This temperature of 2.73 degrees peaks in the microwave range of the EM spectrum, making the frequency around 160 GHz, which corresponds to a 1.9mm wavelength. If matter emits EMR as the aether washes through, then it's interesting that we have a 1.9mm wavelength in space, where it's cold and dark, and there is hardly any matter, but then here on Earth we have an atmosphere with blue skies, and red sunsets, and a visible spectrum in the range of 380 to 750 nanometers. Is it the density of a given area - based on how saturated it is by matter - which is regulating the size of EMR wavelengths?
In outerspace there might be a metre between every small molecule, or more. In our atmosphere (gas) the molecules are much closer, however only about one thousandth of the space is occupied by matter - the rest is void. The air around us is mainly empty space. Apparently, I'm in a room full of air but I can't see it - the air is invisible. If the gases which make-up the air emit EMR, the wavelengths do not appear to be in the visible spectrum. If I look at the table where my computer sits, then I'm very much aware that it's there. I can see the table. The molecules which make-up the table are emitting EMR in the wavelengths of the visible spectrum.
Today we think that the pressure of a gas is due to the molecules colliding with each other, and the walls of the container. Pressure is an average due to huge numbers of molecules colliding over a period of time. If the container gets bigger, then the molecules have more space in which to move, and they collide with the walls less often and the pressure drops. If you could follow the path of a single molecule of oxygen in the air, it is supposed that you would see it collide with other molecules about 6000 million times in one second. If it's true then that would make empty space a pretty choatic place. I personally have doubts about molecules colliding. The whole thing just sounds so ... irregular.
Some of the early scientists thought of the particles of air as having little springs on them, and so developed the expression "the spring of the air". When measuring the pressure of gases, they thought they were measuring the springs that held the particles apart. In the mid 1600's, Robert Boyle studied the relationship between the pressure (p) and the volume (V) of a confined gas held at a constant temperature. Boyle observed that the product of the pressure and volume are observed to be nearly constant. Pressure and volume are inversely proportional (while one increases, the other decreases). This relationship between pressure and volume is called Boyle's Law in his honor.
Boyle considered the air as a fluid of particles at rest, with in-between small invisible springs. If you imagine the sheer numbers of springs involved, it's probably easier to think of a springy elastic fluid surrounding the molecules instead - which is exactly what Newton did! Newton referred to this imaginary fluid as the 'rare medium' (medium rarum). In the General Scholium to section VI of Book II of Principia, he sought to test experimentally "the opinion of some that there is a certain ethereal medium extremely rare and subtile, which freely pervades the pores of all bodies."
Newton proposed that the particles of the air (molecules) were motionless in space and were held apart by repulsive forces between them, so that any attempt to reduce the volume of a sample of gas was analogous to the compression of springs. This agrees with an observation made by Boyle that compressed air "brought to a degree of density about twice as great as that it had before, obtains a spring twice as strong as formerly." Newton found that the repulsive force was inversely proportional to the distance between the particles; basically, double the distance and the force is halved - and it's this model which leads straight to Boyle's Law.
When molecules of air are compressed closer and closer together, we are reducing the size of the distance between molecules. This area between molecules is taken-up by the fluid of the aether. An important distinction perhaps is that it is the size of the area in-which the aether flows which is being compressed - and not the fluid of the aether itself. This is because the fluid of the aether really is incompressible. You'll not get so much as a squeak if you tried to squeeze it!
For some type of comparison, I'm thinking about what happens as water flows along a wide river. If we imagine the river being forced to narrow as it enters a canyon we find whitewater and rapids. The water pressure increases because the same amount of water now has to squeeze through a narrower place. The whitewater gains its name from the white foam which forms due to the water moving so fast. The water speeds up. Downriver, the banks widen and the water slows down. The pressure is lower. There's more room for the water, and the river appears calmer.
In this brief example, even though we are seeing the river narrow and widen, and the velocity of flow increase and slow down, and the pressures get higher and then lower - there remains a valuable constant: the volume of water at any point remains the same. It's the same thing for when you try holding a finger over the tap - it sprays out faster but you're not getting more water than before - the volume remains the same. Which brings me around to the most famous constant in the entire Universe: the speed of light.
Scientists are convinced there is only one constant in the Universe: the speed of light in a vacuum (about 300,000 km/s). Maxwell's calculations for electromagnetic radiation are based on the speed of light being a constant. We have very high frequencies of EMR which describe X-rays, and at the other end of the spectrum we have radiowaves which belong to the low frequencies -but the speed of light remains constant. Is it possible that the speed of light in a vacuum is actually describing a volume, and not a speed? The volume of what exactly? I think the answer to that is the fluid of the aether (I know, I know - it's my answer to everything!).
Does our entire EMR spectrum describe the fluid of the aether under a range of various velocities and pressures due to the distance between molecules? An increase in EMR pressure could be due to molecules moving closer and closer together - just like our canyon walls moving closer together to create rapids. In outerspace (I mean in-between the stars and other planets where you really find space), molecules can be upto two metres apart. The temperature is just above absolute zero. Do we have this very low temperature because of the lack of friction between the aether and the scant molecules of space?
If we imagine the aether field as being held under a constant pressure, and this pressure is made variable by the distance between molecules, and that these molecules are responsible for inducing the aether and emitting EMR (or perhaps, rather than emitting EMR, it's more a case of generating tensions in the aether which we "see" as EMR) - then why are the wavelengths of EMR the exact size that they are?
Many thanks:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun/spectrum/multispectral_sun_overview.html http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtext/gas/gas_2.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227024.400-rainforests-may-pump-winds-worldwide.html?full=true
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/aboyle.html
http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1120
http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2005-11/du-et112105.html
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/silver-science.html
http://www.victorianweb.org/science/maxwell/molecules.html
The life of Sir Isaac Newton By David Brewster
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/152.mf1i.spring02/RiverViscosity.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment