Kirchhoff’s Law Proven Invalid, The Implications Are Enormous

Prof. Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Ohio State University, demonstrates why Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission is not valid, and the implications that invalidity has for all future scientific inquiry.



Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission (abbreviated KLTE hereafter) states that, within any cavity, the ratio of emissive and absorptive power is independent of the nature of the cavity walls. Prof. Robitaille notes that virtually all laboratory blackbodies are constructed of the same nearly perfectly absorbing materials. This begs the question of why? If KLTE is indeed a true and universal law, the materials the blackbody is constructed of shouldn’t matter, since any cavity should do.

When Kirchhoff and Planck were conducting their blackbody experiments, they would take a box and line it with soot, then place elements in the box and monitor the spectra of those objects. In this blackbody box, the observed spectra of the elements always transformed to that of a blackbody.

Then they took a near perfectly reflecting box lined with silver and put elements in it. In that case, the spectra of those elements would NOT change to that of a blackbody. It was only after adding back in a small amount of carbon (a near perfect absorber) did the spectra transform to that of a blackbody.

Planck writes, “It is therefore possible to change a perfectly arbitrary radiation, which exists at the start of an evacuated cavity with perfectly reflecting walls under consideration, by the introduction of a minute particle of carbon.” Based on Kirchhoff’s and his own findings, Planck derived Planck’s Law of Thermal Emission.

Prof. Robitaille states that, as a result, Planck came to see the graphite particle as a catalyst, when in fact, it was acting as a perfect absorber. It was the same as if the experimentalists had lined all the walls of the box with graphite. Kirchhoff and Planck should have considered the perfectly reflecting case as a separate valid case, yet they did not. This serious error resulted in Kirchhoff and Planck believing that their equations could be applied universally. Consequently, Planckian radiation is dependent on the nature of the radiating object.

Further, all blackbodies are limited to solids, since only they can be perfect absorbers, and unlike liquids, they cannot sustain convection. Prof. Robitaille also explains why gases do not follow these laws because they do not emit radiation in a continuous manner, further discrediting the standard model of stars. The emissivity of a real gas drops with temperature. Planck’s equation remains the only fundamental equation that has yet to be linked to physical reality, which is a direct result of Kirchhoff’s error.

Prof. Robitaille notes that the standard gaseous Sun model uses equations of radiative transfer, and those equations all have, at their source, KLTE. The invalidity of KLTE means there cannot be blackbody radiation at the center of the Sun, which means the entire standard model of the gaseous Sun is invalid.

The collapse of KLTE also means universality does not exist, which means there are no such things as universal constants, such as Planck’s constant or Boltzmann’s constant. Laws of physics are formulated based on laboratory findings. If a laboratory finding shows that a constant is not actually constant, it cannot continue to be used as an assumed constant.

The correct law of radiative transfer comes from Balfour Stewart, a contemporary of Kirchhoff. Unlike Kirchhoff’s Law, Stewart’s law does not say that all cavities contain blackbody radiation. Stewart’s law states that, at thermal equilibrium, the emissivity of an object will be equal to its absorptivity.

Because Planck’s constant formulates the basis for quantum physics, and because Planck’s Law of Thermal Emission is based on KLTE, and because Stefan’s Law of Thermal Emission is based on Planck and Boltzmann constants, virtually all the standard models describing astrophysical objects are invalid. The only time those “laws” are valid is when the cavity they describe is the interior of a perfect blackbody object, which is never the case in reality.

Prof. Robitaille has published a large amount of papers in numerous scientific journals. A few of Robitaille’s published findings on this subject can be found here:


On the validity of Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission (Abstract Only)
ieeexplore.ieee.org...

An Analysis of Universality in Blackbody Radiation
www.ptep-online.com...

Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission: 150 Years
www.ptep-online.com...

On the Equation which Governs Cavity Radiation
vixra.org...

Further Insight Relative to Cavity Radiation: A Thought Experiment Refuting Kirchhoff’s Law
www.ptep-online.com...

Blackbody Radiation and the Loss of Universality: Implications for Planck’s Formulation and Boltzman’s Constant
vixra.org...

Red flags:

1) The only place I can find any info on this is libertynews.org and related blogs

2) Progress in Physics is a journal with a questionable track record

3) Can't find any information on replication and discussion within the wider scientific community (1 guy and 1 experiment does not equal refutation of current physics)

Maybe there's something to this but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Oh we need some heavy hitters in here.
Is this peer reviewed and all that jazz?

GetHyped
Red flags:

1) The only place I can find any info on this is libertynews.org and related blogs

2) Progress in Physics is a journal with a questionable track record

3) Can't find any information on replication and discussion within the wider scientific community (1 guy and 1 experiment does not equal refutation of current physics)

Maybe there's something to this but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

1. There is an included video of the professor speaking in person.

2. What matters is the content of the papers at issue, not the track record of the journal they are published in.

3. The "1" guy happens to be Planck himself.

Very interesting, I will have to come back and watch the rest of the video after I get back from playing pinnacle. I have been playing on a league for over twenty years in the winters. I understand a little of this law from back in school long ago. If this is true, a lot of assumptions have been made using this law in the world today, which may not be correct.

Where's Phage when you need him?
lol

AnarchoCapitalist

1. There is an included video of the professor speaking in person.

That doesn't explain the lack of coverage from the science press or blogs or any discussion amongst the scientific community. Libertynews.org is not exactly my go-to place for the cutting edge science news. The fact that the only people making a big deal out of this are Libertynews.org and related (i.e. non-science) blogs raises suspicions about the credibility of the claims made.

2. What matters is the content of the papers at issue, not the track record of the journal they are published in.

No, what matters is what the scientific community have to say on the issue. That's how science works. Peer-reviewed just means "the paper was formatted correctly, at face value the work appears to be novel and there do not appear to be any obvious flaws with the methodology described". This is just the starting point. The debate amongst the scientific community is what counts.

Furthermore, a journal with a patchy track record with regards to credibility and quality control does not make for a great starting point.

3. The "1" guy happens to be Planck himself.

Ok, if you want to be pedantic, 2 guys. The number of people involved in the research is of absolutely no consequence. One piece of research (that so far has not been through the vigorous discourse amongst the scientific community) is far from a open and shut case.

reply to post by GetHyped


Libertarian News is my blog and those are my words. I wrote them as a summary of the video and papers that are linked at the end of the article.

If you want to attack the article, attack the science. Stop going after reputations.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


"Attack"? Hardly. I am (rightfully) skeptical of the claims made. I would rather defer the technical discussion to the physics community rather than accept such claims unquestioningly at face value.

GetHyped
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

"Attack"? Hardly. I am (rightfully) skeptical of the claims made. I would rather defer the technical discussion to the physics community rather than accept such claims unquestioningly at face value.

Ok... So you have nothing to say about the science.

That's a good starting point.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


And you do? Are you a physicist? Should I accept the claims as you present them unquestionably? I raised some very much on-topic questions, none of which have been answered to any degre of satisfaction. What is your agenda here? Why are you the one trying to push this through? You clearly state: "Kirchhoff’s Law Proven Invalid, The Implications Are Enormous". How is it proven in any shape or form? All we have is your own blog to go on.

1) Has this work been replicated? If so, by whom?

2) Why is there no discussion about this research within the scientific community?

As I stated in my first response:

Maybe there's something to this but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

GetHyped
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

And you do? Are you a physicist? Should I accept the claims as you present them unquestionably? I raised some very much on-topic questions, none of which have been answered to any degre of satisfaction. What is your agenda here? Why are you the one trying to push this through? You clearly state: "Kirchhoff’s Law Proven Invalid, The Implications Are Enormous". How is it proven in any shape or form? All we have is your own blog to go on.

Do I have anything to say? You mean like the ENTIRE ARTICLE I just submitted?

Should you take what I have to say unquestionably? Absolutely not. That's why I included a video presentation and numerous papers.

You have not raised ANY on-topic questions. You have launched ad-hom after ad-hom without raising a single scientific question about the evidence presented.

Why am I trying to push this through? Perhaps because I read the papers and listened to the lecture, and found them credible?

How is this proven? Did you read the papers or watch the lecture?

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


Thank you, I like physics and it looks like you wrote a detailed O.P. - reading it over now.

Stuff I looked up:

Black body
Planck
Planck's Law of Thermal Emission

I am still reviewing.

rickymouse
Very interesting, I will have to come back and watch the rest of the video after I get back from playing pinnacle. I have been playing on a league for over twenty years in the winters. I understand a little of this law from back in school long ago. If this is true, a lot of assumptions have been made using this law in the world today, which may not be correct.

Pinnacle is awesome. I didn't know they had leagues. I took a lot of physics but get rusty on things I haven't done for a while.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


It says "proven" in your thread title. My questions are very much on-topic seeing as you appear to be the only source of this news. Why can i not find any information elsewhere?

GetHyped
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

It says "proven" in your thread title. My questions are very much on-topic seeing as you appear to be the only source of this news. Why can i not find any information elsewhere?

You keep saying that I'm the "only source of this news" - and I keep correcting you that I am not. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat myself. Read the papers and watch the lecture. The source of this news comes from the numerous papers and the lecture. I'm not the one making these claims. An Ohio State University professor is the source of this news.

Are they trying to say that a bit of soot will absorb all the radiating energies in side a cavity of perfect mirrors?

symptomoftheuniverse
Are they trying to say that a bit of soot will absorb all the radiating energies in side a cavity of perfect mirrors?

That's pretty much the nuts and bolts of it.

If the carbon is not in the cavity, the radiation will not transform.

The third linked paper goes into more detail about the this.

grey580
Oh we need some heavy hitters in here.
Is this peer reviewed and all that jazz?

No, ptep-online is an open access, non peer reviewed online journal which openly admits that it has no gatekeeping requirements for the quality of any submission. It's like a twitter of science. Anyone can publish anything. Since the OP didn't cite to the actual article, I haven't reviewed it yet. I did a brief keyword abstract search and it appears that the work has not been the subject of any attempts at replication. That's not surprising since the "scientist" has never published anything except in open-access, "you send it and we'll publish it" publications like ptep.

F4guy

grey580
Oh we need some heavy hitters in here.
Is this peer reviewed and all that jazz?

No, ptep-online is an open access, non peer reviewed online journal which openly admits that it has no gatekeeping requirements for the quality of any submission. It's like a twitter of science. Anyone can publish anything. Since the OP didn't cite to the actual article, I haven't reviewed it yet. I did a brief keyword abstract search and it appears that the work has not been the subject of any attempts at replication. That's not surprising since the "scientist" has never published anything except in open-access, "you send it and we'll publish it" publications like ptep.

That is incorrect.

www.ptep-online.com...

Progress in Physics is an American scientific journal, registered with the Library of Congress (DC, USA): ISSN 1555-5534 (print version) and ISSN 1555-5615 (online version). Our journal is peer reviewed and listed in the abstracting and indexing coverage of: Mathematical Reviews of the AMS (USA), DOAJ of Lund University (Sweden), Zentralblatt MATH (Germany), Scientific Commons of the University of St.Gallen (Switzerland), Open-J-Gate (India), Referential Journal of VINITI (Russia), etc. Progress in Physics is an open-access journal published and distributed in accordance with the Budapest Open Initiative: this means that the electronic copies of both full-size version of the journal and the individual papers published therein will always be accessed for reading, download, and copying for any user free of charge. The journal is issued quarterly (four issues per year).

reply to post by F4guy


Looks like he puts his work on viXra.org, a non peer reviewed repository for folks who can not get published on arXiv.org.
vixra.org/author/pierre-marie_robitaille