A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 26th 16, 10:19 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics

These are the second law of thermodynamics and Einstein's 1905 second (constant-speed-of-light) postulate.

The first falsehood: Misled by the would-be version of the second law of thermodynamics "Entropy always increases" (which has nothing to do with the Kelvin-Planck version if logic is obeyed), scientists believe that violations can only occur at the microscopic level:

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-quantum...odynamics.html
"Dr Lluis Masanes (UCL Physics & Astronomy), said: "The probability of the law being violated is virtually zero for large objects like cups of tea, but for small quantum objects, it can play a significant role."

Actually violations of the second law of thermodynamics at the macroscopic level are easy to demonstrate. In the following two videos one switches the capacitor on and off and the system can repeatedly lift floating weights:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHNwvfXUYb4
Rise in Liquid Level Between Plates of a Capacitor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6KAH1JpdPg
Liquid Dielectric Capacitor

Switching the capacitor on and off involves no work done on the system so the energy for the work done BY the system (if it repeatedly lifts floating weights) can only come from the environmental heat, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

The second falsehood: When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ. This means that either the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, or the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength of the incoming light - from λ to λ'=λc/(c+v). The latter scenario is absurd - the motion of the observer is obviously unable to change the wavelength of the incoming light. Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false - the speed of light is different for differently moving observers.

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old October 26th 16, 04:08 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics

Experiments have unequivocally shown that the speed of light is not a constant:

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html
"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. [...] In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. [...] If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6224/857
"Spatially structured photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light" Science 20 Feb 2015: Vol. 347, Issue 6224, pp. 857-860

http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/
"Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum [...] ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. [...] "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release."

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015.../1191422035480
"The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently."

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...ut-touching-it
"Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJ7_tbbIsg
"Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faster-t...peed-of-light/
"For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. [...] The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../406277a0.html
Nature 406, 277-279 (20 July 2000): "...a light pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old October 27th 16, 03:08 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics

Catalysts ("apposing vane surfaces" in this case) can violate the second law of thermodynamics:

http://link.springer.com/article/10....701-014-9781-5
"In 2000, a simple, foundational thermodynamic paradox was proposed: a sealed blackbody cavity contains a diatomic gas and a radiometer whose apposing vane surfaces dissociate and recombine the gas to different degrees (A_2 - 2A). As a result of differing desorption rates for A and A_2 , there arise between the vane faces permanent pressure and temperature differences, either of which can be harnessed to perform work, in apparent conflict with the second law of thermodynamics."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan%27s_Paradox
"Consider a dimeric gas (A2) that is susceptible to endothermic dissociation or exothermic recombination (A2 - 2A). The gas is housed between two surfaces (S1 and S2), whose chemical reactivities are distinct with respect to the gas. Specifically, let S1 preferentially dissociate dimer A2 and desorb monomer A, while S2 preferentially recombines monomers A and desorbs dimer A2. [...]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...SLTD-Fig1c.jpg

In 2014 Duncan's temperature paradox was experimentally realized, utilizing hydrogen dissociation on high-temperature transition metals (tungsten and rhenium). Ironically, these experiments support the predictions of the paradox and provide laboratory evidence for second law breakdown. These results are corroborated by other experiments that demonstrate anomalous (and differential) levels of hydrogen dissociation on heated transition metals; additional theoretical support can be found in the theory of epicatalysis. In 2015 Laboratory experiments verified examples of room temperature epicatalysis involving hydrogen-bonded diamonds on polymers. This could open the door to room temperature tests of Duncan's Paradox." [end of quotation]

Here is the (valid) argument that, if catalysts can shift chemical equilibrium, the second law would be violated:

https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/...lyst-447-3459/
"In the presence of a catalyst, both the forward and reverse reaction rates will speed up equally, thereby allowing the system to reach equilibrium faster. However, it is very important to keep in mind that the addition of a catalyst has no effect whatsoever on the final equilibrium position of the reaction. It simply gets it there faster. [...] To reiterate, catalysts do not affect the equilibrium state of a reaction. In the presence of a catalyst, the same amounts of reactants and products will be present at equilibrium as there would be in the uncatalyzed reaction. To state this in chemical terms, catalysts affect the kinetics, but not the thermodynamics, of a reaction. If the addition of catalysts could possibly alter the equilibrium state of the reaction, this would violate the second rule of thermodynamics...."

Yet, for for the dissociation-association reaction

A - B + C,

a catalyst cannot speed up both the forward and reverse reaction rates equally, due to the entirely different forward and reverse catalytic mechanisms.. In the forward (dissociation) reaction, the catalyst should just meet and split A. So the rate of the forward reaction can be substantially increased by the catalyst. In the reverse (association) reaction, the catalyst should first get together B and C. However, if the reverse reaction is diffusion-controlled (virtually any encounter between B and C produces A), the catalyst cannot accelerate it - the rate is already at its maximum.

Conclusion: Catalysts can OBVIOUSLY violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who Killed Theoretical Physics? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 January 28th 16 07:01 PM
EINSTEIN'S LIE THAT KILLED PHYSICS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 June 15th 15 09:25 AM
THE CONSPIRACY THAT KILLED PHYSICS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 June 7th 15 02:20 PM
TWO FALSEHOODS THAT KILLED SCIENCE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 23 December 1st 07 08:51 AM
THREE FRAUDS THAT KILLED PHYSICS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 41 August 31st 07 03:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.