Classical Harmonic overtones observed in Zinc emission line spectra

 Classical Harmonic overtones observed in Zinc emission line spectra

Following on from the theoretical proposals outlined in the following paper: ‘Hydrogen spectral series as Harmonic overtones of a single fundamental wavelength’, it can be shown that the observed data from NIST also matches closely to spectral lines for zinc predicted using the same proposed harmonic relationship seen between the various observed Hydrogen emission lines in the Balmer and Paschen Hydrogen spectral series as outlined in the above paper.

(The following are some of the stronger observed zinc emission lines from NIST 2086,2138,2350,2542,2550,2561,2608,2770,2800,3075,3282,3302,3345,3515,3779,3965,4292,4680,4722,4810,6362 Angstroms.)

Introduction

In the above cited paper it is shown that all observed hydrogen spectral lines in the optical spectrum and their respective sets of Lyman, Balmer ,Paschen etc  are based on one single fundamental wavelength f. That wavelength for Hydrogen being the Lyman Alpha line. And further that each alpha line from each spectral set within the Hydrogen series has a specific mathematical harmonic relationship with not only the B,C,D,E lines within each set, but also with all other lines from all the other sets observed within the Hydrogen spectral series. 

At the end of the above paper it also suggests that as one progresses up through the elements in the periodic table each successively heavier element should therefore have successively more fundamental wavelengths to account for not just its increase atomic number but also the increased complexity of emission spectra lines seen for successively heavier elements. Ie. If Hydrogen has only one fundamental wavelength in optical , Helium will have 2, Lithium 3, etc.

From this theoretical assumption it follows that Zinc must also have multiple fundamental wavelengths. And that two of the strongest observed spectral zinc lines at 4680 and 6362  angstroms can be shown to be alpha spectral lines generated by one or more of Zincs proposed fundamental wavelengths. And that each will also have a matching set of B,C,D,E and limit lines in the Zinc emission spectra. And indeed it can be shown here that the many of the stronger observed optical lines in Zinc do match the mathematical relationship seen also in Hydrogen and specifically in the analysis here with the Hydrogen Paschen and Balmer series. The  following calculations show that using this theoretical assumption one can get a reasonably close match between these two Zinc “alpha” lines mentioned above and other stronger observed emission lines seen in the Zinc optical spectra. Confirming that the harmonic relationship between A,B,C,D, E and limit lines for the well known Balmer and Paschen series in Hydrogen series can be also observed between various lines in the Zinc optical emission spectra. The analysis below matches the two Zinc alpha lines of 4680 and 6362 with two separate fundamental wavelengths of 1178 and 308 angstroms. And that these two lines are from a Balmer or Paschen like series respectively for zinc. With each of these two fundamental wavelengths generating either a Paschen or Balmer like series for zinc and matched to strong emission lines in the zinc spectra as described below.

Methods

As outlined in table 1 of the above cited paper there is a clear fundamental harmonic relationship between any Alpha line in any of the spectral line sets for hydrogen with the other B,C,D,E and associated limit lines from each respective set. 

For instance, if one refers to table 1 in the above cited paper, the Hydrogen Balmer Alpha line at 6563 Angstroms is 1.8 times the Balmer limit line of 3646. And further to this the Hydrogen Balmer B,C,D,E lines are each respectively  1.33,1.19,1.125, and 1.088 times the Hydrogen Balmer limit. 

Applying the above formula of the observed relationship between the Hydrogen Balmer and Paschen alpha lines and their respective sets to the strongest lines seen in zinc at 6362 and 4680 gives the following results. Indicating that many of the lines observed in the Zinc optical emission spectra and recorded at NIST, are part of spectral sets that have the same harmonic relationships as the Balmer and Paschen sets have in Hydrogen. Using this same harmonic relationship are the calculations for ‘Balmer and Paschen like’ predicted line sets for zinc:

Paaschen A 4680, B 3258, C 2778, D 2559, E 2350, limit 2088

Balmer A 6362, B 4700, C 4205, D 3976, E 3817, limit 3543.

If one then refers to the observed spectral line data from NIST (and noted above at the beginning of this page) one can see there is a good match between calculated Zinc spectral lines using the proposed fundamental frequency relationship first noted for Hydrogen in the above paper and the observed confirmed strong line data for Zinc from NIST.

Paschen:   (Where f is 308 angstroms)

Calculated: 4680, 3258, 2778, 2559, 2350, 2088 (limit)

Observed:   4680, 3282, 2800, 2561, 2350, 2087

Balmer:  (Where f is 1178 angstroms)

Calculated: 6362, 4700, 4205, 3976, 3817, 3543(limit)

Observed:   6362, 4700, 4292, 3965, 3779, 3515

*Please note the “observed” line cited above for the predicted ‘Balmer-like’ series for Zinc at 4700 is actually a series of observed spectral lines in Zinc observed between 4680 and 4722 Angstroms in NIST.

Based on the theoretical model proposed in the cited paper in table 1, when applied to the Zinc spectra these calculations also suggest that at least two of Zincs proposed fundamental frequencies f can be calculated as follows. (In that each of zincs fundamental wavelengths is always equivalent to a Lyman alpha line):

Ballmer limit/4 * 1.33 =  f frequency 1178 Angstroms (~NIST 1108)

Paschen limit/9 * 1.33 = f frequency 308 Angstroms 

Scientists pin down the origins of a fast radio burst (MIT)

“Magnetospheric origin of a fast radio burst constrained using scintillation. Kenzie Nimmo2024”

Once again the ‘experts’ continue to make up ridiculous fantastical scenarios to try to explain why FRB’s do not conform to relativity and its constant speed of light in all frames nonsense. A sad history of ignoring the facts that started in 1928 when Hubble found that light changed frequency over distance which refuted Einsteins photon model. And by association refuted his relativity theories which relied on the erroneous assumption that a photon can NOT change frequency over distance.

The real story of FRB’s is that they are just very fast GRB’s. The length of a GRB lightcurve is usually in the order of seconds with the optical counterpart in hours and radio in days as modelled here. But an FRB, being just a very fast short GRB, will have its gamma lightcurve last only in nano seconds, its optical curve in slightly longer nanosecond timescales and the radio transient being the only observable lightcurve, lasting in microseconds. Just long enough to capture as an event in the radio data.

Three Photon Quantum interference and Harmonic of single energy scales

 Quantum computers have been “just around the corner” for 3 decades or more. And will never be realised. They are science fiction fantasy based on an imaginary magic pseudoscience called Quantum wave particle duality. Quantum “theorists” seem to publish almost daily their misunderstandings of the classical interference effects of wave only Electromagnetic radiation. Below is a link where once again quantum theorists have misunderstood classical resonance in atoms. Because in truth Atoms are just classical harmonic oscillators and will produce a specific range of harmonics and sub harmonics from just one source fundamental wavelength. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240423113051.htm

And from another paper on imaginary 3 photon interference I’ve quoted below some text from another paper on imaginary 3 photon quantum effects. Essentially the researchers have once again misunderstood classical wave only interference effects and harmonic oscillators. And pretended these basic classical effects are spooky quantum magic! https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.02189

“A high-quality single-photon source based on a semiconductor quantum dot [27] embedded in an open microcavity is used to deterministically produce single photons that are converted to the telecommunication band with a quantum frequency converter [28, 29]. These single photons are deterministically demultiplexed into six indistinguishable singlephoton sources [30, 31], which are manipulated in a fully programmable photonic chip [32]. Heraled by the detection of four output spatial modes with high-efficiency single-photon detectors”

This quote above is an experimental description quoted directly from the opening page of the above linked arxiv paper. And is essentially describing a classical interference effect. Nothing to do with imaginary quantum effects. 

There is no need to invoke quantum theory to describe classical wave theory of light. Here below is my classical translation of the above “Quantum” papers quoted text: 

“A (low level) light source produces wave emr that is then converted into different wavelengths of emr following centuries old knowledge of resonance and harmonic oscillators. Wavelengths which are then made to interfere with each other in what is called classical wave interference. And the resulting wavelength radiation is then detected at various detectors where wave radiation is absorbed by the detector atoms. Each atom acting sort of like a atom sized capacitor which absorbs discreet amounts of incident wave radiation and releases it in pulses to be amplified and sent to the detector hardware using the “electron” cascade effect. And misconstrued as some sort of magical spooky quantum action at a distance effect.“

The following link is a graphic description of how wave radiation and atom absorption can model imaginary ‘single double or triple photon’ quantum detection as a purely classical effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H9kx9_sQYA

And regarding the process cited in these papers as “quantum frequency convertors” and the supposed “surprising” harmonic order observed in SPE’s indicating a energy scale in the Science daily press release cited above.  Once again the classical nature of atoms as harmonic oscillators has been ignored in favour of quantum spookiness. 

To get the correct explanation using a classical wave only model of atoms and light that does not involve spooky quantum nonsense look to this following paper on Harmonic and sub harmonic wavelengths generated from a single fundamental wavelength in Hydrogen atoms: https://vixra.org/author/p_g_vejde

No need for any quantum magic. Any researchers or institutions wishing to try to harness classical wave interference correctly to try and exploit any possible advances in computing that classical interference could offer to computing had best stop wasting their time and budgets looking for mythical quantum dragons and spooky entangled angels. And hire me to explain how quantum theory has misled research into theoretical physics for more than a century ever since Neil’s Bohr published his misguided Electron shell model in the early 20th C. The fact is that all observed energy levels in all atoms can be modelled succesfully  using a wave only classical model. No imaginary electron shells or photons needed.

Sagnac Experiment and Undulatory emission theory

Abstract

Reference on ring gyro Sagnac instruments show that these gyros measure any rotation and not just those ones where the Center of the instrument is the Center of rotation. By putting the Center of rotation of the mirror setup in the traditional Sagnac experiment underneath the source in the experiment the source will now not move relative to the lab and instead the experimental mirror setup rotates in circles in the lab and around the source.

Current theoretical assumptions on emission theory

According to most if not all current reference is the prediction that; Under emission theory the speed of light in the lab frame of the mirrored sagnac experiment should be at c plus or minus any extra velocity from the motion of the source as it rotates in the lab frame. The calculation made using c+-v is not consistent with the observations of path difference in Sagnac X and thus emission theory can apparently be ruled out and replaced with SR.

Alternative and correct interpretation of observations.

Further scrutiny of this assumption shows that this c+-v calculation is incorrect. Whatever this calculation represents, is doesn’t correctly calculate for any emission theory. Because the one central property of all emission theories is that light always has to be at a constant speed c in the source frame in the Sagnac X. And if this were correctly translated to the lab frame, light should therefore be at a variable speed in the lab frame if indeed the source were rotating in the lab frame.

Not at a constant c+-v in the lab frame as many of those critics of emission theory seem to contend. So it is interesting to note that all these critics avoid making a calculation in the only other frame that counts. The source frame.

The Source Frame. A frame where emission theories predict light must always be at c. The most notable emission theory being Ritz’s undulatory theory of light from the early 20th C in which he very specifically states light must always propagate away from the source at c. Regardless of the  motion of the source relative to anything else. Reflection of the light does not change the speed of the light in the sources frame also in Ritz’s model.

This can be tested empirically using any version of the Sagnac X. The key is to combine the source with the lab frame by putting the axis of rotation of the mirrors exactly at the same point below the source. Which is the where the light path splits into 2 at the Beam splitter. By doing so one makes the source frame the same as the lab frame. Seeing as in the lab frame the source will now not be moving. And now the mirrors rotate around the unmoving source. And in this source/lab frame it is easier to calculate the speed of light for an emission model by measuring distances travelled for each clockwise and counter clockwise beam. As is also currently done for predictions for SR.

At this point predictions from both emission and SR theories are consistent with those observations of light paths where the path is calculated in the source/lab frame. 

CMBR explained in a non expanding universe

 CMBR explained using the model of a non expanding universe

In previous posts on this blog I have offered an alternative explanation to the observed temp and wavelength of the CMBR for a non expanding model of the universe, in that the source of the CMBR isn’t the hot soup of an early Big Bang. But rather the conglomerate output of stars and galaxies at certain great cosmological distances. What causes redshift in a non expanding universeAnd secondly in recent posts on this blog I have outlined how redshift itself in a non expanding model can be modelled by basing it on similar phenomena observed in emission and absorption spectra of atoms. Where the emitted light is redshifted slightly from the absorbed light. Offset between absorption and emission spectra

To test this model describing CMBR in a non expanding universe I have used the following data:

The CMBR peaks at 1.023 mm=1023000nm. 

With a measured temperature of 2.7260±0.0013 K. 

The Suns surface temp is 5778 K

The energy peak of its blackbody spectra is at approximately 500nm. 

And also assuming the following rule of wavelength to energy via Planks energy wavelength inverse relationship. (In that the energy halves with each doubling of the wavelength.)

As I have outlined in recent previous posts on this blog cited above, I have already suggested that blackbody radiation emitted from distant stars/galaxies at and around z=1023 could be the source of the observed CMBR in a non expanding model of the universe.

The following calculations use the above data:

First I test to see if rest frame blackbody radiation from 500nm (solar spectra is used as an example) from these distant Galaxies (at z=1023) could, when redshifted in a non expanding model match to that observed at 1023000nm in the CMBR. 

And the fit is very good.

To stretch the wavelength of emitted blackbody radiation from 500nm rest frame to that observed in CMBR in the microwave region of 1023000 nm I have provided the calculations below:

(Notice that blackbody emission spectrum peaking at 500nm when redshifted to observers on earth from a distance of z=1023 has a wavelength exactly 11 times longer than the initial emission peak of 500nm. Which is 1023000nm in the microwave region.)

Divide 1023000/2=511500

Repeat this 10 more times ( for a total of 11 times) to get approx 500nm

Which is equivelent to the average peak of a rest frame blackbody emmission spectrum of a star.

This gives the relationship between redshift z to distance in a non expanding universe. Which is that in a non expanding universe the CMBR is defined as the rest frame blackbody emission spectrum of star/galaxy sources redshifted over great cosmological distances to the microwave region. Or in other words: the average rest frame peak of the blackbody emission spectrum of 500nm (visible light) from distant galaxies at z=1023 in a non expanding model of the universe will be stretched, via cosmological redshifting, to 1023000 nm (microwave).

The interesting thing is that this also gives a close match to the observed temperature 2.72K of the CMBR using the inverse relationship between wavelength and energy of light. In that when the temperature of the emitted rest frame radiation from distant galaxies ( using 5770 K, the proxy spectra of the Sun as an example) is redshifted to us on earth by z= 1023 it becomes 2.81 K. 

That is 5770k is divided by 2 (11 times). This uses the same method as when calculating the stretch of wavelengths from visible light rest frame emission to microwave.

Indicating that the average stellar spectra at z=1023, and locally, must be approximately 5600 K. Seeing as 5600K redshifted from z=1023 is 2.73 K. ( CMBR being 2.72.6 K)