Fantastic work, now that all the groundwork for Stefan, Wien, Planck, and the laws of thermodynamics have been laid out, we're finally deconstructing Kirchoff's (Kirchhoff?) laws. From here on out we can look at "The sun, the stars and beyond" with fresh eyes. I'm looking forward to (hopefully) a deeper look into the liquid metal hydrogen sun discussed in the papers online at PTEP. However, there are now enough topics to revisit from demystifying Kirchhoff and Planck's laws to keep this channel busy for a very long time (which is a very exciting thought). Great job again to Sky Scholar's editor! One thing I noticed about watching in 4K resolution is that there is a grainy shimmering effect of the background if the video is not in full screen. I imagine this is an artifact of youtube scaling the video to the smaller size. It's actually kind of fitting, give's the background a dynamic character.
I love the way you teach and I appreciate finding you through Ben’s channel. I remember when they didn’t believe in plate tectonics, it was considered fringe science, how about now? LOL truly ahead of your time. That’s my Wisdom at 67 years, Never stop learning. Thank you
so...only took 150 years to note this error? It speaks volumes to Unzinger's complaints about the conformity of modern 'scientists'. There appears to be just a small group of interested observers but now, thanks to TH-cam, it stands here for all to see and debate. Any physics student can ask his teacher to spend 15 minutes...and then comment. This could get interesting.
@Donald Kasper many human activities run in fads. Science, broadly understood, is a human activity. There is no reason to think that science would not run in fads.
The problem of the video is that it does not take into account the domain of Kirchhoff‘s law. It is only valid for Optically thick materials and absorption coefficient constant throughout the material (optically thick: absorb most radiation of a particular frequency when it travels through). These have absorption coefficient unequal zero so the limit from the video does not make sense. Then the law is valid and states that in thermal equilibrium the emissivity coefficient of an object at a particular frequency and temperature is proportional to its absorption coefficient at this temperature and frequency (with proportionality given by Plack‘s law as in the video). This means an object that absorbs well at a particular frequency is also very emissive at this frequency and an object which is less absorptive (more reflective) at a particular frequency is also not very emissive at this frequency. Important to note is that the conditions never strictly hold in real life since the absorption coefficient might vary throught the material or it is not in perfect thermal equilbrium - at the edge of the material there is a temperature gradient which gives rise to absorption lines and deviations from the law. But for optically thick materials it is a valid qualitative relation
Has there ever been a perfect reflector or a perfect black body absorption material to ever get to true 0 or 1? If not, then the equation would always work... In electronics we cannot expect the math to give us the final outcome, but only closer to it. We don't have perfect objects around us. I did not understand Kirchoff at all in his explanation; perhaps it was the old world use of the term pencils and other jargon of that era. But as you explained it; it was a simple reiteration of what you spoke about in the What is Stewarts Law? video. In order for Plank to properly exercise at Kirchoff's equation in a real world experiment he would have had to have the cavity at the same equilibrium as the radiating source with it, meaning that he would have had to keep the cavity inside another that could keep it at such; having the ability to do so is outside my knowledge. The way I understood it, it says that the cavity does not interfere with the radiating source, so long as it is in equilibrium which would be a radiator of the same intensity surrounded by a radiator of the same intensity and they would reflect each other. Perhaps Plank took it out of context? I am also not saying Kirchoff's equation is good, just your argument in this video cannot have merit to destroy it based on only what was provided. You even say later in the video that there are no perfect reflectors or absorbers. So there is no potential for a 1 or 0, only infinitely close.
I think that the attempt to make Kirchhoff's laws break by proposing a body with total reflexivity and zero absorption is rather silly. I just went through the pain of reading the first chapter of Weinberg's lectures on QM, where he starts with black-body radiation, and it's initially based on Kirchhoff's postulate that there must be a detailed balance between absorbed energy rate and emitted energy rate - balanced meaning here that for constant temperature this balance must be true for each frequency band. He then also simply cites the idea that the function ρ(ν, T ) (v: frequency, T temperature) must be "universal" and shouldn't depend on the material. In particular: Weinberg writes: The function ρ(ν, T ) must be universal, for in order for it to be affected when some change is made in the enclosure, keeping it all at temperature T , energy at some frequencies would have to flow from the radiation to the walls or vice versa, which is impossible for materials at the same temperature. However, here he implies that this should be true for truly black bodies, where the absorption ratio, which he denotes f (v, T) is equal to 1. And that obviously depends on the material in use. So he basically says that the details of the radiation behavior are in the product of the two functions, which he derives very classically as being E(v,T) dv = (c/4) ρ(ν, T ) f(v,T) dv, (with c=speed of light). E(v,T) dv is the energy rate differential absorbed by the body per frequency and per area. The postulate then should be that this differential must be the same as for radiation from the body, if there is thermal equilibrium. Note: It's written for a specific frequency v, and a specific temperature T. In this way the "universality" is only in the ρ(ν, T ), while body's specific absorption is in f(v,T), which - obviously - must be a function that can depend not only on frequency and temperature, but on all sort of things: such as local reflectivity (i.e., albedo) and things like heat conductivity, and for example, whether we're talking about forest or desert or cities, when we want to consider the radiation balance of the planet. In practice all this is never taken too absolute: If we want to know for example the radiation balance of Earth we better know that all important distribution of f(v,T) over the whole planet (e.g, by using satellite observations). Now one stop further: Planck figured out, first by curve fitting and later by thinking in terms of discrete energy levels how that "universal" ρ(ν, T ) could be obtained, namely as function of the form v^3/(exp(-hv/kT)-1). And if you integrate that over v from 0 to infinity you get the dependence of σ T^4 with σ the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Note that there is no function f(v,T) here: It's an idealization, where this is equal to 1. With some work one can of course create structures where this is rather precisely the case: All those contraption of boxes with plenty of graphite or sod. All I'm saying is: I don't really see what the problem with Kirchhoff is supposed to be, other than some people making perhaps crazy generalizations and take the idealization of black body radiation, and Stephan-Boltzmann law in it's simplest form for granted. But note: The radiation balance of the planet, like any other body, is usually only understood by integration over the entire radiation spectrum, that is, from far infra-red all the way to far ultraviolet. And I don't think there is much head scratching spent on philosophizing about whether Kirchhoff got it exact: He made 200 years ago some very reasonable postulates but it's clear they were idealizations. The general form of the resulting physical laws hasn't really changed. I'm fairly confident that most physicists who specialize in this stuff are critical enough and should have long figured out the flaws, should Kirchhoff be completely wrong.
I''m confused; Your basic argument is that Kirchhoff had no experimental evidence to back up this theories on black body radiation, yet in an attempt to negate the validity of his work you argue your theory with no experimental evidence.
Protophanes I rewatched the video. There is no experimental evidence here. I also looked at this video th-cam.com/video/YQnTPRDT03U/w-d-xo.html he posted. This was suppose to be his "experimental evidence" and I critiqued it three weeks ago, look them up. Am I guilty of taunting the author, or am I offering an honest criticism of what I consider un unjustified, inadequately defended, poorly reasoned, and intentionally misleading argument against one of the most cited physical laws in all of history? I love the thinking out of the box, YES challenge everything- GREAT! Just don't B.S.
Respected Sir, In the Stewart law you stated that emissive power = absorptive power. But, here you are using the terms emissive power and absorptive power. Is there any difference between absorptive power and absorptive?
Prof. Robitaille makes compelling arguments, but I have a question. If the cavity walls are only partial absorbers, will it not be the case that under equilibrium conditions there will be a fractional black body spectrum combined with an internal reflection spectrum? So the interior will not radiate out of the pin-hole as a pure black body, but it will have some fraction which is related to the fractional absorbtivity of the cavity material. The spectrum will thus not have a Planck distribution, but a composite.
I am surprised you can get away with discussing EU. It is not acceptable in electrical engineering, if you are looking for a scholarship for a masters in electrical engineering it is strictly taboo.
QUESTIONS: Okay, 'zero', '0': in actual reality, something must exist for 'zero' to exist, besides just as a concept. When dealing with 'zero' in actual reality, 'zero' is not nothing, but something. Hence, dividing by 'zero' in actual reality, (assuming something actually exists as 'zero'), would be okay to do in actual reality since 'zero' would be something and not nothing. The other perspective would be that 'zero' does not actually exist and is just a mathematical concept and does not actually exist in actual reality other than just as a mathematical concept, of which then, 'zero' does not actually exist in actual reality except for as a mathematical concept. The question are: Okay, so which way is it? Is 'zero' actually something in actual reality and not nothing, in other words something actually exists in the 'zero' position in actual reality (and hence dividing by zero would be okay to do in actual reality), OR does 'zero' ONLY exist in this existence ONLY as a mathematical concept alone and does not reflect actual reality other than just as a mathematical concept alone?
Oh and also then: "IF" 'zero' is just a mathematical concept alone in actual reality, then mathematics cannot be a true reflection or even make up actual reality, because 'nothing' is just that, 'nothing' and not 'something'.
If a block with a cavity is heated up and allowed to cool, the surfaces cool down and the cavity radiates. The object cools down from the centre and the walls are the last region to achieve thermal equilibrium. If the object had no cavity the walls would continue to radiate at the same temperature for some time and there would be no heat left in the block (obviously?). If there is a cavity, the walls achieve thermal equilibrium and the cavity radiates the internal heat because it is closer to the centre. This is in contrast to a burning coal which continues to combust to its core. Consequently, when holes are observed in the sun, it indicates that the picture is back to front and what we are observing is not light but current, so the defiance of expectation makes us see dark holes when we are looking at points of light. Even a machine gets it wrong. Explain that one, without peremptorily discarding the theory ((not) recommended) How did i arrive at such a ludicrous conclusion? By considering that the orbital ellipse and its difference is the fullness of the star's output, that such incremental and small changes as cause the seasons have a simply ginormous amplitude (the orbital radii). :)
thanks Dr. Sorry to say its hard to think Kirchhoff was wrong for the simple reason of TD equilibrium. i imagine it in the following way: If we assume radiation to be only means of energy exchange between two separate systems (one 100% BB and the other one not BB with reflectivity r not 0 ) and if farther assume that Thermal Energy is the only form of energy these systems possess its hard to think that the reflectivity has any effect on the amount of the thermal energy every system possesses. given enough time both systems tend to reach TD equilibrium by approaching same temerature. the only effect reflectivity could have is to slow down the rate of energy exchange. but at the end both systems trend toward same temperature. since radiation is the only means of energy exchange the KHF statement sounds fine. Unless we assume different reflectivity introduces a new way of states to possess energy. in this case we are dealing with different exchange and not in realm of TD.
"And the law... explodes" :D You've exploded quite some laws in the last few years :) It seems you already have lined them up against the wall of shame, just gunning them down, like some sort of intellectual executioner :D Thank you, P.M. Robitaille!
If you throw out the perfect absorber /1 and the perfect reflector /0, how well does the Kirchoff's law work.? In nature and in the laboratory it seems those perfect quantities don't exist. And theoretical physics and pure mathematics , you have the luxury of using imaginary quantities per se. In engineering, often they use things that worked pretty good or well enough to be used in the job. How good of a tool is Kirchoffs law been in the past? Has it worked pretty good? Like Newtonian physics? And mathematics? Or is it a total flop?
If I got this right, Kirchoff's Law works only for absorbtion = 1. For 1 > absorbtion > 0, the function must include parameters for the material like structure and lattice. Prolly gets really complicated. That's why Kirchoff wanted it simple and when he did everyone else went along.
Total layperson trying to follow this, I have been googling terms like crazy, but, on each viewing, the original statement of Kirchoff's law seems totally obtuse, and the re-statement doesn't sound anything like it to me. I'm sure it's just me because I've been learning thermodynamics in about an hour... In the original version, what is a "pencil", "space", and "body"? How is a "cavity" with an opening at one end the same thing?
Don't give up!! I took college physics but I have had to view these videos on Blackbody radiation many (5 to 10 times) before having an ah ha moment. When it finally gels it seems well worth the effort.
fascinating, Einstein and Spock would have said "FASCINATING" if they could have watched this detailed video! from my Lab experience of measuring the correct brightness, "lightness" Y and xyz_coefficients, or L, a, b values of paper in diffuse illumination, with a photometer sphere (Zeiss Elrephomat, with an "Ulbricht_sche Potometerkugel", without gloss_effects, so the results get almost independent of the roughness/smoothness of the paper), I know of the practical difficulties and errors in the precision of results. in the middle of the range it is easy, but when it gets close to 99% or 1% (= black) it is getting very hard. Also the calibrated photometer_instrument could measure and calculate the Kubelka-Munk coefficients S and K for obtaining the Opacity of a sheet, or a staple of sheets of paper. For calibration, a hollow black Standard was used, and a white standard, made of compressed BaSO4 powder, with a Reflectivity of 98.0% _Beta_d/0°_atLambda 420nm. (Pierre-Marie uses Rho_of_Lambda) Pierre-Marie's lessons 1 - 7 are good, clear and something new! in lesson 8 it starts to get difficult (for me), 9 is somewhat intuitively easier, 10 again is very intuitively clear, 11 is clear and logical and consequent, until it gets weird. Why? Of course, when he discusses the sun and stars, and omits Gravity, he falls off a cliff! But lets concentrate on radiation, because that is what he really teaches. Why does it get weird? where are cavities inside the stars? why do these "cavities" need (hypothetical walls) made of condensed matter? could the Opacity of plasmas and gases act as a kind of (absorbing, diffuse reflecting, re_emitting) "wall"? Could Kubelka-Munk's S and K (dispersion- and absorption-coefficient) act as the "graphite-wall", which does the work of transforming spectral line emissions into Plank's distribution curve. What graphite or other hexagonal latice structures can achieve in mm_thin walls, an opacity could achieve in 100 or 10000 miles, depending on temperature, density, turbulence, magnetic fluxes, in the sun or a star. No problem to achieve absorption, scattering, or re_emission, stars are bigger than a laboratory! Finish students tried to calculate the opacity of a star's photosphere and below, by determining Kubelka-Munk's coefficients in 3 dimensions, which turned out to be very hard; except for stars of stellar class III, maybe. Finally I want to endorse Pierre-Marie's video on CMB antennas: th-cam.com/video/p8lKQMEYYLw/w-d-xo.html is it real, is it true? that nobody repeated Penzia's & Wilson's measurement far away from water, oceans, groundwater, and humidity, wich can seriously interfere, see: th-cam.com/video/WOoxNeL6lFw/w-d-xo.html . . . all standard model of the universe, done by copy-cat university!
I was going to say listen to this man, he knows what hes talking about. But let me pay him a higher complement. Listen to this man, he UNDERSTANDS what hes talking about! Many people can know, only some understand. Thank you Dr.R for helping me to understand.
Do you think the fudge factor of -1 in the denominator of the Planck radiation law is related to the denominator of 0 in Kirchoff's law? Let us not overlook the law of contraries by Aristotle via Paul Dirac's mathematical prediction of antimatter. What if a fundamental assumption is erroneous as in the case of parity for the weak force in the work of Lee and Yang? Enjoyed your lecture, and I am looking forward to reading your papers. Thank you.
I do it backwards, but the proofs are there already. Here is my answer to this physics debate. The Tesla House. If you make a clear shell that houses solar panels that follow the sun and gates that open and close to direct wind currents that power nano turbines, you have split the Ether. The solar pooling power of radiation is NOT effected by the cooling effect of the wind powering the turbines even though they are both housed in the same "cavity," or in this case membrane. Cellular automata make it work WITH Nature. Optimized and "clean" domestic energy. Put contacts on the inner shell of the house, add rain barrels, and put the hot and cold water storage in the walls and ceiling, switching in the summer and winter. Reserve strategic parts for "normal" windows. I just design first and find that it is the most efficient way after I look at the science.
your argument of E/0 = f(nu,T) is not valid Dr. I think its better presented as E = alpha.f(nu,T) if alpha = 0 E is 0, second, the simple law of math is you can ONLY take a number to denominator if you KNOW is it UNEQUAL to zero.
Actually, Planck himself recognized that the function becomes undefined when dividing by zero. See "The Theory of Heat Radiation", Sections 48, 51, and 52. From section 51: "Hence in a vacuum bounded by totally reflecting walls any stable radiation may persist". This is in keeping with the realization that, under those conditions, the function is undefined.
Thank you Dr.Robitaille, really enjoyed your videos. I see reason, commonsense, and logic in your thoughts which sadly the modern astrophysical society lacks. They are akin to the flat earthers in medieval Europe, where everyone believed in the geocentric model. Keep up the good work!
No... The thing is... Unlike this guy in his TH-cam video, modern physics actually has to adher to reality... He can come up with any bullshot he wants save in the knowledge that his viewers understand when less of the subject than him...
@@Dundoril : Your insulting of Dr. Robitaille is unscientific and childish. You don't understand this important lecture, related to the validity of Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission. If you read Planck's textbook you will learn that the validity of Kirchhoff's law is absolutely critical in order to have Planck length, time and temperature. Planck goes to great length to try to provide a theoretical proof of Kirchhoff's law. Dr. Robitaille has spent years considering the validity of Kirchhoff's law. In this regard, he and I have proven that Planck's derivation of Kirchhoff's law is completely invalid. Go and read our paper and explain to us all where you think we made a mistake. Robitaille P.-M., Crothers S. J. "The Theory of Heat Radiation" Revisited: A Commentary on the Validity of Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission and Max Planck's Claim of Universality,Progress in Physics, v. 11, p.120-132, (2015), www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-41-04.PDF vixra.org/pdf/1502.0007v1.pdf Go and watch Dr. Robitaille's lectures on the solar surface and explain to the audience why those who deny the existence of the solar surface are not talking 'bullshot'.
@@stevecrothers6585 "Your insulting of Dr. Robitaille is unscientific and childish" No its neither. Its just the truth. " You don't understand this important lecture, related to the validity of Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission." Yes you are right... If only I had a Phd in nuclear Astrophysics....Oh wait no I have.... "Go and read our paper a" Where did you publish this peer reviewed paper? And how is it actually relevant for this electric universe nonsense?
@@Dundoril You are being deceitful. Dr. Robitaille is not a proponent of the electric universe. And you are so mistaken, it is not even funny. Here is a list of other physicists, chemists, and engineers, who have taken the time to read and cited Robitaille's papers on Kirchhoff's Law. Why don't you stop the insult, read, and learn something. As for citations, here is a recent quotation from a paper citing our analysis of Planck’s proof of Kirchhoff’s Law: 1. J.J. Mares, P. Hubik, and V. Spicka, On relativistic transformation of temperature, Fortschr. Phys., 2017, v. 65, no. 6-8, 1700018. Here is a quote from the paper (ref. 21 is that referred to above) “The radiation contained within the cavity was then considered as an ideal thermometric device, applicable in almost any experimental situation. The newly opened problem closely related to this illusion, which survived for more than one hundred years [21], was thus to manage physics of black-body radiation in moving cavities.” Here is a list of articles which cite Dr. Robitaille's work on Kirchhoff's Law (includes Physical Review A and B): 1. Z.P. Yang, et al., Experimental observation of an extremely dark material made by a low-density nanotube array. Nano Lett 2008, 8(20), 446-451. (This paper received a great deal of international press for achieving a Guiness book of world record for the blackess black. It has been cited over 500 times. Dr. Robitaille's paper is cited next to Planck’s as the only ones relative to Kirchhoff’s law.) 2. V.G. Kravets et al., Plasmonic blackbody: Almost complete absorption of light in nanostructured metallic coatings. Phys. Rev. B 2008, 78, 205405. 3. J. Sajeev and R. Wang, Metallic photonic-band-gap filament architectures for optimized incandescent lighting. Phys. Rev. 2008, A78, 043809. 4. C.G. Jesudason, Overview of some results in my thermodynamic, quantum mechanics, and molecular dynamics simulations research. Nonlinear analysis: Theor. Meth. Appl. 2009, 71(12), e576-e595. 5. N. Motelki and Y. Kondo, Dependence of laser-induced incandescence on physical properties of black carbon aerosols: Measurements and theoretical interpretation. Aerosol Sci. Techn., 2010, 44, 663-675. 20. S. Spanulescu, Analysis of the radiative thermal transfer in planar multi-layer systems with various emissivity and transmissivity properties, 2010, arXiv:1012.0923 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 6. Q. Zhao, et al., Super black and ultrathin amorphous carbon film inspired by anti-reflection architecture in butterfly wing. Carbon 2011, 49(3), 877-883. 7. G. S. Nusinovich, et al., Effect of metallic dust on operation of repetitionrate high power microwave devices. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 2011, 9(8), 1680-1683. 8. M. Schossig, Optical absorption layers for infrared radiation. Bio Nano Packaging Techniques for Electron Devices, 2012, 355-381. 9. R. Wang, et al., Optimal matched rectifying surface for space solar power satellite applications. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn. 2014, 62(4), 1080-1089. 10. R. Wayne, Symmetry and the order of events in time: the thermodynamics of blackbodies composed of positive or negative mass, Turkish J. Physics, 2015, 39, 209-226. 11. G. Scarel and B. Utler, Infrared Power Generation: Study in an Insulated Compartment. Defense Technical Information Center. Aug. 2015. www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA622082 This work is specifically concerned with better understanding the impact of their findings on Kirchhoff’s law. Robitaille is cited as the only reference related to this law. The work is important because it demonstrates interest in the problem by the Department of Defense). 12. C. Chafin, Thermalization of Gases: A First Principles Approach, 2015, arxiv.org/pdf/1506.08059.pdf 13. M. Putz, Nanouniverse Expanding Microuniverse: From Elementary Particles to Dark Matter and Dark Energy, in "Quantum Nanosystems: Structure, Properties, and Interactions", Apple Academic Press, 2015, 1-53. 14. L. Zhou, et al., Self-assembly of highly efficient, broadband plasmonic absorbers for solar steam generation. AAAS Science Advances, 2016, v. 2, no. 4, e150122 (This is one of 6 journals, along with Science, of the AAAS. The paper when referencing absorption of materials cites only 2 papers, Max Planck’s classic work and Robitaille's 2003 IEEE paper on Kirchhoff’s Law.) 15. W. Sun, et al., Super Black Material from LowDensity Carbon Aerogels with Subwavelength Structures. ACS Nano, 2016, 10 (10), 9123-9128. (Robitaille's 2003 IEEE paper is cited first in this work, and is one of only two citations relative to blackbody radiation.) 16. J. Kokkoniemi, Lehtomaki and M. Junti M. A discussion on molecular absorption noise in the terahertz band. Nano Communication Networks, 2016, v. 8, p. 35-45. (this work is citing Dr. Robitaille's Kirchhoff-150 paper as the only reference to Kirchhoff’s Law. Note that Professor Junti has had a brilliant career including 350 papers, he also is the Editor-in- Chief of IEEE Transactions on Communications the premier journal in the field). 17. J. Guo J, et al., A Zn-Ni coating with both high electrical conductivity and infrared emissivity prepared by hydrogen evolution method. Applied Surface Science, 2017, v. 402, 92-98. ( This works cites 4 of Robitaille's papers relative to Kirchhoff’s law as the only references to the subject). 18. J.J. Mares, et al., On relativistic transformation of temperature. Fortschritte der Physik, 2017, v. 65(6-8), DOI: 10.1002/prop.201700018 19. D.A. Houtz, et al., Electromagnetic Design and Performance of a Conical Microwave Blackbody Target for Radiometer Calibration, IEEE Trans. Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2017, v. 55(8), 4586-4596. 34. V. Raizor, Advances in Passive Microwave Remote Sensing of Oceans, CRC Press, 2017. (This is a key reference work). 20. C.S. Park and H.S. Kim, Color Enhancement Algorithm using the Integrated K-means Clustering and Inverted Otsu Method for Thermal Object Characterization, Int. J. Intel. Eng. Sys., 2018, 11(4), 301-308. 21. A. Naqavi, et al., Extremely broadband ultralight thermally-emissive optical coatings, Optics Express, 2018, 26(14), 18545-18562. 22. Zhao, The effects of Ca2+ and Y3+ ions co-doping on reducing infrared emissivity of ceria at high temperature, Infrared Physics & Technology, 2018, 92, 454-458. 23. Z. Xu, et al., Sodium bicarbonate/azodiisobutyronitrile synergistic effect on low-density unsaturated polyester resin fabrication, Iranian Polymer J., 2018, 27, 207-216. 24. J. Guo, et al., Influence of sodium dodecyl sulphate on the surface morphology and infrared emissivity of porous Ni film, Infrared Physics & Technology, 2018, 93, 162-170. 25. J. Liang, et al., Plasmon-enhanced solar vapor generation, Nanophotonics, 2019, 8(5),771-786. 26. Y. Tian, et al., Perfect grating-Mie-metamaterial based spectrally selective solar absorbers, OSA Continuum, 2019, 2, 3223-3239. 27. Z. Zhang, et al., Kirchhoff's Law for Anisotropic Media including thin films, Proc. 9th Int. Symp. Rad. Transfer, Int. Center Heat Mass Transfer, 2019, 133-142. 38. J. Guo, et al., Effective strategy for improving infrared emissivity of Zn-Ni porous coating, Applied Surface Science, 2019, 485, 92-100. 29. J. Tan, et al., Electrical-analogy network model of a modified two-phase thermofluidic oscillator with regenerator for low-grade heat recovery, Applied Energy, 2020, 262, 114539. 30. J. Yan, Mechanically Robust and Broadband Blackbody Composite Films Based on Self‐Assembled Layered Structures, Chemistry, 2020, 15(9), 1436-1439. 31. Y. Tian, Spectrally Selective Solar Absorbers with High-temperature Insensitivity, 2020, arxiv.org/pdf/2008.08678.pdf 32. Z.M. Zhang, et al. Validity of Kirchhoff's law for semitransparent films made of anisotropic materials, J. Quant. Spect. Radiative Transfer, 2020, 245, 106904. 33. W. Guo, Non-uniform distribution of low-frequency blackbody radiation inside a spherical cavity, J. Optical Soc. Am. A, 2020, 37(9), 1428-1434. 34. D. Chae, et al. High‐Performance Daytime Radiative Cooler and Near‐Ideal Selective Emitter Enabled by Transparent Sapphire Substrate, Advanced Science, 2020, 202001577.
@@Dundoril It's clear that you have not studied Dr. Robitaille's papers or the paper by he and I, so you don't know the subject matter. Dr. Robitaille's work has been cited in the following dissertations and papers. 1. G.E. Bricker, Cosmogenic nuclides in early solar system materials Bricker, Glynn Edward. Purdue University, 2009, Dissertation. 2. W. Ziran, Electromagnetic crystal based terahertz thermal radiators and components. University of Arizona, 2010, Dissertation. 3. E. Adam, Électroluminescence et radiation thermique dans les nanotubes de carbone, École Polytechnique de Montréal, 2011, Dissertation. 4. K. Nguyen, Direct frequency comb spectroscopy of hyperfine structure of rubidium, San Jose State, 2012, Dissertation. 5. E. Sakat, Metal dielectric guided mode resonance structure and applications to filtering and infrared imaging. Ecole Polytechnique X, 2013, Dissertation/ 6. S. Paul, Subpixel temperature estimation from single-band thermal infrared imagery. Dissertation, Rochester Institute of Technology, 2012. 7. D. Kashyn, Contributions to resolving issues impeding the operation of high power microwave and submillimeter devices. Dissertation, University of Maryland, 2014. 8. R.S. Ottens, A study of evanescent-wave heat transfer in parallel plane geometry. University of Florida, Proquest Dissertations Publishing, 2014, 3716928. 9. B. Oliva, Desarrollo y aplicaciones de radares de alta resolución en bandas milimétricas, Universidad Politechica de Madrid, 2014, Dissertation. 10. G.S. Cano, Discrimination of Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays with the Extreme Universe Space Observatory (EUSO), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2015, Dissertation. 11. P.E. Petuenju, Élaboration et caractérisation de couches minces de CuInS2 déposées par la pyrolyse par pulvérisation ultrasonique à base de transducteur, 2015, Polytechnique de Montreal. Dissertation. 12. T. Souto, Tintas termocrómicas para conforto térmico e decoração, Universidade de Porto, 2015, Dissertation. 13. R. Giampaoli, Temperature measurements at megabar pressures: direct comparison between reflective and refractive optics for the laser heated diamond anvil cell. Politecnico di Milano, 2017, Dissertation. 14. S. Gu, Mars EntryAfterbody Radiative Heating: AnExperimentalStudy of Nonequilibrium CO2 Expanding Flow, The University of Queensland, 2017, Dissertation. 15. Y. Zong, Surface Voltages of Polymer Films Electrified through Corona Charging and Contact Electrification, University of Sand Diego, 2017, Dissertation. 16. J. Kokkoniemi, Nanoscale Sensor Networks: The THz Band as a Communication Channel, University of Oulu, 2017, Dissertation. 17. C. Shi, Metasurface Based Mid-infrared Devices, University of Exeter, 2019, Dissertation. 18. Foreign language dml.cz/bitsream/handle/10338.dmlcz/142008/PokrokyMFA_56-2011-3_4.pdf. 19. F.A. Kruse, Spectral-feature-based analysis of reflectance and emission spectral libraries and imaging spectrometer data. Proc. SPIE 8390, 2012 (abstract). 20. G. Fortin G., et al., LWIR polarization sensing: investigation of liquids and solids with MoDDDIFS. Proc. SPIE 8873, 2013 (abstract).
I here even though I'm not a physic student. But hey, the more you learn, the better it is
Fantastic work, now that all the groundwork for Stefan, Wien, Planck, and the laws of thermodynamics have been laid out, we're finally deconstructing Kirchoff's (Kirchhoff?) laws. From here on out we can look at "The sun, the stars and beyond" with fresh eyes. I'm looking forward to (hopefully) a deeper look into the liquid metal hydrogen sun discussed in the papers online at PTEP. However, there are now enough topics to revisit from demystifying Kirchhoff and Planck's laws to keep this channel busy for a very long time (which is a very exciting thought).
Great job again to Sky Scholar's editor! One thing I noticed about watching in 4K resolution is that there is a grainy shimmering effect of the background if the video is not in full screen. I imagine this is an artifact of youtube scaling the video to the smaller size. It's actually kind of fitting, give's the background a dynamic character.
I love the way you teach and I appreciate finding you through Ben’s channel. I remember when they didn’t believe in plate tectonics, it was considered fringe science, how about now? LOL truly ahead of your time. That’s my Wisdom at 67 years, Never stop learning. Thank you
so...only took 150 years to note this error?
It speaks volumes to Unzinger's complaints about the conformity of modern 'scientists'.
There appears to be just a small group of interested observers but now, thanks to TH-cam, it stands here for all to see and debate. Any physics student can ask his teacher to spend 15 minutes...and then comment.
This could get interesting.
@Donald Kasper many human activities run in fads. Science, broadly understood, is a human activity. There is no reason to think that science would not run in fads.
Planck later tried to write a proof of Kirchoff's Law, and that proof was even more obtuse than either of the proofs advanced by Kirchoff.
The problem of the video is that it does not take into account the domain of Kirchhoff‘s law. It is only valid for Optically thick materials and absorption coefficient constant throughout the material (optically thick: absorb most radiation of a particular frequency when it travels through). These have absorption coefficient unequal zero so the limit from the video does not make sense. Then the law is valid and states that in thermal equilibrium the emissivity coefficient of an object at a particular frequency and temperature is proportional to its absorption coefficient at this temperature and frequency (with proportionality given by Plack‘s law as in the video). This means an object that absorbs well at a particular frequency is also very emissive at this frequency and an object which is less absorptive (more reflective) at a particular frequency is also not very emissive at this frequency. Important to note is that the conditions never strictly hold in real life since the absorption coefficient might vary throught the material or it is not in perfect thermal equilbrium - at the edge of the material there is a temperature gradient which gives rise to absorption lines and deviations from the law. But for optically thick materials it is a valid qualitative relation
Absorptivity simply can't be zero.
Has there ever been a perfect reflector or a perfect black body absorption material to ever get to true 0 or 1? If not, then the equation would always work... In electronics we cannot expect the math to give us the final outcome, but only closer to it. We don't have perfect objects around us.
I did not understand Kirchoff at all in his explanation; perhaps it was the old world use of the term pencils and other jargon of that era. But as you explained it; it was a simple reiteration of what you spoke about in the What is Stewarts Law? video. In order for Plank to properly exercise at Kirchoff's equation in a real world experiment he would have had to have the cavity at the same equilibrium as the radiating source with it, meaning that he would have had to keep the cavity inside another that could keep it at such; having the ability to do so is outside my knowledge. The way I understood it, it says that the cavity does not interfere with the radiating source, so long as it is in equilibrium which would be a radiator of the same intensity surrounded by a radiator of the same intensity and they would reflect each other. Perhaps Plank took it out of context?
I am also not saying Kirchoff's equation is good, just your argument in this video cannot have merit to destroy it based on only what was provided. You even say later in the video that there are no perfect reflectors or absorbers. So there is no potential for a 1 or 0, only infinitely close.
I think that the attempt to make Kirchhoff's laws break by proposing a body with total reflexivity and zero absorption is rather silly. I just went through the pain of reading the first chapter of Weinberg's lectures on QM, where he starts with black-body radiation, and it's initially based on Kirchhoff's postulate that there must be a detailed balance between absorbed energy rate and emitted energy rate - balanced meaning here that for constant temperature this balance must be true for each frequency band. He then also simply cites the idea that the function ρ(ν, T ) (v: frequency, T temperature) must be "universal" and shouldn't depend on the material.
In particular: Weinberg writes:
The function ρ(ν, T ) must be universal, for in order for it to be affected when some
change is made in the enclosure, keeping it all at temperature T , energy at some
frequencies would have to flow from the radiation to the walls or vice versa,
which is impossible for materials at the same temperature.
However, here he implies that this should be true for truly black bodies, where the absorption ratio, which he denotes f (v, T) is equal to 1. And that obviously depends on the material in use. So he basically says that the details of the radiation behavior are in the product of the two functions, which he derives very classically
as being E(v,T) dv = (c/4) ρ(ν, T ) f(v,T) dv, (with c=speed of light). E(v,T) dv is the energy rate differential absorbed by the body per frequency and per area. The postulate then should be that this differential must be the same as for radiation from the body, if there is thermal equilibrium. Note: It's written for a specific frequency v, and a specific temperature T. In this way the "universality" is only in the ρ(ν, T ), while body's specific absorption is in f(v,T), which - obviously - must be a function that can depend not only on frequency and temperature, but on all sort of things: such as local reflectivity (i.e., albedo) and things like heat conductivity, and for example, whether we're talking about forest or desert or cities, when we want to consider the radiation balance of the planet.
In practice all this is never taken too absolute: If we want to know for example the radiation balance of Earth we better know that all important distribution of f(v,T) over the whole planet (e.g, by using satellite observations).
Now one stop further: Planck figured out, first by curve fitting and later by thinking in terms of discrete energy levels how that "universal" ρ(ν, T ) could be obtained, namely as function of the form v^3/(exp(-hv/kT)-1). And if you integrate that over v from 0 to infinity you get the dependence of σ T^4 with σ the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Note that there is no function f(v,T) here: It's an idealization, where this is equal to 1. With some work one can of course create structures where this is rather precisely the case: All those contraption of boxes with plenty of graphite or sod.
All I'm saying is: I don't really see what the problem with Kirchhoff is supposed to be, other than some people making perhaps crazy generalizations and take the idealization of black body radiation, and Stephan-Boltzmann law in it's simplest form for granted. But note: The radiation balance of the planet, like any other body, is usually only understood by integration over the entire radiation spectrum, that is, from far infra-red all the way to far ultraviolet. And I don't think there is much head scratching spent on philosophizing about whether Kirchhoff got it exact: He made 200 years ago some very reasonable postulates but it's clear they were idealizations. The general form of the resulting physical laws hasn't really changed. I'm fairly confident that most physicists who specialize in this stuff are critical enough and should have long figured out the flaws, should Kirchhoff be completely wrong.
I''m confused; Your basic argument is that Kirchhoff had no experimental evidence to back up this theories on black body radiation, yet in an attempt to negate the validity of his work you argue your theory with no experimental evidence.
4pharaoh Kirchhoff has the burden of proof and Robitaille doesn't. (Sarcasm)
Protophanes I rewatched the video. There is no experimental evidence here. I also looked at this video th-cam.com/video/YQnTPRDT03U/w-d-xo.html he posted. This was suppose to be his "experimental evidence" and I critiqued it three weeks ago, look them up.
Am I guilty of taunting the author, or am I offering an honest criticism of what I consider un unjustified, inadequately defended, poorly reasoned, and intentionally misleading argument against one of the most cited physical laws in all of history?
I love the thinking out of the box, YES challenge everything- GREAT! Just don't B.S.
QUESTION: Okay a blackbody cavity:
What about things like neutrinos that go into and even pass through that cavity?
Respected Sir, In the Stewart law you stated that emissive power = absorptive power. But, here you are using the terms emissive power and absorptive power. Is there any difference between absorptive power and absorptive?
Prof. Robitaille makes compelling arguments, but I have a question. If the cavity walls are only partial absorbers, will it not be the case that under equilibrium conditions there will be a fractional black body spectrum combined with an internal reflection spectrum? So the interior will not radiate out of the pin-hole as a pure black body, but it will have some fraction which is related to the fractional absorbtivity of the cavity material. The spectrum will thus not have a Planck distribution, but a composite.
Fantastic opening comments! That's exactly what I tell my high school students when I discuss EU vs the Standard model
I am surprised you can get away with discussing EU. It is not acceptable in electrical engineering, if you are looking for a scholarship for a masters in electrical engineering it is strictly taboo.
What is eu ?
He didn't blink his eyes😂
QUESTIONS: Okay, 'zero', '0': in actual reality, something must exist for 'zero' to exist, besides just as a concept. When dealing with 'zero' in actual reality, 'zero' is not nothing, but something. Hence, dividing by 'zero' in actual reality, (assuming something actually exists as 'zero'), would be okay to do in actual reality since 'zero' would be something and not nothing. The other perspective would be that 'zero' does not actually exist and is just a mathematical concept and does not actually exist in actual reality other than just as a mathematical concept, of which then, 'zero' does not actually exist in actual reality except for as a mathematical concept. The question are:
Okay, so which way is it? Is 'zero' actually something in actual reality and not nothing, in other words something actually exists in the 'zero' position in actual reality (and hence dividing by zero would be okay to do in actual reality), OR does 'zero' ONLY exist in this existence ONLY as a mathematical concept alone and does not reflect actual reality other than just as a mathematical concept alone?
Oh and also then: "IF" 'zero' is just a mathematical concept alone in actual reality, then mathematics cannot be a true reflection or even make up actual reality, because 'nothing' is just that, 'nothing' and not 'something'.
What is the difference between Absorptivity and Absorptive Power? What is the unit for Absorptive Power vs Absorptivity ?
If a block with a cavity is heated up and allowed to cool, the surfaces cool down and the cavity radiates. The object cools down from the centre and the walls are the last region to achieve thermal equilibrium. If the object had no cavity the walls would continue to radiate at the same temperature for some time and there would be no heat left in the block (obviously?). If there is a cavity, the walls achieve thermal equilibrium and the cavity radiates the internal heat because it is closer to the centre. This is in contrast to a burning coal which continues to combust to its core.
Consequently, when holes are observed in the sun, it indicates that the picture is back to front and what we are observing is not light but current, so the defiance of expectation makes us see dark holes when we are looking at points of light. Even a machine gets it wrong. Explain that one, without peremptorily discarding the theory ((not) recommended)
How did i arrive at such a ludicrous conclusion? By considering that the orbital ellipse and its difference is the fullness of the star's output, that such incremental and small changes as cause the seasons have a simply ginormous amplitude (the orbital radii). :)
You are so lost that there is no point in engaging you in scientific discourse.
thanks Dr. Sorry to say its hard to think Kirchhoff was wrong for the simple reason of TD equilibrium. i imagine it in the following way: If we assume radiation to be only means of energy exchange between two separate systems (one 100% BB and the other one not BB with reflectivity r not 0 ) and if farther assume that Thermal Energy is the only form of energy these systems possess its hard to think that the reflectivity has any effect on the amount of the thermal energy every system possesses. given enough time both systems tend to reach TD equilibrium by approaching same temerature. the only effect reflectivity could have is to slow down the rate of energy exchange. but at the end both systems trend toward same temperature. since radiation is the only means of energy exchange the KHF statement sounds fine. Unless we assume different reflectivity introduces a new way of states to possess energy. in this case we are dealing with different exchange and not in realm of TD.
"And the law... explodes" :D
You've exploded quite some laws in the last few years :)
It seems you already have lined them up against the wall of shame, just gunning them down, like some sort of intellectual executioner :D
Thank you, P.M. Robitaille!
Every time you squish the standard model I have a little giggle.
excellent presentation doc.
Will you be speaking at OTF 2018?
Thank you!
If you throw out the perfect absorber /1 and the perfect reflector /0, how well does the Kirchoff's law work.? In nature and in the laboratory it seems those perfect quantities don't exist. And theoretical physics and pure mathematics , you have the luxury of using imaginary quantities per se. In engineering, often they use things that worked pretty good or well enough to be used in the job. How good of a tool is Kirchoffs law been in the past? Has it worked pretty good? Like Newtonian physics? And mathematics? Or is it a total flop?
If I got this right, Kirchoff's Law works only for absorbtion = 1. For 1 > absorbtion > 0, the function must include parameters for the material like structure and lattice. Prolly gets really complicated. That's why Kirchoff wanted it simple and when he did everyone else went along.
Total layperson trying to follow this, I have been googling terms like crazy, but, on each viewing, the original statement of Kirchoff's law seems totally obtuse, and the re-statement doesn't sound anything like it to me. I'm sure it's just me because I've been learning thermodynamics in about an hour... In the original version, what is a "pencil", "space", and "body"? How is a "cavity" with an opening at one end the same thing?
Don't give up!!
I took college physics but I have had to view these videos on Blackbody radiation many (5 to 10 times) before having an ah ha moment. When it finally gels it seems well worth the effort.
OK, no problem do abandon Kirchhoff... But what are the implications of that ? And what we should use to replace it ?
replace it with something valid. Commit real science, not fantasy.
Stewarts Law
fascinating, Einstein and Spock would have said "FASCINATING" if they could have watched this detailed video!
from my Lab experience of measuring the correct brightness, "lightness" Y and xyz_coefficients, or L, a, b values of paper in diffuse illumination, with a photometer sphere (Zeiss Elrephomat, with an "Ulbricht_sche Potometerkugel", without gloss_effects, so the results get almost independent of the roughness/smoothness of the paper), I know of the practical difficulties and errors in the precision of results. in the middle of the range it is easy, but when it gets close to 99% or 1% (= black) it is getting very hard. Also the calibrated photometer_instrument could measure and calculate the Kubelka-Munk coefficients S and K for obtaining the Opacity of a sheet, or a staple of sheets of paper. For calibration, a hollow black Standard was used, and a white standard, made of compressed BaSO4 powder, with a Reflectivity of 98.0% _Beta_d/0°_atLambda 420nm. (Pierre-Marie uses Rho_of_Lambda)
Pierre-Marie's lessons 1 - 7 are good, clear and something new! in lesson 8 it starts to get difficult (for me), 9 is somewhat intuitively easier, 10 again is very intuitively clear, 11 is clear and logical and consequent, until it gets weird. Why? Of course, when he discusses the sun and stars, and omits Gravity, he falls off a cliff! But lets concentrate on radiation, because that is what he really teaches. Why does it get weird? where are cavities inside the stars? why do these "cavities" need (hypothetical walls) made of condensed matter?
could the Opacity of plasmas and gases act as a kind of (absorbing, diffuse reflecting, re_emitting) "wall"? Could Kubelka-Munk's S and K (dispersion- and absorption-coefficient) act as the "graphite-wall", which does the work of transforming spectral line emissions into Plank's distribution curve. What graphite or other hexagonal latice structures can achieve in mm_thin walls, an opacity could achieve in 100 or 10000 miles, depending on temperature, density, turbulence, magnetic fluxes, in the sun or a star. No problem to achieve absorption, scattering, or re_emission, stars are bigger than a laboratory!
Finish students tried to calculate the opacity of a star's photosphere and below, by determining Kubelka-Munk's coefficients in 3 dimensions, which turned out to be very hard; except for stars of stellar class III, maybe.
Finally I want to endorse Pierre-Marie's video on CMB antennas: th-cam.com/video/p8lKQMEYYLw/w-d-xo.html is it real, is it true? that nobody repeated Penzia's & Wilson's measurement far away from water, oceans, groundwater, and humidity, wich can seriously interfere, see: th-cam.com/video/WOoxNeL6lFw/w-d-xo.html . . . all standard model of the universe, done by copy-cat university!
I was going to say listen to this man, he knows what hes talking about. But let me pay him a higher complement. Listen to this man, he UNDERSTANDS what hes talking about! Many people can know, only some understand. Thank you Dr.R for helping me to understand.
Really useful explanation!
4:51 so it was discovered by some other guy ONE WHOLE YEAR earlier? Wow! It must not be right?
Thank you Doc!
7:49 Silver
Thank you
Do you think the fudge factor of -1 in the denominator of the Planck radiation law is related to the denominator of 0 in Kirchoff's law? Let us not overlook the law of contraries by Aristotle via Paul Dirac's mathematical prediction of antimatter. What if a fundamental assumption is erroneous as in the case of parity for the weak force in the work of Lee and Yang? Enjoyed your lecture, and I am looking forward to reading your papers. Thank you.
Update: Kirchhoff's Law and Order: Prosecuting Black Body Radiation in the Hood. New this fall on NBC.
I do it backwards, but the proofs are there already. Here is my answer to this physics debate. The Tesla House. If you make a clear shell that houses solar panels that follow the sun and gates that open and close to direct wind currents that power nano turbines, you have split the Ether. The solar pooling power of radiation is NOT effected by the cooling effect of the wind powering the turbines even though they are both housed in the same "cavity," or in this case membrane. Cellular automata make it work WITH Nature. Optimized and "clean" domestic energy. Put contacts on the inner shell of the house, add rain barrels, and put the hot and cold water storage in the walls and ceiling, switching in the summer and winter. Reserve strategic parts for "normal" windows. I just design first and find that it is the most efficient way after I look at the science.
Heat is an electrical effect and therefore is not the cause of things.
Cool video
very helpful video
Thank you very very much sir😊😊😊🎼🎼🎼🎼🎼🎼
thanks sir please make more video
OMG，this is so amazing!
your argument of E/0 = f(nu,T) is not valid Dr. I think its better presented as E = alpha.f(nu,T) if alpha = 0 E is 0, second, the simple law of math is you can ONLY take a number to denominator if you KNOW is it UNEQUAL to zero.
Brilliant sir ji
Why not multiply absorptivity on both sides and set E = f(v,T)?
In this case, if alpha = 0, E will be zero too and no math is broken
When absortivity is equal to zero, the equation is E equals zero; one can multiply absortivity by both sides, so it is not a problem.
Actually, Planck himself recognized that the function becomes undefined
when dividing by zero. See "The Theory of Heat Radiation", Sections 48,
51, and 52. From section 51: "Hence in a vacuum bounded by totally
reflecting walls any stable radiation may persist". This is in keeping
with the realization that, under those conditions, the function is
undefined.
Revolucionando la relatividad Parte 2: Cuantificación de velocidades de la luz distintas de c
th-cam.com/video/_zb9giqXN7k/w-d-xo.html
Great video!
Thank you Dr.Robitaille, really enjoyed your videos. I see reason, commonsense, and logic in your thoughts which sadly the modern astrophysical society lacks. They are akin to the flat earthers in medieval Europe, where everyone believed in the geocentric model. Keep up the good work!
No... The thing is... Unlike this guy in his TH-cam video, modern physics actually has to adher to reality... He can come up with any bullshot he wants save in the knowledge that his viewers understand when less of the subject than him...
@@Dundoril : Your insulting of Dr. Robitaille is unscientific and childish. You don't understand this important lecture, related to the validity of Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission. If you read Planck's textbook you will learn that the validity of Kirchhoff's law is absolutely critical in order to have Planck length, time and temperature. Planck goes to great length to try to provide a theoretical proof of Kirchhoff's law. Dr. Robitaille has spent years considering the validity of Kirchhoff's law. In this regard, he and I have proven that Planck's derivation of Kirchhoff's law is completely invalid. Go and read our paper and explain to us all where you think we made a mistake.
Robitaille P.-M., Crothers S. J. "The Theory of Heat Radiation" Revisited: A Commentary on the Validity of Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission and Max Planck's Claim of Universality,Progress in Physics, v. 11, p.120-132, (2015),
www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-41-04.PDF
vixra.org/pdf/1502.0007v1.pdf
Go and watch Dr. Robitaille's lectures on the solar surface and explain to the audience why those who deny the existence of the solar surface are not talking 'bullshot'.
@@stevecrothers6585 "Your insulting of Dr. Robitaille is unscientific and childish"
No its neither. Its just the truth.
" You don't understand this important lecture, related to the validity of Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission."
Yes you are right... If only I had a Phd in nuclear Astrophysics....Oh wait no I have....
"Go and read our paper a"
Where did you publish this peer reviewed paper? And how is it actually relevant for this electric universe nonsense?
@@Dundoril You are being deceitful. Dr. Robitaille is not a proponent of the electric universe.
And you are so mistaken, it is not even funny. Here is a list of other physicists, chemists, and engineers, who have taken the time to read and cited Robitaille's papers on Kirchhoff's Law. Why don't you stop the insult, read, and learn something. As for citations, here is a recent quotation from a paper citing our analysis of Planck’s proof of Kirchhoff’s Law:
1. J.J. Mares, P. Hubik, and V. Spicka, On relativistic transformation of temperature, Fortschr. Phys., 2017, v. 65, no. 6-8, 1700018.
Here is a quote from the paper (ref. 21 is that referred to above)
“The radiation contained within the cavity was then considered as an ideal thermometric device, applicable in almost any experimental situation. The newly opened problem closely related to this illusion, which survived for more than one hundred years [21], was thus to manage physics of black-body radiation in moving cavities.”
Here is a list of articles which cite Dr. Robitaille's work on Kirchhoff's Law (includes Physical Review A and B):
1. Z.P. Yang, et al., Experimental observation of an extremely dark material made by a low-density nanotube array. Nano Lett 2008, 8(20), 446-451. (This paper received a great deal of international press for achieving a Guiness book of world record for the blackess black. It has been cited over 500 times. Dr. Robitaille's paper is cited next to Planck’s as the only ones relative to Kirchhoff’s law.)
2. V.G. Kravets et al., Plasmonic blackbody: Almost complete absorption of light in nanostructured metallic coatings. Phys. Rev. B 2008, 78, 205405.
3. J. Sajeev and R. Wang, Metallic photonic-band-gap filament architectures for optimized incandescent lighting. Phys. Rev. 2008, A78, 043809.
4. C.G. Jesudason, Overview of some results in my thermodynamic, quantum mechanics, and molecular dynamics simulations research. Nonlinear analysis: Theor. Meth. Appl. 2009, 71(12), e576-e595.
5. N. Motelki and Y. Kondo, Dependence of laser-induced incandescence on physical properties of black carbon aerosols: Measurements and theoretical interpretation. Aerosol Sci. Techn., 2010, 44, 663-675.
20. S. Spanulescu, Analysis of the radiative thermal transfer in planar multi-layer systems with various emissivity and transmissivity properties, 2010, arXiv:1012.0923 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]
6. Q. Zhao, et al., Super black and ultrathin amorphous carbon film inspired by anti-reflection architecture in butterfly wing. Carbon 2011, 49(3), 877-883.
7. G. S. Nusinovich, et al., Effect of metallic dust on operation of repetitionrate high power microwave devices. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 2011, 9(8), 1680-1683.
8. M. Schossig, Optical absorption layers for infrared radiation. Bio Nano Packaging Techniques for Electron Devices, 2012, 355-381.
9. R. Wang, et al., Optimal matched rectifying surface for space solar power satellite applications. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn. 2014, 62(4), 1080-1089.
10. R. Wayne, Symmetry and the order of events in time: the thermodynamics of blackbodies composed of positive or negative mass, Turkish J. Physics, 2015, 39, 209-226.
11. G. Scarel and B. Utler, Infrared Power Generation: Study in an Insulated Compartment. Defense Technical Information Center. Aug. 2015. www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA622082
This work is specifically concerned with better understanding the impact of their findings on Kirchhoff’s law. Robitaille is cited as the only reference related to this law. The work is important because it demonstrates interest in the problem by the Department of Defense).
12. C. Chafin, Thermalization of Gases: A First Principles Approach, 2015, arxiv.org/pdf/1506.08059.pdf
13. M. Putz, Nanouniverse Expanding Microuniverse: From Elementary Particles to Dark Matter and Dark Energy, in "Quantum Nanosystems: Structure, Properties, and Interactions", Apple Academic Press, 2015, 1-53.
14. L. Zhou, et al., Self-assembly of highly efficient, broadband plasmonic absorbers for solar steam generation. AAAS Science Advances, 2016, v. 2, no. 4, e150122
(This is one of 6 journals, along with Science, of the AAAS. The paper when referencing absorption of materials cites only 2 papers, Max Planck’s classic work and Robitaille's 2003 IEEE paper on Kirchhoff’s Law.)
15. W. Sun, et al., Super Black Material from LowDensity Carbon Aerogels with Subwavelength Structures. ACS Nano, 2016, 10 (10), 9123-9128.
(Robitaille's 2003 IEEE paper is cited first in this work, and is one of only two citations relative to blackbody radiation.)
16. J. Kokkoniemi, Lehtomaki and M. Junti M. A discussion on molecular absorption noise in the terahertz band. Nano Communication Networks, 2016, v. 8, p. 35-45. (this work is citing Dr. Robitaille's Kirchhoff-150 paper as the only reference to Kirchhoff’s Law. Note that Professor Junti has had a brilliant career including 350 papers, he also is the Editor-in- Chief of IEEE Transactions on Communications the premier journal in the field).
17. J. Guo J, et al., A Zn-Ni coating with both high electrical conductivity and infrared emissivity prepared by hydrogen evolution method. Applied Surface Science, 2017, v. 402, 92-98. (
This works cites 4 of Robitaille's papers relative to Kirchhoff’s law as the only references to the subject).
18. J.J. Mares, et al., On relativistic transformation of temperature. Fortschritte der Physik, 2017, v. 65(6-8), DOI: 10.1002/prop.201700018
19. D.A. Houtz, et al., Electromagnetic Design and Performance of a Conical Microwave Blackbody Target for Radiometer Calibration, IEEE Trans. Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2017, v. 55(8), 4586-4596.
34. V. Raizor, Advances in Passive Microwave Remote Sensing of Oceans, CRC Press, 2017. (This is a key reference work).
20. C.S. Park and H.S. Kim, Color Enhancement Algorithm using the Integrated K-means Clustering and Inverted Otsu Method for Thermal Object Characterization, Int. J. Intel. Eng. Sys., 2018, 11(4), 301-308.
21. A. Naqavi, et al., Extremely broadband ultralight thermally-emissive optical coatings, Optics Express, 2018, 26(14), 18545-18562.
22. Zhao, The effects of Ca2+ and Y3+ ions co-doping on reducing infrared emissivity of ceria at high temperature, Infrared Physics & Technology, 2018, 92, 454-458.
23. Z. Xu, et al., Sodium bicarbonate/azodiisobutyronitrile synergistic effect on low-density unsaturated polyester resin fabrication, Iranian Polymer J., 2018, 27, 207-216.
24. J. Guo, et al., Influence of sodium dodecyl sulphate on the surface morphology and infrared emissivity of porous Ni film, Infrared Physics & Technology, 2018, 93, 162-170.
25. J. Liang, et al., Plasmon-enhanced solar vapor generation, Nanophotonics, 2019, 8(5),771-786.
26. Y. Tian, et al., Perfect grating-Mie-metamaterial based spectrally selective solar absorbers, OSA Continuum, 2019, 2, 3223-3239.
27. Z. Zhang, et al., Kirchhoff's Law for Anisotropic Media including thin films, Proc. 9th Int. Symp. Rad. Transfer, Int. Center Heat Mass Transfer, 2019, 133-142.
38. J. Guo, et al., Effective strategy for improving infrared emissivity of Zn-Ni porous coating, Applied Surface Science, 2019, 485, 92-100.
29. J. Tan, et al., Electrical-analogy network model of a modified two-phase thermofluidic oscillator with regenerator for low-grade heat recovery, Applied Energy, 2020, 262, 114539.
30. J. Yan, Mechanically Robust and Broadband Blackbody Composite Films Based on Self‐Assembled Layered Structures, Chemistry, 2020, 15(9), 1436-1439.
31. Y. Tian, Spectrally Selective Solar Absorbers with High-temperature Insensitivity, 2020, arxiv.org/pdf/2008.08678.pdf
32. Z.M. Zhang, et al. Validity of Kirchhoff's law for semitransparent films made of anisotropic materials, J. Quant. Spect. Radiative Transfer, 2020, 245, 106904.
33. W. Guo, Non-uniform distribution of low-frequency blackbody radiation inside a spherical cavity, J. Optical Soc. Am. A, 2020, 37(9), 1428-1434.
34. D. Chae, et al. High‐Performance Daytime Radiative Cooler and Near‐Ideal Selective Emitter Enabled by Transparent Sapphire Substrate, Advanced Science, 2020, 202001577.
@@Dundoril It's clear that you have not studied Dr. Robitaille's papers or the paper by he and I, so you don't know the subject matter.
Dr. Robitaille's work has been cited in the following dissertations and papers.
1. G.E. Bricker, Cosmogenic nuclides in early solar system materials Bricker, Glynn Edward. Purdue University, 2009, Dissertation.
2. W. Ziran, Electromagnetic crystal based terahertz thermal radiators and components. University of Arizona, 2010, Dissertation.
3. E. Adam, Électroluminescence et radiation thermique dans les nanotubes de carbone, École Polytechnique de Montréal, 2011, Dissertation.
4. K. Nguyen, Direct frequency comb spectroscopy of hyperfine structure of rubidium, San Jose State, 2012, Dissertation.
5. E. Sakat, Metal dielectric guided mode resonance structure and applications to filtering and infrared imaging. Ecole Polytechnique X, 2013, Dissertation/
6. S. Paul, Subpixel temperature estimation from single-band thermal infrared imagery. Dissertation, Rochester Institute of Technology, 2012.
7. D. Kashyn, Contributions to resolving issues impeding the operation of high power microwave and submillimeter devices. Dissertation, University of Maryland, 2014.
8. R.S. Ottens, A study of evanescent-wave heat transfer in parallel plane geometry. University of Florida, Proquest Dissertations Publishing, 2014, 3716928.
9. B. Oliva, Desarrollo y aplicaciones de radares de alta resolución en bandas milimétricas, Universidad Politechica de Madrid, 2014, Dissertation.
10. G.S. Cano, Discrimination of Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays with the Extreme Universe Space Observatory (EUSO), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2015, Dissertation.
11. P.E. Petuenju, Élaboration et caractérisation de couches minces de CuInS2 déposées par la pyrolyse par pulvérisation ultrasonique à base de transducteur, 2015, Polytechnique de Montreal. Dissertation.
12. T. Souto, Tintas termocrómicas para conforto térmico e decoração, Universidade de Porto, 2015, Dissertation.
13. R. Giampaoli, Temperature measurements at megabar pressures: direct comparison between reflective and refractive optics for the laser heated diamond anvil cell. Politecnico di Milano, 2017, Dissertation.
14. S. Gu, Mars EntryAfterbody Radiative Heating: AnExperimentalStudy of Nonequilibrium CO2 Expanding Flow, The University of Queensland, 2017, Dissertation.
15. Y. Zong, Surface Voltages of Polymer Films Electrified through Corona Charging and Contact Electrification, University of Sand Diego, 2017, Dissertation.
16. J. Kokkoniemi, Nanoscale Sensor Networks: The THz Band as a Communication Channel, University of Oulu, 2017, Dissertation.
17. C. Shi, Metasurface Based Mid-infrared Devices, University of Exeter, 2019, Dissertation.
18. Foreign language dml.cz/bitsream/handle/10338.dmlcz/142008/PokrokyMFA_56-2011-3_4.pdf.
19. F.A. Kruse, Spectral-feature-based analysis of reflectance and emission spectral libraries and imaging spectrometer data. Proc. SPIE 8390, 2012 (abstract).
20. G. Fortin G., et al., LWIR polarization sensing: investigation of liquids and solids with MoDDDIFS. Proc. SPIE 8873, 2013 (abstract).
Please do not make from a German: Kirk+hoff a Russian Kypchov...., it doesn't t matter how much you hate the Germans.. . or Kirchoff alone.
Yeah doctor Robitali throwing them gang signs. Black bodies matter
Heathen..!!! I like you. :)
This guy is a crank. His proof is his own personal law 🤣
I'm not affiliated with Gustav, btw. I was just hoping for more understanding, which i didn't get here
Excellent rebuttal rob.
Great video!