Planck’s Constant h and the notion of Catalysis

A catalyst is any substrate that assists a specified reaction. It acts in a similar way to a transistor. It r switches on or of a flow of of potential change or transformation,

With regard to the photoelectric effect, The catalytic principle meant that light was converted to electricity only at certain frequencies. The effect of frequency was to provide a sustained motive that could be called electromotive. To do so the systems would have to transmit motive of this electric nature. The systems were quite capable of absorbing the light impressed motive and transforming it into a more highly active system. This was perceived as heat or radiant heat or heat pressure, but when the frequency was at the rate whwere the receiving system could not absorb the impinging motive, the system was transformed as in a chemical compound dissociation reaction. The transformation resulted in a new system minus a small viscouus corpuscle of motive which Thompson had called the Electron eventually. The Photoelectric effect is in fact the reversal of the Thompson experiment in which electricity produces rays which he defined as made up of electrons. Einstein therefore positied a massless electron called a photon that reverse d the situation and generated electricity.

Why massless? The mathematics demanded it be massless, but the original experiment by thompson produced ray that he calculated had mas by he increse in mass at the cathode. This was a empirical conception not a theoretical one, No one has measured the mass of an object undergoing the photelectric effect to my knowledge.

We do not need a wave particle duality to explain nature when Newtonian fluid motive is invoked. Plancks constant becomes a catalytic coefficient for a strain wave propogating through spaceatter to transform a compound corpuscle into its parts, or at a lesser energy to separate a conglomerate corpuscle into its independent dynamic centres. It is therefore the "material" that determines the photoelectric effect, on the basis of triboelecvtric and tribomagnetic action.

Theoretically monopoles aare used all the time, They are regions of some specified action or behaviour. We differentiate theese regions a s magnetic or electric, Wince the announcement of the discovrty of the electron we claim electric monooles exist but magnetic monopoles do not, or not yet. Yet we observe them in everyday magnets, but as dipoles in bar magnets and as vortexes of counter circulating substances around a wir in electric tension.

We look at it wrongly, because we think we have an electric monopole.

What we see are the connecting tensions between regions of electric monopoles ans region s of magnetic monopiles. Wha we do not se is the dynamic motion of both pairs of monopoles, because we want the electron to move in the wire, while the substrate remains still.. The magnetic flux we just ignore as having any substance.

It was not always thus, and indeed an electric flux underpins the widely held notion of an electric current.

Since the 2 fluid explanation was dropped we have trouble explaining magnetic flux, while we think we explain electric flux. The situation is unsatisfactory.

However, the fluid dynamic paradigm means we can dispense with the electron and have vorticular monopoles , with flux flows in contradiction. Becaise they are fluid we can explore the topology of and the physics of contradictory flows. It is because we have used a rigid body model for corpuscles that we have shied away from making the obvious connections.

The study of the earths core shows this fluid dynamic for magnetic monopikes, but it also shows the same fluid dynamic for electric monopoles. Thus we clerly have this triboelectric and tribomagnetic behaviour in earths core. The differences we see in behaviour are related t the test particle we use. We observe the main distinction as action in orthogonal planes, but these planes are circular disc planes.

Again these circular disc planes are in any orientation so we in fact have action in a dynamic spheroid. In this view we have only one mechanical phenomenon abd that is spheroidal vorticular shell action. Because we are using a fluid paradigm, this action may be spread out into any form factor, where the constraints of the form will not necessarily contain all the action.

The investigation of these contraflows and orthogonal actions as vorticular shell actions explains the nature of regionality at all scales in spacematter and the congruent nature of matter with the Newtonian motive description. What we may not ulimately know is what a point is, other than a signal when to stop analysing and start synthesising. Thus the synthesis in fluid dynamics from undefined reference points which carry law defined behaviours, of vorticular regions, whose gross properties as behaviours are used to define newtonian motive, energy and whatever else we perceive as substantive, this synthesis is the ultimate fractal exposition i can give of a definition of matter and all its properties defined as electric and magnetic and Quantum, by some, gravitational by others and still others utilise both descriptions.

That Planck was forced to discretize what had hitherto been described as continuous reflects the failings or weaknesses or constraints of the obsrver, because catalysis is everywhere fundamental to biology and thus to biological consciousness. mThere are just things we can never perceive without a fast catalytic procee that exceeds the speed of the change observed. Continuity is a human tool which provides us with a theoretical foundation for closure of all processes, especially in the fractal fluid paradigm.

We use continuity until our tools are discerning enough to discretize. Ultimately our quest is a Rational One. Transcendent Rationals a la Kant , now called hyper reals, are a stagnant force because we live by pragmatism, by approximation, but some believe in an alternative ideal reality that is changeless. This leads o infinite processes that Parmenides and Zeno described as pragmatically paadoxical, We cannot know all things hence we require myth making to settle our anxieties psychologically.

Planck's constant defines the limit of Rationality. Beyond it we must make myths.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s