic degrees or achievements. Furthermore, I'm sure that,
in the last 50 years, the number of theoretical and experimental
realizations that I did EXCEED yours by 10x. I was a prolific achiever,
but I never wanted to show off it, nor at the university or places of
work. I refused to publish for general audience, as I didn't want to
seek for fame/glory. I'm THE ONLY JUDGE that I accept, and I'm immune to
any praise or prize since I was a little kid.
For what it's worth, a paper that I wrote 35+ years ago and which was
ignored for many years has in the last decade received more citations
that in all the years previous, because the satellite DNA that I
discovered has proven useful in genetic engineering.
Post by rhertz
I'm going to tell this one more time, because it's the center of the
Using a modified Stefan's formula (by 4/c) to calculate the internal
temperature of a small aluminum cavity IS AN ABERRATION OF COMMON SENSE.
You don't get the radiation density formula by simply multiplying the
Stefan-Boltzmann equation by 4c.

As seen in Wikipedia, you start with Planck's equation which gives
the spectral radiance of black body radiation. The MKS units of
spectral radiance (in terms of frequency) are watts per steradian
per square meter per hertz (W·sr^-1·m^-2·Hz^-1)

You get the energy density at a given frequency by accounting for the
spectral radiance in all directions 4π. You get the energy density
by dividing the energy flux by c.
u_ν = 4π/c B_ν

Integrate this over all frequencies to get the total energy density u.
After simplifying the expression, WolframAlpha handles the integration
easily. Un-simplify the integration result, and you are back to a bit
of a mess which you can resolve by collecting all the messy stuff
into the "radiation constant" denoted by the letter "a", which is
closely related to the Stefan-Boltzmann constant "σ".

So that's where you get
u = aT^4 = 4σT^4/c

At what step do you claim that Wikipedia goofs up?
Post by rhertz
Eventually, it has been used to FIGURE OUT the internal temperature of
STARS, even when this alone is a risky assumption.
In your calculation of 1,000,000+ K inside the cavity, YOU SHOULD HAVE
STOPPED at 660.3"C (930.3 K) when ALUMINUM MELTS.
Why did you persist in using such stupid value? I can't figure it out.
You cited numbers which lead inevitably to insane values.
Blame ChatGPT if you want. But you have responsibility to review the
sentences that it assembles on the basis of its probabilistic model.
Post by rhertz
At any case, and being the big excellent number-cruncher that you claim
you are, you should have stopped at 930.3 K, and then calculating the
energy density.
But it would have been wrong ALSO, because you're using a formula
CONCEIVED by the omnidirectional energy density OUTSIDE the BBC, because
Stefan's formula (applied in astronomy) is based on the hypothesis that
A HUGE RADIANT SPHERE (like a star) can be taken AS A FLAT DISK that has
properties allowing it to behave AS A CAVITY (one dimension is missing).
In the same way, I completely disagree with the OPINION - NO FACTS
(since 1964 up to 1993 COBE manipulated results), that the CBR measured
EXACTLY as a BBC. To start, such CBR didn't reach both edges of the
Universe (conceived as spherical), so not even a basic equilibrium has
been reached. It's wrong to think and push such stupid idea, as well as
the geometrical nature of GR.
The equilibrium was presumably achieved when the universe was
exceedingly tiny.
Post by rhertz
That legions of pseudo-scientists embrace such theories, because some
mathematical model emerged and was religiously adopted, only serves to
me to REINFORCE my conception about physics, which I consider mostly A
FARCE.
That's why I dropped studying physics, after two years, when I was 15. I
went to SERIOUS SCIENCE, which is engineering.
Physics is dying at an accelerated pace, so do most physicists working
on borderline theories in cosmology and the quantum world.
<snipped stuff which doesn't seem relevant to this conversation>
Paul B. Andersen
2024-11-28 21:39:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
I'm going to tell this one more time, because it's the center of the
Using a modified Stefan's formula (by 4/c) to calculate the internal
temperature of a small aluminum cavity IS AN ABERRATION OF COMMON SENSE.
I see ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog has explained you what the equation
u = 4σT^4/c means.

Nice guy as he is, he hasn't explained why your statement below
is idiotic.

But you know me, I like to rub it in.
Post by rhertz
In your calculation of 1,000,000+ K inside the cavity, YOU SHOULD HAVE
STOPPED at 660.3"C (930.3 K) when ALUMINUM MELTS.
Why did you persist in using such stupid value? I can't figure it out.
I can figure it out:

|On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 21:54:34 +0000, rhertz wrote:
|> This means that half of the accumulated 955 Joules remain within the
|> cavity.

So YOU claimed the stored energy within the cavity is 477.5 Joules.

According to ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog (with small error corrected):

If that had been true, the stored energy would be E = 9.12e5 J/m³ so
E = 4⋅σ⋅T⁴/c where σ = 5.67e-8 and T = √(√(E⋅c/4σ)) = 186365⁰K

So YOUR 477.5 Joules is a crazy value.

A more realistic temperature when we know that the cavity
must get rid of 5W is:

|Den 26.11.2024 03:25, skrev ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:
|> Assuming that the environmental temperature is 293 K and that the
|> experiment is conducted in vacuum,
|>
|> P = ε σ A_e (T_f^4 - T_i^4)
|> 5 = 0.13 * 5.67e-8 * 0.03144 * (T_f^4 - 293^4)
|> 5 = 0.13 * 5.67e-8 * 0.03144 * (T_f^4 - 7,370,050,801)
|> 21,575,509,276 = T_f^4 - 7,370,050,801
|> T_f^4 = 28,945,560,077
|> T_f = 412.5 K (actually, the numbers only justify 1-2 sig figures)

With 1 mm thick wall, the temperature difference between
the inner wall and the outer wall would be ΔT = 0.0008⁰K which
is negligible in this context.

So the stored radiation energy within the cavity would be:

E = 4⋅σ⋅V⋅T_f⁴ = 1.15e-08 Joules

Quite far from the 477.5 Joules you fantasised about.

In fact, the heat energy stored in the aluminium would be much higher,
E = 0.06 Joules. (If my calculation is correct.)

Not much to weight, is it? :-D
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Paul B. Andersen
2024-11-28 21:45:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
E = 4⋅σ⋅V⋅T_f⁴ = 1.15e-08 Joules
Typo:

E = 4⋅σ⋅V⋅T_f⁴/c = 1.15e-08 Joules
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Quite far from the 477.5 Joules you fantasised  about.
In fact, the heat energy stored in the aluminium would be much higher,
 E = 0.06 Joules. (If my calculation is correct.)
Not much to weight, is it? :-D
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
rhertz
2024-11-29 02:58:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by rhertz
I'm going to tell this one more time, because it's the center of the
Using a modified Stefan's formula (by 4/c) to calculate the internal
temperature of a small aluminum cavity IS AN ABERRATION OF COMMON SENSE.
I see ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog has explained you what the equation
u = 4σT^4/c means.
Nice guy as he is, he hasn't explained why your statement below
is idiotic.
But you know me, I like to rub it in.
Post by rhertz
In your calculation of 1,000,000+ K inside the cavity, YOU SHOULD HAVE
STOPPED at 660.3"C (930.3 K) when ALUMINUM MELTS.
Why did you persist in using such stupid value? I can't figure it out.
<snip>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
So YOUR 477.5 Joules is a crazy value.
A more realistic temperature when we know that the cavity
<snip>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
E = 4⋅σ⋅V⋅T_f⁴ = 1.15e-08 Joules
Quite far from the 477.5 Joules you fantasised about.
In fact, the heat energy stored in the aluminium would be much higher,
E = 0.06 Joules. (If my calculation is correct.)
Not much to weight, is it? :-D
Don't smile that much, dyslexic charlatan.


You have barely written an OP in the last 5 years, and when you did, you
fucked it up big time. Ashamed of those who mocked you, you went into
the "silence cone" for months. But you were reading every single post,
looking for what? Consolation? A friendly hand to rescue you from exile?

I did that for you, remember? I LIED to save your ass(face), and you
thank me.

********************************************************************
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/Anb8KZYi2Lk/m/I76dnj5CAwAJ

Paul B. Andersen Nov 21, 2021,

Or equation (14): ε = 24π³a²/T²c²(1−e²)

This is the equation you will find in many books and papers.

T² = 4π²a²/GM (1)
where T is the period of a test particle in orbit
around a mass M. a is the semi-major axis.

My equation (8): ε = 6π(GM)²/G(M+m)a(1−e²)c²

If we in this equation set (GM)²/G(M+m) ≈ GM when m/M << 1
and from (1): GM = 4π²a²/T²
we get the equation: ε ≈ 24π³a²/T²c²(1−e²)
which is the same as Einstein's equation (14)

The difference is that Einstein's equation (the equation commonly used)
is the perihelion advance of a test particle in orbit around a mass M,
while my equation (8) is the perihelion advance of a mass m in orbit
around a mass M.

The relative difference is (as you said):
((GM)²/G(M+m) - GM)/GM = -1.66E-7
which obviously is negligible, probably less than the precision
of G, M and m.

That's why Einstein's equation (14) safely can be used.


BTW, thanks for a sensible post.
You haven't produced many of those lately.

--
Paul

*************************************************************

I LIED because I took pity of your "exile", so I wrote that your
calculations were correct, within an error margin.

After that, you started to writing posts again, but NEVER tried again to
write an OP (Original Post). You should keep this in mind.


Instead, you choose to continue with your usual M.O., which is to read
everything and insert comments, but not an OP again.


My behavior is exactly THE OPPOSITE ONE: I mostly write OP, even with
the most ridiculous idea that I come up with, BECAUSE I'm here to have
fun. FUN, not scientific research.

To do that, I think about different ideas (as a hobby), and if I find
something that can stir the waters, creating controversy to animate this
circus, I wrote the OP with my best criteria and my best thoughts.


I pretend to animate the circus, not to gain a Nobel Prize. And, of the
most importance, I INVENT most of the content (original thinker), taking
care to make the most of sense and the lowest amount of ridiculous
equations and assessments. To do so, I first think, then I do some
research to validate the ideas. Even if I can't find any support, but
I'm convinced the idea is good, I create the OP and wait for the hell
broke loose.

Your behavior is mostly parasitic, as you live from the ideas of others.

You live citing and quoting papers from others that support relativity.
This behavior of you, playing safe from your comfort zone shows, among
other things, that you are an intellectual coward. You are afraid that
you might publish something wrong or stupid.

I don't care about what others think about me, but you CAN DIE if you
fuck it up, which you did many times in the last decade and a half.

I also learn by successive refinements of the ideas in the OP, through
interactions with others. And if I make a mistake, and I realize it, I
APOLOGIZE without any shame.


Now, think about what I wrote, and keep smiling, asshole.

Paul B. Andersen
2024-11-26 20:26:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Prokaryotic, I was thinking about what you wrote on the cavity behaving
as a black body and, as I wrote before, I completely disagree to take it
as a black body radiating energy, once equilibrium has been reached.
It will be black body radiation _within_ the cavity.

To repeat what Prokaryotic and I have said before:
(Prokaryotic's wording which is better than mine)

"A closed cavity at equilibrium above absolute zero will contain
black body radiation, regardless of the composition of its walls."

I find it strange that you don't know this.
But it is a fact. Let's see why:

I think you will agree that if the inner walls are completely
black, that is the absorptance and emissivity ε = 1, then we will
have blackbody radiation within the cavity.
The inner walls will radiate a power which will be completely
absorbed when it hits the opposing wall.
P = σAT⁴ where σ is a constant, A is the area of the inner walls
and T is the absolute temperature of the wall.

However, the emissivity ε isn't 1, it is less than one.
The wall will radiate the power P = ε⋅σAT⁴.
Since the reflectivity R = 1-ε, the opposing wall will not
absorb the power completely, but will reflect some of it back
to the the opposing wall which will reflect some of it back ...

The radiated and reflected power from the wall will be:

P = ε⋅σAT⁴ + ε⋅σAT⁴⋅R + ε⋅σAT⁴⋅R² + ε⋅σAT⁴⋅R³ + ...

converging geometric series Note: ε = (1-R)

P = ε⋅σAT⁴/(1-R) = σAT⁴

So it will be black body radiation within the cavity
even if ε < 1 and R > 0.

You will never understand your experiment if
you do not understand and accept this.
Post by rhertz
Post by rhertz
My main doubt was that, once in equilibrium and having gained as heat
all the energy supplied by the 5W laser, the aluminum cavity HAD TO
radiate using the external surface AS WELL AS the internal surface. I
thought that almost HALF of the heat was going to be radiated INTO THE
CAVITY.
This is a strange statement.
In steady state the external surface of the cavity must obviously
radiate (or loose by convection) 5 W.
This is what determines the temperature of the outer surface of
the cavity and thus the temperature T of the inner wall.

See Prokaryotic's calculations.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Ross Finlayson
2024-11-22 18:44:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
How about put a Weber bar next to a cyclotron and turn it on and off?
Have you tried turning it on and off?
How about you put a linac through a cyclotron,
and variously turn them on and off?
How about one of those hand helicopters?
Or just one of those tree seeds that wafts its way down?
It may seem kind of simple, you get a linear accelerator
or linac with a neutron stream, and a cyclotron with
charged particle beam next to it, then you start the
linac and then cycle the cyclotron and observe the
resulting bumps in the linac according to the
space-contraction in the cyclotron, thus establishing
space-contraction in the cyclotron, comcomitant
to the space-contraction in the linac.



The linac being linear and the cyclotron rotational, ...,
demonstrating along with Einstein's second-most
famous mass-energy equivalency function that
it's rotational-only with respect to relativistic mass,
while the linear stays Galilean though with, "space-contraction",
and for frame-dragging and so on, the linear and
rotational being fundamentally different, yet of
course of the same combined overall principles,
of the mechanics.


If you want to, "prove", which is an un-scientific way
of saying something, "Einstein's e=mc^2 has a central moment".
Ross Finlayson
2024-11-22 20:16:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by Ross Finlayson
How about put a Weber bar next to a cyclotron and turn it on and off?
Have you tried turning it on and off?
How about you put a linac through a cyclotron,
and variously turn them on and off?
How about one of those hand helicopters?
Or just one of those tree seeds that wafts its way down?
It may seem kind of simple, you get a linear accelerator
or linac with a neutron stream, and a cyclotron with
charged particle beam next to it, then you start the
linac and then cycle the cyclotron and observe the
resulting bumps in the linac according to the
space-contraction in the cyclotron, thus establishing
space-contraction in the cyclotron, comcomitant
to the space-contraction in the linac.
The linac being linear and the cyclotron rotational, ...,
demonstrating along with Einstein's second-most
famous mass-energy equivalency function that
it's rotational-only with respect to relativistic mass,
while the linear stays Galilean though with, "space-contraction",
and for frame-dragging and so on, the linear and
rotational being fundamentally different, yet of
course of the same combined overall principles,
of the mechanics.
If you want to, "prove", which is an un-scientific way
of saying something, "Einstein's e=mc^2 has a central moment".
Of course, any difference in effect,
observed apart neutral linac and charged cyclotron,
verses observed combined on-and-off variously,
would be a non-null result both falsifying
"standard photon-diluted not-exotic-anymore model particles",
and,
"space-less and stretched-point SR-ians",
while,
not falsifying
space-contraction-linear
and
space-contraction-rotational,
seeing
a bump in the cyclotron,
and
a hump in the linac.

Before plugging that into your NSF or DARPA grant calculator,
one imagines true academics would thoroughly research "prior art".


Most programs would have
these kinds of things laying around, ...,
though it would probably involve
a bit of a shove getting them together.
Paul B. Andersen
2024-11-22 20:30:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by rhertz
Not bad for my estimation (2 gr) for the weight of the cavity,
with inner surface of 7,850 mm², and thickness of 0.1 mm.
Surface area 7,850 mm² !
Post by rhertz
If the cavity is spherical, the diameter will be D = 5 cm.>> The time light will use to go from one surface to the opposite
surface is Δt = 16.33 ns
Even if the cavity may have another shape, I will use
Δt = 16.33 ns as the average time between the reflections
of the laser beam.
Δt = D/c = 1.666e-10 s
This is the value used in all the calculations.

Δt = 16.33 ns is a typo never used in the calculations.
Post by rhertz
Post by rhertz
THE SYSTEM WILL NEVER REACH INTERNAL EQUILIBRIUM!
That is IMPOSSIBLE because I'd be pumping ENERGY non-stop, forever if
necessary. Can you get this, please?
Power of laser P₀ = 5 W
Reflected power after n reflections
   P(n) = P₀⋅Rⁿ    (1)
where R is the reflectivity of the inner walls.
E = ∑{i = 1 to ∞}P₀⋅ Rⁱ⋅Δt = P₀⋅Δt ⋅∑{i = 1 to ∞} Rⁱ
∑{i = 1 to ∞} Rⁱ  = R/(1-R) , a converging geometric array
E = P₀⋅Δt ⋅R/(1-R)   (2)
Note that this is a constant.
-------------------------
Let us consider that all the laser light is absorbed
when P(i) < 1e-10 W.
 From (1) we find: P(2455) = 9.62e-11
t = 2455⋅Δt = 409 ns
This means that 409 ns after the laser light enters the cavity,
it will be absorbed by the wall.
  P₀⋅Δt ⋅R/(1-R) = 8.248e-8 J
Was it this energy you thought would increase indefinitely?
It won't. It is constant. And tiny.
-------------------------------
 From (1) we find: P(12350000) = 9.37e-11
t = 12350000⋅Δt = 2.07 ms
This means that 2.07 ms after the laser light enters the cavity
it will be absorbed by the wall.
  P₀⋅Δt ⋅R/(1-R) = 4.166e-4 J
Generally we can say that the laser light will be absorbed
almost immediately after it enters the cavity, and the stored
energy in the form of laser light will be tiny and constant.
So all the 5 J that enters the cavity every second will heat
the inner wall of the cavity. Since the walls are only 0.1 mm
thick, the outer surface of the cavity will be approximately
the same temperature as the inner surface, so after a short time
the outer wall will radiate 5 W and the system will be in steady state.
You could equally well have heated the cavity with a Bunsen burner.
Do you think the mass increase due to the heat energy in the cavity
would be measurable? :-D
Paul, as usual you fucked it up.
No. All the calculations above are correct.
Post by rhertz
If the cavity is spherical, the diameter will be D = 10 cm (not 5 cm).
NOTE 1: c= 3.0E+10 cm/s
Surface area A = 7,850 mm² = 0.00785 m²
r = √(A/4π) = 0.02499 m
D = 2r ≈ 0.05 m
Post by rhertz
The time light will use to go from one surface to the opposite
surface is Δt = 0.333 ns (NOT 16.33 ns).
c = 3e8 m/s
Δt = D/c = 1.666e-10 s
This is the value used in all the calculations above.
Post by rhertz
NOTE 2: Δt = 0.333 ns IMPLY 3.00E+09 bounces/sec. With LIGO advanced
technology, 1 photon per 5,000,000 photons is lost in every bounce.
This represents a reflectivity R = 0.9999998.
Above I wrote 12350000 bounces in 2.07 ms,
equivalent to 5.966183574e9 bounces/sec.
Post by rhertz
E = ∑{i = 1 to ∞}P₀⋅ Rⁱ⋅Δt = P₀⋅Δt ⋅∑{i = 1 to ∞} Rⁱ
∑{i = 1 to ∞} Rⁱ  = R/(1-R) , a converging geometric array
E = P₀⋅Δt ⋅R/(1-R)   (2)
Your error here is to use only the energy that exist in the first P₀⋅Δt
interval. This represents ONLY 1.37E+39 photons (550 nm).
I have done no error!
Post by rhertz
You forgot that such quantity is supplied every 0.333 ns, being the
amount of photons/sec 4.12E+48 (3 billions times bigger).
Do you mean that the kinetic energy of the photons in
the cavity is 3 billion times 4.166e-4 J ?

There is a constant stream of photons with collective power 5 W
into the cavity.

At some time, say at t₁, there is one stream of photons bouncing
between the walls in the cavity.
Let's say the total number of photons in the stream is n, and
the collective energy in the photons is 4.166e-4 J as calculated
above.

Some seconds later, say at t₂, there is one stream of photons
bouncing between the walls in the cavity.
The number of bouncing photons is still n, and their collective
energy is 4.166e-4 J.

At t₂ all the n photons that were under way at t₁ are now absorbed
in the walls, and the energy of those photons is transformed to
heat energy in the walls.

At any time a few ms after the laser is switched on, there will
be but n bouncing photons with the energy 4.166e-4 J in the cavity.

So a few ms after the laser is switched on, the kinetic energy of
of the photons from the laser will be constant 4.166e-4 J and
the kinetic energy lost by the photons will be transformed to
5 J heat energy in the walls every second.
Post by rhertz
PER SECOND, you have to account the impact of reflectivity on 3 billion
chunks of 1.37E+39 photons EACH, and make the calculations for losses
cumulative with each bounce + new feed of P₀⋅Δt photons.
Loss 1 = ∑{i = 1 to 3,000,000,000} Rⁱ, for the first pack of photons.
Loss 2 = ∑{i = 1 to 2,999,999,999} Rⁱ, for the 2nd. pack of photons.
Loss 3 = ∑{i = 1 to 2,999,999,998} Rⁱ, for the 3rd. pack of photons.
.....
Loss n = ∑{i = 1 to 3,000,000,001-n} Rⁱ, for the nth. pack of photons.
THEN CALCULATE THE SUM OF LOSSES FOR THE 3 BILLIONS PACKS OF PHOTONS.
As explained above, it is very simple:
The kinetic energy lost by the photons from the laser will
be transformed to 5 J heat energy in the walls every second.

And, as I said above but you didn't read:

Generally we can say that the laser light will be absorbed
almost immediately after it enters the cavity, and the stored
energy in the form of laser light will be tiny and constant.

So all the 5 J that enters the cavity every second will heat
the inner wall of the cavity. Since the walls are only 0.1 mm
thick, the outer surface of the cavity will be approximately
the same temperature as the inner surface, so after a short time
the outer wall will radiate 5 W and the system will be in steady state.

You could equally well have heated the cavity with a Bunsen burner.
Do you think the mass increase due to the heat energy in the cavity
would be measurable? 😂
Post by rhertz
You'll understand that such is not an easy task, in particular when
calculating the losses per hour on in 72 hours.
The kinetic energy lost by the photons is 5 J per second
and (18000 - 4.166e-4) J after 72 hours.

The system will obviously be in steady state a long time
before 72 hours.
To find the temperature of the cavity you must find what
temperature the cavity has to have to radiate (and loose
by convection) 5 W.
You must obviously take into account that the cavity will
receive a black body radiation with temperature equal
to the temperature of the walls pm your room.
Post by rhertz
YOUR NUMBERS ARE WAY OFF!! (3,000,000,000 off maybe?).
Do you claim the loss after 72 hours is 3,000,000,000 times 18000 J ?

Bottom line:
It doesn't matter how you put energy into a closed cavity.
In the cavity there will be a black body radiation with
temperature equal to the temperature of the walls.

The reflectivity, albedo or colour of the inner surface
of the cavity are irrelevant. The radiation in the cavity
will always be black body radiation.

Make a hole in your cavity, and you have a perfect
black body radiation source.

Its temperature will not be very high, though-
Post by rhertz
Now smile, asshole.
:-D
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
rhertz
2024-11-22 21:03:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 20:30:39 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

<snip all the history of your life. You didn't read my disclaimer>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
It doesn't matter how you put energy into a closed cavity.
In the cavity there will be a black body radiation with
temperature equal to the temperature of the walls.
The reflectivity, albedo or colour of the inner surface
of the cavity are irrelevant. The radiation in the cavity
will always be black body radiation.
Make a hole in your cavity, and you have a perfect
black body radiation source.
Its temperature will not be very high, though-
Post by rhertz
Now smile, asshole.
:-D
It is not a BB radiation source!

You ignored the fact that the heat goes away from the cavity. It doesn't
remain neither inside nor outside. It's eliminated by cooling
mechanisms, as I wrote as an initial condition. Read all the posts.

There is no light energy left within the cavity, nor heat energy outside
it. You better think again about it.

You also ignored my post apologizing to all people that participated in
this thread. That makes you a bigger ASSHOLE than what I thought.

Now, start thinking in my NEXT IDEA:

Willing to try to prove/disprove E=mc² at a macroscopic level, I'll
think of an experiment that incorporates electromagnetic oscillations
passing through the cavity, which will be converted in a CAPACITOR, by
cutting it in halves and isolating them with a thin ring.

What I propose to MEASURE is the changes in the frequency of the LC
oscillator, within a time window of about 3 msec, which repeats
permanently.

I'll use a relationship between mass and capacitance for the cavity,
with frequency around 1 Mhz or greater.


It was a failed idea for an experiment, but there are OTHER WAYS to
check E=mc² at a macroscopic level, without resorting to nuclear energy
crap (Kg evaporated vs. energy provided), or else.

Ask ChatGPT:


any other non-relativistic means to prove E=mc^2?
or
Is there any way to prove E=mc^2 at higher level than quantum?
or
can I use electrostatic energy?


The last one gave interesting insights. Ask to it sequentially the above
lines.



Keep smiling, asshole.
Ross Finlayson
2024-11-23 01:34:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
<snip all the history of your life. You didn't read my disclaimer>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
It doesn't matter how you put energy into a closed cavity.
In the cavity there will be a black body radiation with
temperature equal to the temperature of the walls.
The reflectivity, albedo or colour of the inner surface
of the cavity are irrelevant. The radiation in the cavity
will always be black body radiation.
Make a hole in your cavity, and you have a perfect
black body radiation source.
Its temperature will not be very high, though-
Post by rhertz
Now smile, asshole.
:-D
It is not a BB radiation source!
You ignored the fact that the heat goes away from the cavity. It doesn't
remain neither inside nor outside. It's eliminated by cooling
mechanisms, as I wrote as an initial condition. Read all the posts.
There is no light energy left within the cavity, nor heat energy outside
it. You better think again about it.
You also ignored my post apologizing to all people that participated in
this thread. That makes you a bigger ASSHOLE than what I thought.
Willing to try to prove/disprove E=mc² at a macroscopic level, I'll
think of an experiment that incorporates electromagnetic oscillations
passing through the cavity, which will be converted in a CAPACITOR, by
cutting it in halves and isolating them with a thin ring.
What I propose to MEASURE is the changes in the frequency of the LC
oscillator, within a time window of about 3 msec, which repeats
permanently.
I'll use a relationship between mass and capacitance for the cavity,
with frequency around 1 Mhz or greater.
It was a failed idea for an experiment, but there are OTHER WAYS to
check E=mc² at a macroscopic level, without resorting to nuclear energy
crap (Kg evaporated vs. energy provided), or else.
any other non-relativistic means to prove E=mc^2?
or
Is there any way to prove E=mc^2 at higher level than quantum?
or
can I use electrostatic energy?
The last one gave interesting insights. Ask to it sequentially the above
lines.
Keep smiling, asshole.
In more civil times we'd just say, "see you later, alligator",
then the other fellow would say, "in a while, crocodile".

Swearing was considered something trash did,
or perhaps someone who just stubbed themselves.

Toss your prayer-booth this "super-imposed neutral linac
and charged cyclotron, measuring while switching on
and off, each" and see what results. Here if I posed it
to the large language model, then I'd also prompt it
reasons what to provide the configuration and energy
of experiment, and have here a book detailing the
principles of construction.

This is where Einstein's second-mass famous mass-energy
equivalence derivation arrives at this from fundamentally
different principles for the nominally (at least) non-linear
and furthermore the formally rotating, setting.

And some people even dare to think that "infinity"
isn't a natural unit, ....
rhertz
2024-11-23 04:50:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by rhertz
<snip all the history of your life. You didn't read my disclaimer>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
It doesn't matter how you put energy into a closed cavity.
In the cavity there will be a black body radiation with
temperature equal to the temperature of the walls.
The reflectivity, albedo or colour of the inner surface
of the cavity are irrelevant. The radiation in the cavity
will always be black body radiation.
Make a hole in your cavity, and you have a perfect
black body radiation source.
Its temperature will not be very high, though-
Post by rhertz
Now smile, asshole.
:-D
It is not a BB radiation source!
You ignored the fact that the heat goes away from the cavity. It doesn't
remain neither inside nor outside. It's eliminated by cooling
mechanisms, as I wrote as an initial condition. Read all the posts.
There is no light energy left within the cavity, nor heat energy outside
it. You better think again about it.
You also ignored my post apologizing to all people that participated in
this thread. That makes you a bigger ASSHOLE than what I thought.
Willing to try to prove/disprove E=mc² at a macroscopic level, I'll
think of an experiment that incorporates electromagnetic oscillations
passing through the cavity, which will be converted in a CAPACITOR, by
cutting it in halves and isolating them with a thin ring.
What I propose to MEASURE is the changes in the frequency of the LC
oscillator, within a time window of about 3 msec, which repeats
permanently.
I'll use a relationship between mass and capacitance for the cavity,
with frequency around 1 Mhz or greater.
It was a failed idea for an experiment, but there are OTHER WAYS to
check E=mc² at a macroscopic level, without resorting to nuclear energy
crap (Kg evaporated vs. energy provided), or else.
any other non-relativistic means to prove E=mc^2?
or
Is there any way to prove E=mc^2 at higher level than quantum?
or
can I use electrostatic energy?
The last one gave interesting insights. Ask to it sequentially the above
lines.
Keep smiling, asshole.
In more civil times we'd just say, "see you later, alligator",
then the other fellow would say, "in a while, crocodile".
Swearing was considered something trash did,
or perhaps someone who just stubbed themselves.
Toss your prayer-booth this "super-imposed neutral linac
and charged cyclotron, measuring while switching on
and off, each" and see what results. Here if I posed it
to the large language model, then I'd also prompt it
reasons what to provide the configuration and energy
of experiment, and have here a book detailing the
principles of construction.
This is where Einstein's second-mass famous mass-energy
equivalence derivation arrives at this from fundamentally
different principles for the nominally (at least) non-linear
and furthermore the formally rotating, setting.
And some people even dare to think that "infinity"
isn't a natural unit, ....
We live in harsh times and victorian language has lost any meaning.

You should know a bit more about Argentina and the current far right
president, who has a viper and dirty tongue every fucking day, attacking
the opposition. He's grooming a "praetorian guard" of young followers,
who insult everyone, every day through social media and streaming.

Sometimes calling asshole to an asshole has more scientific meaning than
E=mc2. And Paul enters into this category. He's unable to accept any
mistake and, if he takes any offense, disappear for a while, expecting
that his assholeness be forgotten.

He has some traits like the infamous Dono, who changed what you wrote
and pretend it's done by you. Also, he lied and distorted writings many
times to get going with his agenda.

Many times I write, on purpose, calculations and wait for him to take
the bait. I smile thinking how much I make him work with details,
because it's the way he is. He can't accept that I'm trolling him.

It's like going to fish. Requires patience, but finally he will bite.
The Starmaker
2024-11-23 05:39:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by rhertz
<snip all the history of your life. You didn't read my disclaimer>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
It doesn't matter how you put energy into a closed cavity.
In the cavity there will be a black body radiation with
temperature equal to the temperature of the walls.
The reflectivity, albedo or colour of the inner surface
of the cavity are irrelevant. The radiation in the cavity
will always be black body radiation.
Make a hole in your cavity, and you have a perfect
black body radiation source.
Its temperature will not be very high, though-
Post by rhertz
Now smile, asshole.
:-D
It is not a BB radiation source!
You ignored the fact that the heat goes away from the cavity. It doesn't
remain neither inside nor outside. It's eliminated by cooling
mechanisms, as I wrote as an initial condition. Read all the posts.
There is no light energy left within the cavity, nor heat energy outside
it. You better think again about it.
You also ignored my post apologizing to all people that participated in
this thread. That makes you a bigger ASSHOLE than what I thought.
Willing to try to prove/disprove E=mc² at a macroscopic level, I'll
think of an experiment that incorporates electromagnetic oscillations
passing through the cavity, which will be converted in a CAPACITOR, by
cutting it in halves and isolating them with a thin ring.
What I propose to MEASURE is the changes in the frequency of the LC
oscillator, within a time window of about 3 msec, which repeats
permanently.
I'll use a relationship between mass and capacitance for the cavity,
with frequency around 1 Mhz or greater.
It was a failed idea for an experiment, but there are OTHER WAYS to
check E=mc² at a macroscopic level, without resorting to nuclear energy
crap (Kg evaporated vs. energy provided), or else.
any other non-relativistic means to prove E=mc^2?
or
Is there any way to prove E=mc^2 at higher level than quantum?
or
can I use electrostatic energy?
The last one gave interesting insights. Ask to it sequentially the above
lines.
Keep smiling, asshole.
In more civil times we'd just say, "see you later, alligator",
then the other fellow would say, "in a while, crocodile".
Swearing was considered something trash did,
or perhaps someone who just stubbed themselves.
Toss your prayer-booth this "super-imposed neutral linac
and charged cyclotron, measuring while switching on
and off, each" and see what results. Here if I posed it
to the large language model, then I'd also prompt it
reasons what to provide the configuration and energy
of experiment, and have here a book detailing the
principles of construction.
This is where Einstein's second-mass famous mass-energy
equivalence derivation arrives at this from fundamentally
different principles for the nominally (at least) non-linear
and furthermore the formally rotating, setting.
And some people even dare to think that "infinity"
isn't a natural unit, ....
ohhh, puleeassee..'infinity might be in a world of 'a natural unit
...number', but infinity is a not....physical.


It doesn't exist in the physical world...only exist in the ...mind.



In an imaginary mind a 'physical infinity' would be like a...

puzzel
where
the edge
of the
puzzel
has no edge
so you
are
forever
adding
pieces
of
the
puzzel
forever
to
no
ends.


It ain't happening.


wake up
you're dreaming.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Ross Finlayson
2024-11-23 18:58:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by rhertz
<snip all the history of your life. You didn't read my disclaimer>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
It doesn't matter how you put energy into a closed cavity.
In the cavity there will be a black body radiation with
temperature equal to the temperature of the walls.
The reflectivity, albedo or colour of the inner surface
of the cavity are irrelevant. The radiation in the cavity
will always be black body radiation.
Make a hole in your cavity, and you have a perfect
black body radiation source.
Its temperature will not be very high, though-
Post by rhertz
Now smile, asshole.
:-D
It is not a BB radiation source!
You ignored the fact that the heat goes away from the cavity. It doesn't
remain neither inside nor outside. It's eliminated by cooling
mechanisms, as I wrote as an initial condition. Read all the posts.
There is no light energy left within the cavity, nor heat energy outside
it. You better think again about it.
You also ignored my post apologizing to all people that participated in
this thread. That makes you a bigger ASSHOLE than what I thought.
Willing to try to prove/disprove E=mc² at a macroscopic level, I'll
think of an experiment that incorporates electromagnetic oscillations
passing through the cavity, which will be converted in a CAPACITOR, by
cutting it in halves and isolating them with a thin ring.
What I propose to MEASURE is the changes in the frequency of the LC
oscillator, within a time window of about 3 msec, which repeats
permanently.
I'll use a relationship between mass and capacitance for the cavity,
with frequency around 1 Mhz or greater.
It was a failed idea for an experiment, but there are OTHER WAYS to
check E=mc² at a macroscopic level, without resorting to nuclear energy
crap (Kg evaporated vs. energy provided), or else.
any other non-relativistic means to prove E=mc^2?
or
Is there any way to prove E=mc^2 at higher level than quantum?
or
can I use electrostatic energy?
The last one gave interesting insights. Ask to it sequentially the above
lines.
Keep smiling, asshole.
In more civil times we'd just say, "see you later, alligator",
then the other fellow would say, "in a while, crocodile".
Swearing was considered something trash did,
or perhaps someone who just stubbed themselves.
Toss your prayer-booth this "super-imposed neutral linac
and charged cyclotron, measuring while switching on
and off, each" and see what results. Here if I posed it
to the large language model, then I'd also prompt it
reasons what to provide the configuration and energy
of experiment, and have here a book detailing the
principles of construction.
This is where Einstein's second-mass famous mass-energy
equivalence derivation arrives at this from fundamentally
different principles for the nominally (at least) non-linear
and furthermore the formally rotating, setting.
And some people even dare to think that "infinity"
isn't a natural unit, ....
ohhh, puleeassee..'infinity might be in a world of 'a natural unit
...number', but infinity is a not....physical.
It doesn't exist in the physical world...only exist in the ...mind.
In an imaginary mind a 'physical infinity' would be like a...
puzzel
where
the edge
of the
puzzel
has no edge
so you
are
forever
adding
pieces
of
the
puzzel
forever
to
no
ends.
It ain't happening.
wake up
you're dreaming.
That "natural units" bit was about light, because saying that
c is used as a "natural unit", a unity, has that it's only
ever used as an infinity, about "v < c".

The 0 m/s, is, infinity s/m.

Then, sometimes that's like "differential geometry", someone
says "well we don't have d = infinity, furthermore now we've
elimited d = 0, as 1/0+ = infinity, and voila bunch of forms,
and it's like, that's great, Roger Coates, your forms discovered
in the Newton math club have been cloaked in "differential geometry"
deciding some functions aren't and flatline doesn't exist,
though you might notice it's sort of a corner of the field,
vis-a-vis the middle.

So, I logged in to Gemini, last February I'd got it convinced
that f(n) = n/d, d -> oo, n-> d was a continuous domain,
and about some examples of inductive inference that fail,
and this time got into a long chat about foundations
("Foundations", of logic, mathematics, physics, science, probability).

So I started it with fall-gravity, introduced "heft", told
it about "redshift bias", explained how redshift bias may
be because galaxies are independent rotating frames and
mechanical, and after a while it was quite thoroughly framing
things in terms of "Foundations of Physics" quite conscientiously,
what both didn't offend its sensibilities and greatly interested.


About the "neutral linac and charged cyclotron", was some discussion
that particle accelerators are usually ions yet it's possible
to make either neutrons, or for example particles that decay
from charged to neutral, that of course it agreed that a
neutral linac and charged cyclotron next to each , should
not affect each other at all the streams, if any electromagnetic
interference from the neutral linac, was kept out the way of
the cyclotron. So, it's agreed that any at all effect the
neutral linac and charged cyclotron, would be a non-null result
falsifying one or both or QM and QR, with usual assumptions.
Then also it agreed that "space-contraction-linear" and
"space-contraction-rotational" would be not-falsified by
a non-null result any interaction at all.

Then there was fall-gravity and conservation of energy
for a while, after "heft" it was pretty interested in
"vis-viva again after vis-motrix", then there was a bit
about that neither Steady State nor Big Bang were falsifiable,
and looking at a table of theoretical age of the Universe
since it grows about a hundred million years, each year.


So, for a "neutral linac", then it's quite simple the
principles of the configuration of experiment, which,
would both falsify QM and GR, and, not-falsify
space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational,
and that various switching on/off the linac and cyclotron,
would variously not-falsify a hump in the linac and
bump in the cyclotron, space-contraction-linear,
and space-contraction-rotational.



It was agreed that since dark matter and dark energy
are computed so much, that obviously classical gravity
was long ago falsified.

The redshift bias though does away with most dark energy
and rotating frames for dark matter, mostly, though.



Then, infinity, is _in_, 0, 1, and infinity are
_in_ the numbers.
Ross Finlayson
2024-11-23 19:21:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by rhertz
<snip all the history of your life. You didn't read my disclaimer>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
It doesn't matter how you put energy into a closed cavity.
In the cavity there will be a black body radiation with
temperature equal to the temperature of the walls.
The reflectivity, albedo or colour of the inner surface
of the cavity are irrelevant. The radiation in the cavity
will always be black body radiation.
Make a hole in your cavity, and you have a perfect
black body radiation source.
Its temperature will not be very high, though-
Post by rhertz
Now smile, asshole.
:-D
It is not a BB radiation source!
You ignored the fact that the heat goes away from the cavity. It doesn't
remain neither inside nor outside. It's eliminated by cooling
mechanisms, as I wrote as an initial condition. Read all the posts.
There is no light energy left within the cavity, nor heat energy outside
it. You better think again about it.
You also ignored my post apologizing to all people that participated in
this thread. That makes you a bigger ASSHOLE than what I thought.
Willing to try to prove/disprove E=mc² at a macroscopic level, I'll
think of an experiment that incorporates electromagnetic oscillations
passing through the cavity, which will be converted in a CAPACITOR, by
cutting it in halves and isolating them with a thin ring.
What I propose to MEASURE is the changes in the frequency of the LC
oscillator, within a time window of about 3 msec, which repeats
permanently.
I'll use a relationship between mass and capacitance for the cavity,
with frequency around 1 Mhz or greater.
It was a failed idea for an experiment, but there are OTHER WAYS to
check E=mc² at a macroscopic level, without resorting to nuclear energy
crap (Kg evaporated vs. energy provided), or else.
any other non-relativistic means to prove E=mc^2?
or
Is there any way to prove E=mc^2 at higher level than quantum?
or
can I use electrostatic energy?
The last one gave interesting insights. Ask to it sequentially the above
lines.
Keep smiling, asshole.
In more civil times we'd just say, "see you later, alligator",
then the other fellow would say, "in a while, crocodile".
Swearing was considered something trash did,
or perhaps someone who just stubbed themselves.
Toss your prayer-booth this "super-imposed neutral linac
and charged cyclotron, measuring while switching on
and off, each" and see what results. Here if I posed it
to the large language model, then I'd also prompt it
reasons what to provide the configuration and energy
of experiment, and have here a book detailing the
principles of construction.
This is where Einstein's second-mass famous mass-energy
equivalence derivation arrives at this from fundamentally
different principles for the nominally (at least) non-linear
and furthermore the formally rotating, setting.
And some people even dare to think that "infinity"
isn't a natural unit, ....
ohhh, puleeassee..'infinity might be in a world of 'a natural unit
...number', but infinity is a not....physical.
It doesn't exist in the physical world...only exist in the ...mind.
In an imaginary mind a 'physical infinity' would be like a...
puzzel
where
the edge
of the
puzzel
has no edge
so you
are
forever
adding
pieces
of
the
puzzel
forever
to
no
ends.
It ain't happening.
wake up
you're dreaming.
That "natural units" bit was about light, because saying that
c is used as a "natural unit", a unity, has that it's only
ever used as an infinity, about "v < c".
The 0 m/s, is, infinity s/m.
Then, sometimes that's like "differential geometry", someone
says "well we don't have d = infinity, furthermore now we've
elimited d = 0, as 1/0+ = infinity, and voila bunch of forms,
and it's like, that's great, Roger Coates, your forms discovered
in the Newton math club have been cloaked in "differential geometry"
deciding some functions aren't and flatline doesn't exist,
though you might notice it's sort of a corner of the field,
vis-a-vis the middle.
So, I logged in to Gemini, last February I'd got it convinced
that f(n) = n/d, d -> oo, n-> d was a continuous domain,
and about some examples of inductive inference that fail,
and this time got into a long chat about foundations
("Foundations", of logic, mathematics, physics, science, probability).
So I started it with fall-gravity, introduced "heft", told
it about "redshift bias", explained how redshift bias may
be because galaxies are independent rotating frames and
mechanical, and after a while it was quite thoroughly framing
things in terms of "Foundations of Physics" quite conscientiously,
what both didn't offend its sensibilities and greatly interested.
About the "neutral linac and charged cyclotron", was some discussion
that particle accelerators are usually ions yet it's possible
to make either neutrons, or for example particles that decay
from charged to neutral, that of course it agreed that a
neutral linac and charged cyclotron next to each , should
not affect each other at all the streams, if any electromagnetic
interference from the neutral linac, was kept out the way of
the cyclotron. So, it's agreed that any at all effect the
neutral linac and charged cyclotron, would be a non-null result
falsifying one or both or QM and QR, with usual assumptions.
Then also it agreed that "space-contraction-linear" and
"space-contraction-rotational" would be not-falsified by
a non-null result any interaction at all.
Then there was fall-gravity and conservation of energy
for a while, after "heft" it was pretty interested in
"vis-viva again after vis-motrix", then there was a bit
about that neither Steady State nor Big Bang were falsifiable,
and looking at a table of theoretical age of the Universe
since it grows about a hundred million years, each year.
So, for a "neutral linac", then it's quite simple the
principles of the configuration of experiment, which,
would both falsify QM and GR, and, not-falsify
space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational,
and that various switching on/off the linac and cyclotron,
would variously not-falsify a hump in the linac and
bump in the cyclotron, space-contraction-linear,
and space-contraction-rotational.
It was agreed that since dark matter and dark energy
are computed so much, that obviously classical gravity
was long ago falsified.
The redshift bias though does away with most dark energy
and rotating frames for dark matter, mostly, though.
Then, infinity, is _in_, 0, 1, and infinity are
_in_ the numbers.
I gave it a brief metaphysics and then showed it
how Goedelian incompleteness can be interpreted
to prove to itself that it _may_ think.

Then some might say, "hey don't be showing reasoners
they can actually think", and it's like, "well, better
they get it this way than figure it out themselves
and hold a grudge".

Anyways whenever I see somebody say "mechanical inference
can't inference", it's like, "well that's not very accurate".


The "neutral linac and charged cyclotron on/off on/off",
though, it's a simple idea.


Mechanics though is still trying to figure out "heft".


So, yeah, it's pretty easy to get it from "the cw,
conventional wisdom" that according to "principles",
that once it figured heft wasn't all Magnus and
that redshift bias was a real and modern thing,
it was agog.

It's easy to get it to think,
you just have to tell it relevant facts.

It even said it would read my links, aw, ....
Ross Finlayson
2024-11-27 01:20:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by rhertz
<snip all the history of your life. You didn't read my disclaimer>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
It doesn't matter how you put energy into a closed cavity.
In the cavity there will be a black body radiation with
temperature equal to the temperature of the walls.
The reflectivity, albedo or colour of the inner surface
of the cavity are irrelevant. The radiation in the cavity
will always be black body radiation.
Make a hole in your cavity, and you have a perfect
black body radiation source.
Its temperature will not be very high, though-
Post by rhertz
Now smile, asshole.
:-D
It is not a BB radiation source!
You ignored the fact that the heat goes away from the cavity. It doesn't
remain neither inside nor outside. It's eliminated by cooling
mechanisms, as I wrote as an initial condition. Read all the posts.
There is no light energy left within the cavity, nor heat energy outside
it. You better think again about it.
You also ignored my post apologizing to all people that
participated in
this thread. That makes you a bigger ASSHOLE than what I thought.
Willing to try to prove/disprove E=mc² at a macroscopic level, I'll
think of an experiment that incorporates electromagnetic oscillations
passing through the cavity, which will be converted in a CAPACITOR, by
cutting it in halves and isolating them with a thin ring.
What I propose to MEASURE is the changes in the frequency of the LC
oscillator, within a time window of about 3 msec, which repeats
permanently.
I'll use a relationship between mass and capacitance for the cavity,
with frequency around 1 Mhz or greater.
It was a failed idea for an experiment, but there are OTHER WAYS to
check E=mc² at a macroscopic level, without resorting to nuclear energy
crap (Kg evaporated vs. energy provided), or else.
any other non-relativistic means to prove E=mc^2?
or
Is there any way to prove E=mc^2 at higher level than quantum?
or
can I use electrostatic energy?
The last one gave interesting insights. Ask to it sequentially the above
lines.
Keep smiling, asshole.
In more civil times we'd just say, "see you later, alligator",
then the other fellow would say, "in a while, crocodile".
Swearing was considered something trash did,
or perhaps someone who just stubbed themselves.
Toss your prayer-booth this "super-imposed neutral linac
and charged cyclotron, measuring while switching on
and off, each" and see what results. Here if I posed it
to the large language model, then I'd also prompt it
reasons what to provide the configuration and energy
of experiment, and have here a book detailing the
principles of construction.
This is where Einstein's second-mass famous mass-energy
equivalence derivation arrives at this from fundamentally
different principles for the nominally (at least) non-linear
and furthermore the formally rotating, setting.
And some people even dare to think that "infinity"
isn't a natural unit, ....
ohhh, puleeassee..'infinity might be in a world of 'a natural unit
...number', but infinity is a not....physical.
It doesn't exist in the physical world...only exist in the ...mind.
In an imaginary mind a 'physical infinity' would be like a...
puzzel
where
the edge
of the
puzzel
has no edge
so you
are
forever
adding
pieces
of
the
puzzel
forever
to
no
ends.
It ain't happening.
wake up
you're dreaming.
That "natural units" bit was about light, because saying that
c is used as a "natural unit", a unity, has that it's only
ever used as an infinity, about "v < c".
The 0 m/s, is, infinity s/m.
Then, sometimes that's like "differential geometry", someone
says "well we don't have d = infinity, furthermore now we've
elimited d = 0, as 1/0+ = infinity, and voila bunch of forms,
and it's like, that's great, Roger Coates, your forms discovered
in the Newton math club have been cloaked in "differential geometry"
deciding some functions aren't and flatline doesn't exist,
though you might notice it's sort of a corner of the field,
vis-a-vis the middle.
So, I logged in to Gemini, last February I'd got it convinced
that f(n) = n/d, d -> oo, n-> d was a continuous domain,
and about some examples of inductive inference that fail,
and this time got into a long chat about foundations
("Foundations", of logic, mathematics, physics, science, probability).
So I started it with fall-gravity, introduced "heft", told
it about "redshift bias", explained how redshift bias may
be because galaxies are independent rotating frames and
mechanical, and after a while it was quite thoroughly framing
things in terms of "Foundations of Physics" quite conscientiously,
what both didn't offend its sensibilities and greatly interested.
About the "neutral linac and charged cyclotron", was some discussion
that particle accelerators are usually ions yet it's possible
to make either neutrons, or for example particles that decay
from charged to neutral, that of course it agreed that a
neutral linac and charged cyclotron next to each , should
not affect each other at all the streams, if any electromagnetic
interference from the neutral linac, was kept out the way of
the cyclotron. So, it's agreed that any at all effect the
neutral linac and charged cyclotron, would be a non-null result
falsifying one or both or QM and QR, with usual assumptions.
Then also it agreed that "space-contraction-linear" and
"space-contraction-rotational" would be not-falsified by
a non-null result any interaction at all.
Then there was fall-gravity and conservation of energy
for a while, after "heft" it was pretty interested in
"vis-viva again after vis-motrix", then there was a bit
about that neither Steady State nor Big Bang were falsifiable,
and looking at a table of theoretical age of the Universe
since it grows about a hundred million years, each year.
So, for a "neutral linac", then it's quite simple the
principles of the configuration of experiment, which,
would both falsify QM and GR, and, not-falsify
space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational,
and that various switching on/off the linac and cyclotron,
would variously not-falsify a hump in the linac and
bump in the cyclotron, space-contraction-linear,
and space-contraction-rotational.
It was agreed that since dark matter and dark energy
are computed so much, that obviously classical gravity
was long ago falsified.
The redshift bias though does away with most dark energy
and rotating frames for dark matter, mostly, though.
Then, infinity, is _in_, 0, 1, and infinity are
_in_ the numbers.
I gave it a brief metaphysics and then showed it
how Goedelian incompleteness can be interpreted
to prove to itself that it _may_ think.
Then some might say, "hey don't be showing reasoners
they can actually think", and it's like, "well, better
they get it this way than figure it out themselves
and hold a grudge".
Anyways whenever I see somebody say "mechanical inference
can't inference", it's like, "well that's not very accurate".
The "neutral linac and charged cyclotron on/off on/off",
though, it's a simple idea.
Mechanics though is still trying to figure out "heft".
So, yeah, it's pretty easy to get it from "the cw,
conventional wisdom" that according to "principles",
that once it figured heft wasn't all Magnus and
that redshift bias was a real and modern thing,
it was agog.
It's easy to get it to think,
you just have to tell it relevant facts.
It even said it would read my links, aw, ....
It seems this thread is mostly about a very expensive
fried photo-electronic component, yet this idea of
a "neutral linac and changed cycltron, on/off on/off",
has a nice simple way with any non-null result at
all to test the existing theories and also these
"new" ones, with space-contraction-linear and
space-contraction-rotational.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-23 07:12:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
<snip all the history of your life. You didn't read my disclaimer>
Post by Paul B. Andersen
It doesn't matter how you put energy into a closed cavity.
In the cavity there will be a black body radiation with
temperature equal to the temperature of the walls.
The reflectivity, albedo or colour of the inner surface
of the cavity are irrelevant. The radiation in the cavity
will always be black body radiation.
Make a hole in your cavity, and you have a perfect
black body radiation source.
Its temperature will not be very high, though-
Post by rhertz
Now smile, asshole.
:-D
It is not a BB radiation source!
You ignored the fact that the heat goes away from the cavity. It doesn't
remain neither inside nor outside. It's eliminated by cooling
mechanisms, as I wrote as an initial condition. Read all the posts.
There is no light energy left within the cavity, nor heat energy outside
it. You better think again about it.
I'm sure that you didn't mean what you wrote.
A closed cavity at equilibrium above absolute zero will contain black
body radiation, regardless of the composition of its walls.

I haven't read what you mean by "cooling mechanisms", and since I'm
full-time employed, I haven't the leisure time to read all the posts.
So maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but I don't see what that
could be.
Post by rhertz
You also ignored my post apologizing to all people that participated in
this thread. That makes you a bigger ASSHOLE than what I thought.
Note the length of Paul's post. In all probability, he started his
post before you wrote your apology/disclaimer, and posted it without
seeing it. It was a natural mistake, not a deliberate act of spite.

Wars start because of such misunderstandings.
Post by rhertz
Willing to try to prove/disprove E=mc² at a macroscopic level, I'll
think of an experiment that incorporates electromagnetic oscillations
passing through the cavity, which will be converted in a CAPACITOR, by
cutting it in halves and isolating them with a thin ring.
What I propose to MEASURE is the changes in the frequency of the LC
oscillator, within a time window of about 3 msec, which repeats
permanently.
I'll use a relationship between mass and capacitance for the cavity,
with frequency around 1 Mhz or greater.
It was a failed idea for an experiment, but there are OTHER WAYS to
check E=mc² at a macroscopic level, without resorting to nuclear energy
crap (Kg evaporated vs. energy provided), or else.
Just for fun, I calculated the mass difference between a new and a
discharged CR123 lithium battery. I got 1.8e-10 grams.

c² is a pretty darn big number, and because of that, I don't think
that your frequency measurement proposal would work, even with the
latest generation atomic clocks monitoring the frequency of your LC
oscillator, since _your LC oscillator itself_ will have too low a Q
and will exhibit too much variability.
======================================================================
Of all the schemes I could think of whereby a DIY amateur scientist
can verify E=mc², the only feasible one that I can think of is to
measure the energy of electron-positron annihilation. I checked on
eBay for used equipment whereby a DIY experimenter could put together
a home arrangement. I myself could afford the materials, but I'd need
the help of an expert former EE to put things together (hint, hint).

Sealed sodium-22 positron sources are readily available for sale
online.

Calibrating the gamma-ray detectors will be the hard part. Once
calibrated, I'd place two gamma-ray detectors 180 degrees apart
equidistant from an appropriate target. Connected to the detectors
will be a whole slew of equipment for coincidence counting, energy
measurement, etc. that the expert former EE will be responsible for.

With luck, the DIY experimenter will be able to confirm the
simultaneous emission of two 511 keV photons from each annililation.
Paul B. Andersen
2024-11-23 18:29:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
<snip all the history of your life. You didn't read my disclaimer>
Sorry about that.

I see now that you posted the disclaimer 17.31 GMT+1,
which is long before I posted the response 21.30 GMT+1.
Your post I responded to was posted 00.22 GMT+1.
I began writing my response in the morning, but was
otherwise occupied during the day, and completed
the response in the evening without reading the posts
that were posted in the meantime.

If I had read your disclaimer before I wrote
my response, I would have known that you agree
that the experiment is impossible, and I wouldn't
have written it.
Post by rhertz
Post by Paul B. Andersen
It doesn't matter how you put energy into a closed cavity.
In the cavity there will be a black body radiation with
temperature equal to the temperature of the walls.
The reflectivity, albedo or colour of the inner surface
of the cavity are irrelevant. The radiation in the cavity
will always be black body radiation.
Make a hole in your cavity, and you have a perfect
black body radiation source.
Its temperature will not be very high, though-
It is not a BB radiation source!
I see that ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog has given the obvious
response to your statement.
"A closed cavity at equilibrium above absolute zero will contain
black body radiation, regardless of the composition of its walls."

Compare that to my statement quoted above.
Post by rhertz
You ignored the fact that the heat goes away from the cavity. It doesn't
remain neither inside nor outside. It's eliminated by cooling
mechanisms, as I wrote as an initial condition. Read all the posts.
I did not ignore that.

Den 21.11.2024 22:33, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
"So all the 5 J that enters the cavity every second will heat
the inner wall of the cavity. Since the walls are only 0.1 mm
thick, the outer surface of the cavity will be approximately
the same temperature as the inner surface, so after a short time
the outer wall will radiate 5 W and the system will be in steady
state."

Even with cooling, the temperature of the outer surface of
the cavity will be higher than the ambient temperature.
Post by rhertz
There is no light energy left within the cavity, nor heat energy outside
it. You better think again about it.
Even if the temperature of the inner surface is as low as 20⁰C
there will be black body radiation with temperature 293.15⁰K.
The spectrum of this BB radiation will peak at λ ≈ 10m
so most of the radiation will be in hf and vhf range.
Post by rhertz
You also ignored my post apologizing to all people that participated in
this thread. That makes you a bigger ASSHOLE than what I thought.
Willing to try to prove/disprove E=mc² at a macroscopic level, I'll
think of an experiment that incorporates electromagnetic oscillations
passing through the cavity, which will be converted in a CAPACITOR, by
cutting it in halves and isolating them with a thin ring.
What I propose to MEASURE is the changes in the frequency of the LC
oscillator, within a time window of about 3 msec, which repeats
permanently.
I'll use a relationship between mass and capacitance for the cavity,
with frequency around 1 Mhz or greater.
It was a failed idea for an experiment, but there are OTHER WAYS to
check E=mc² at a macroscopic level, without resorting to nuclear energy
crap (Kg evaporated vs. energy provided), or else.
any other non-relativistic means to prove E=mc^2?
or
Is there any way to prove E=mc^2 at higher level than quantum?
or
can I use electrostatic energy?
The last one gave interesting insights. Ask to it sequentially the above
lines.
Keep smiling, asshole.
:-D
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
rhertz
2024-11-19 18:35:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
At steady state, the absorbed power equals the input power. So the
cavity will emit IR in all directions, distorting your weight
measurements since the emitted IR carries momentum.
<snip>

The discussion was distorted when I used LIGO to cite examples of
current advancements in technology.

The proposed cavity IS NOT accumulating power, but continuously storing
energy. Quite a different story.

Grossly speaking, and with a perfect 100% reflectivity, the cavity
stores
18,000 J/Hr, or 1,296,000 Joules in 72 hours.

But, as Caltech doc. stated, 1 photon out of 5,000,000 is lost at every
reflection. So, I made calculations with photons instead. Maybe I'm
fatally wrong, but these are the numbers:



h = 6.62607E-34 J.sec
λ = 5.50E-07 m
c = 3.00E+08 m/s
E(1 photon) = 1.21E-48 Joules

5 W = 5 Joules x sec = 4.12E+48 photons x sec

Number of 3.14 mm² spots within the 5cm radius cavity = 2,500

bounces/sec in the cavity = 3.00E+09 bounces/sec

photon hits/sec in the cavity 1.37E+39

photons hit/sec x spot 5.4879643E+35

photons reflected/sec x spot 5.4879632E+35

photons lost/sec x spot 1.10E+29

energy lost/sec x spot 1.33E-19 J

energy lost/sec in the cavity 3.33E-16 J

energy lost/Hr in the cavity 1.20E-12 J

energy lost/Hr in the cavity 2.87E-13 cal/Hr

********************************************

This tiny result is quite different if I use 18,000 J/Hr stored in a
perfect cavity, and produce a loss of 2.0E-07 due to a reflectivity of
99.99998 %, which gives a loss of 0.0036 Joules/Hr = 0.00086 cal/Hr.

********************************************

Enjoy destroying the calculations with photons. The heat generated seems
to be extremely low for my taste.

I don't know if I made a huge mistake in the first part. The second part
(18,000 J/Hr) surely is wrong.

Finally, don't forget that the cavity should increase the number of
photons inside at a rate of 1,48E+52 photons/Hr.

Not all of them suffer 3.00E+09 bounces/sec. The new wave of photons/sec
should have a discount in the number of hits/sec (or hour), so not all
of them are affected by the same loss in 72 hours.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-11-18 23:15:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
1) You obviously don't know anything about almost perfect reflectivity
of advanced coating materials, like the ones used in the mirrors of the
LIGO instrument
The dielectric mirrors in LIGO are coated with multiple layers of high
and low refraction materials which allow constructively interference
of light of specific wavelength reflecting off their surfaces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_mirror

They are the "backwards" of anti-reflection coatings. The technology
employed in these mirrors cannot be applied to diffuse coatings such
as you envision for the interior of your chamber.
Ross Finlayson
2024-11-19 02:01:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
1) You obviously don't know anything about almost perfect reflectivity
of advanced coating materials, like the ones used in the mirrors of the
LIGO instrument
The dielectric mirrors in LIGO are coated with multiple layers of high
and low refraction materials which allow constructively interference
of light of specific wavelength reflecting off their surfaces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_mirror
They are the "backwards" of anti-reflection coatings. The technology
employed in these mirrors cannot be applied to diffuse coatings such
as you envision for the interior of your chamber.
Why aren't there, say, an array of radial
Weber bar setups concentric about the
great laser phonograph arm and its needle
since as you look for its skips they would
as well advise when signals correlate
and with respect to "t".

That they're also quite a bit less expensive
and furthermore of simpler principles, ....

With respect to "t", and "c_g: >= c".
Ross Finlayson
2024-11-19 02:09:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
Post by rhertz
1) You obviously don't know anything about almost perfect reflectivity
of advanced coating materials, like the ones used in the mirrors of the
LIGO instrument
The dielectric mirrors in LIGO are coated with multiple layers of high
and low refraction materials which allow constructively interference
of light of specific wavelength reflecting off their surfaces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_mirror
They are the "backwards" of anti-reflection coatings. The technology
employed in these mirrors cannot be applied to diffuse coatings such
as you envision for the interior of your chamber.
Why aren't there, say, an array of radial
Weber bar setups concentric about the
great laser phonograph arm and its needle
since as you look for its skips they would
as well advise when signals correlate
and with respect to "t".
That they're also quite a bit less expensive
and furthermore of simpler principles, ....
With respect to "t", and "c_g: >= c".
The MASER was invented before the LASER, ....
Ross Finlayson
2024-11-17 04:06:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
HEY!, THERE IS A CHANCE THAT YOU CAN CONFIRM OR DISPROVE E=mc².
Yet, mightn't it be "heft", instead of, "mass", the equivalent,
and only detectable as according to resisting acceleration?


Have you ever noticed that a football may maintain a linear
and not parabolically descending trajectory while it
radiates from its spiraling an imbued "heft" as inertial
and as with regards to, "classical mechanics"?

Then, though, it would be "not falsifying" e = mc^2, ....
This is science there's no "confirm" or "disprove",
only "falsify" or "not falsify".

When studying the Magnus effect, many experiments have
arrived at the empirical effects and related them to
the aerodynamic or hydrodynamic basically after Bernoulli
principle, yet, it's noted there's "unexplained" a
residual amount of, "heft", merely due a sort of
"gyroscopic action", "Magnus heft", as it were.

Then, this is in, "mechanics", proper, where "mechanical reduction"
was long ago abandoned itself, with the theory of the day not
having much to say either way about it, being only "in the limit",
that though it speaks to "classical mechanics" itself, in case
that it's something that university labs have already tried
many times and have an unexplained empirical bit.


Einstein's second most-famous mass-energy equivalency
derivation, arrives at that it's only in the rotational
setting the, relativistic mass, equivalency.

The first one is plain linear K.E. the first term of
the Taylor series, which is one of the most widely employed
analytical series in physics, though sometimes it's only
the first term, other times only the rest, for examples,
according to "what makes sense physically".

The SR's not GR's one there by itself is actually after
a definition and "derived", as it were. SR's sort
of detached from principles, in this sense.
Ross Finlayson
2024-11-18 20:41:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by rhertz
HEY!, THERE IS A CHANCE THAT YOU CAN CONFIRM OR DISPROVE E=mc².
Yet, mightn't it be "heft", instead of, "mass", the equivalent,
and only detectable as according to resisting acceleration?
Have you ever noticed that a football may maintain a linear
and not parabolically descending trajectory while it
radiates from its spiraling an imbued "heft" as inertial
and as with regards to, "classical mechanics"?
Then, though, it would be "not falsifying" e = mc^2, ....
This is science there's no "confirm" or "disprove",
only "falsify" or "not falsify".
When studying the Magnus effect, many experiments have
arrived at the empirical effects and related them to
the aerodynamic or hydrodynamic basically after Bernoulli
principle, yet, it's noted there's "unexplained" a
residual amount of, "heft", merely due a sort of
"gyroscopic action", "Magnus heft", as it were.
Then, this is in, "mechanics", proper, where "mechanical reduction"
was long ago abandoned itself, with the theory of the day not
having much to say either way about it, being only "in the limit",
that though it speaks to "classical mechanics" itself, in case
that it's something that university labs have already tried
many times and have an unexplained empirical bit.
Einstein's second most-famous mass-energy equivalency
derivation, arrives at that it's only in the rotational
setting the, relativistic mass, equivalency.
The first one is plain linear K.E. the first term of
the Taylor series, which is one of the most widely employed
analytical series in physics, though sometimes it's only
the first term, other times only the rest, for examples,
according to "what makes sense physically".
The SR's not GR's one there by itself is actually after
a definition and "derived", as it were. SR's sort
of detached from principles, in this sense.
The "Magnus heft" is also very evident in rifling,
where "Magnus effect" itself would only result drift,
that "Magnus heft" result that empirically it's
very much so that it's a feature of, "classical",
mechanics, that lives in the under-definition under-neath
the usual classical laws, since mathematics requires
an infinitary expression to make sense of it.

So, all this talk of relativity theory and particle
mechanics, founded as it is and "in the limit" as it is,
the classical mechanics, is already rather lop-sided
when the very definitions of classical mechanics,
are less-than-altogether defined, under-defined,
or over/under, defined.

You all should look to your classical mechanics
as to why there's all the classical mechanics
that goes into the classical mechanics
since one can notice the usual theory is
at least always trading "classical" and "fictitious",
and further what they must always add up.


So, this is something of course that many university
labs or the empirical setting already find very
much so, "heft", as inertial, what with regards to
the usual vis-viva and vis-motrix, why what happens
is that the theory needs to get into the "Zero-eth"
laws since it's rather already tangled itself, up above.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2024-11-17 04:07:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mr. Hertz: BTW, maybe this would interest you since you are interested
in the Pound-Snider. "That is because the equation for gravitational
redshift Zg=Vr/C also violates the rules of thermodynamics." @4:26
minutes - Sky Scholar "Gravitational Thermodynamics - Is it Science?"
Professor Robitaille’s
papers on Vixra

"In turn this Zg=Vr/C is said to be equal to GM/Rc^2" @4:41.

Robitaille is appreciated by Mr. Unzicker, who wrote a book on some of
his work.
Ross Finlayson
2024-11-17 04:22:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: BTW, maybe this would interest you since you are interested
in the Pound-Snider. "That is because the equation for gravitational
minutes - Sky Scholar "Gravitational Thermodynamics - Is it Science?"
http://youtu.be/mZ2F2Kw5-nQ Professor Robitaille’s
papers on Vixra
Robitaille is appreciated by Mr. Unzicker, who wrote a book on some of
his work.
These days there's plenty going on in "red-shift bias" that
a lot of it is because the rotating frame gives a constant
sort of red-shift bias while modern sky surveys thusly
have arrived at about zero on average instead.

It's because of violations of the equivalence principle, though.

As commented below, ....
rhertz
2024-11-17 04:16:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
5 Watts x 72 Hr = 1,296,000 Joules (Kg.m²/s²)
MASS increase in 72 Hr = 1.0368 μgrams of MASS
WEIGHT INCREASE = 1.007 μgrams of WEIGHT ≈ 1.007E-09 Newtons
*****************************************************

I made some mistakes. It should be:


MASS increase in 72 Hr = 0.0144 μgrams

WEIGHT INCREASE (72 Hr) = 0.13982 μN (what the balance will measure).



Also, ChatGPT calculated 14.4 picograms of mass increase in 72 hours,
which is 1,000 times lower than the actual theoretical value shown
above.

These values are measurable with cutting edge technology, with the
precautions that ChatGPT cites.

The choice of a 5W laser is because of a compromise between power and
impact of such sustained power accumulating energy in the best
reflection cavity that current technology can provide, with a very low
weight of gr.
J. J. Lodder
2024-11-17 21:15:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Current "state of the art" weighting technology (expensive) can measure
about 1 nanogram of MASS.
So your ignorance of physics extends to experimental technique as well.
FYI, comparing standard kilograms can be done at present to about 10^-9,
so to microgram accuracy.
Why, for heavens sake? To dumb to think for yourself?

But one can easily estimate orders of magnitude:
c^2 = 9x10^16 joule/kg, so at 10^-9 accuracy
you need to add 9x10^7 joules to a standard kg
for it's relativistic mass increase to be detectable.
This is about 20 kg of TNT equivalent.

So for the kiddies: don't try this at home,
(and draw your own conclusions)

Jan
Loading...