Monthly Archives: July 2010

Cosmic Dust and the 2010 Lindau Nobel Meeting on Elementary Particles in Cosmology

Posted on by

Background
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is of interest to astronomers because elementary particles are thought related to Big Bang cosmology through dark matter and energy in an expanding Universe. Indeed, the recent Lindau Meeting discussed the topic “Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the LHC.” See http://www.lindau-nobel.org/PublicMeetingProgram.AxCMS?M …  

Scientists George Smoot and John Mather who won the Nobel prize for the Cosmic Background Explorer were joined by physicists David Gross, Carlo Rubbia, Gerard t’Hooft, and Martinus Veltman. Consistent with the theme of the Lindau Meeting on cosmology, Nobel Laureate George Smoot stated:

“The properties of the tiniest particles should dictate what the Universe looks like…”

Meeting Discussion
With regard to dark matter, Smoot himself did not follow through by describing the mechanism by which tiny particles dictate what the Universe looks like, yet claimed cosmologists can model the Universe with gas, photons, and neutrinos giving a Universe of mostly dark matter of which only about 27 percent is visible, while dark energy is expanding the Universe at an accelerated rate. See  http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/07/astronomy-an …

Introducing himself as “I’m a measuring kind of guy,” Mather also ignored Smoot’s comment avoiding the mechanism by which tiny particles dictate what we observe in the Universe and instead discussed how astronomers were pinning down the properties of dark matter by gravitational lensing surveys that quantity the distribution of dark matter in the Universe. Ibid

Only Veltman called dark matter “bullsh*t,” but then like Smoot and Mather did not identify the mechanism of how Smoot’s tiny particles dictate what we see and instead proposed an alternative dark matter candidate MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics). Only Rubbia connected with Smoot’s statement by suggesting the tiny particles are Weak Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) of dark matter in sterile neutrinos, a heavy version of the three familiar flavors of this particle. Ibid

Cosmic Dust
Cosmology is only beginning to recognize that redshift in submicron cosmic dust significantly alters how the Universe looks to us. Redshift in cosmic instead of by the Doppler effect allows one to entertain the cosmology of a static Universe without any need for dark matter and energy.  Given that our knowledge of the Universe by seeing is unequivocally altered by absorption in cosmic dust, Smoot’s comments may be rephrased by:

”The properties of cosmic dust should dictate what the Universe looks like…”

Yet the Lindau Meeting excluded discussion on cosmic dust in cosmology, instead focusing on dark matter based on the anticipated discovery of exotic WIMPs from the LHC experiments. But cosmic dust is of greater importance to cosmology because light from a distant galaxy is redshift upon absorption in cosmic dust without the Doppler shift. Therefore, the redshift Hubble measured in 1929 was most likely caused by cosmic dust having nothing to do with an expanding Universe. Hence, there is no need for dark energy to explain an expanding Universe that is not expanding. Moreover, MOND and surveys of gravitational lensing that support the presence of dark matter are also negated by cosmic dust. See http://www.nanoqed.org at “Dark Energy and Cosmic Dust” and “Reddening and Redshift,” 2009; and “Cosmology by Cosmic Dust -Update,” 2010.

QED induced Redshift in Cosmic Dust
QED induced redshift in cosmic dust is a consequence of QM constraints placed on the conservation of absorbed energy in submicron particles. QED stands for quantum electrodynamics and QM for quantum mechanics.  QM precludes submicron cosmic dust particles (DPs) from having the specific heat capacity necessary to conserve absorbed galaxy photons by an increase in temperature. Instead, conservation proceeds by the creation of QED photons from the total internal reflection (TIR) confinement of the absorbed galaxy photon within the solid DP. But the TIR allows those QED photons normal to the DP surface to leak out redshifted relative to the absorbed galaxy photon – all of this occurring without the Universe expanding. Ibid

How DPs redshift galaxy light may be understood from QM by the QED induced creation of photons of wavelength Lo by supplying EM energy to a QM box with walls separated by Lo/2. For a galaxy photon absorbed in a spherical DP of diameter D, the QED photons are created at a wavelength Lo = 2nD, where n is the index of refraction. In the Universe, the DPs are generally amorphous silicate having n = 1.45 and diameters D < 0.5 microns. For D = 0.25 microns, the QED created photons has Lo = 0.745 microns, and therefore an absorbed Lyman-alpha photon having L = 0.1216 microns is redshift to Z = (Lo – L)/L. ~ 5. If the QED redshift in DPs is interpreted by the Doppler shift, the galaxy recession velocity is 95 % of the speed of light when in fact the galaxy is not receding at all. Ibid

Conclusions
QED induced redshift holds in question the Hubble redshift as proof the Universe is expanding beginning with the Big Bang suggesting a return to a static Universe in dynamic equilibrium once proposed by Einstein. Moreover, astrophysical measurements that rely on Hubble redshift by the Doppler effect grossly over-estimate the rotational velocities of spiral galaxies are far faster than allowed by Newtonian mechanics, thereby suggesting the presence of dark matter to hold the galaxies together. Indeed, redshift in cosmic dust instead of by the Doppler effect answers most of the outstanding problems in cosmology Ibid. The conclusions are.

Dark Energy not needed to explain a Universe that is not expanding
Period-luminosity relation qualified in Cepheid stars
Dark Matter not involved in Gravitational Lensing
Galaxy Rotation Problem resolved without Dark Matter
No need for MOND to explain Galaxy Rotation Problem
Tolman Surface Brightness reduction by (1 + Z)
Explain the Independence of Redshift in Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect
Light Curve dilation in Supernovae Explosions

The Lindau Meeting on cosmology by elementary particles is trumped by cosmic dust. There is no connection between any findings forthcoming from the LHC on how WIMPS or other exotic particles are related to dark matter. Smoot’s comment on how tiny particles dictate what the Universe looks like was misinterpreted by all of the attendees including Smoot himself because no one considered the tiny particles to be submicron cosmic dust. Hubble’s redshift by the Doppler Effect held for 80 years needs to be set aside and superseded by QED induced redshift in cosmic dust, an unpleasant, but necessary action by astronomers if cosmology is to move forward.

High thermal conductivity of amorphous silicon – a quantum mechanics size effect?

Posted on by

High thermal conductivity of 80 micron thick a-Si film

Higher conductivity of amorphous silicon (a-Si) found in 80 micron samples compared to submicron samples thought to be depend on the mean free path of phonons is negated by the size effect of quantum mechanics

Background
Thermoreflectance (TDTR) measurements at room temperature for an 80 micron a-Si sample show at more than a 2-fold increase in thermal conductivity compared to submicron samples having thicknesses of 200 nm and between 1 and 2 microns. See Yang et al., “Anomalously high thermal conductivity of amorphous Si deposited by hot wire chemical vapor deposition,” March, 2010. http://users.mrl.uiuc.edu/cahill/asi_v3.pdf On this basis, it was concluded: (1) phonons with a mean free path of ~ 100 nm make a sizeable contribution to conductivity, (2) size in terms of the sample thickness was not expected to make a significant difference in measured conductivity for the 80 micron and 200 nm samples, and (3) current theoretical methods cannot account for the nearly 40 percent contribution from phonons with a mean free path between 100 to 600 nm as inferred from the TDTR measurements. See http://cdac.ciw.edu/component/content/250.html?task=view

Problem and Hypothesis
Heat conduction based on atomic vibrations by Debye’s phonons has served well at the macroscale, but not in comparisons with experiment at the nanoscale. Like the difficulty in explaining the higher conductivity in the 80 micron samples, agreement if any is found by hand waving” the phonon wavelength that agrees with experiment, e.g., minimum thermal conductivity where the Boltzmann equation is used with the mean free path set to a “lattice” constant, to a “fracton” model in which heat is transported by anharmonically assisted hopping of localized vibrations, to diffusion-like conduction, with heat transported mainly by extended states but which do not have “good” wavelengths. Ibid.  The question may be asked:

Are phonons the mechanism of heat transfer at the nanoscale?

Alternatively, is the size effect of quantum mechanics at play in extending the validity of classical heat transfer at the macroscale to the nanoscale. But there are more basic questions:

At the nanoscale, does heat conduction even exist?

Indeed, if there is no conduction, calculations of thermal conductivity based on phonons are meaningless thereby avoiding the “hand-waving” of wavelengths to explain experiments. But if so, the remaining question is:

What is the heat transfer mechanism at the nanoscale?

If a heat transfer mechanism at the nanoscale is hypothesized that promptly conserves absorbed heat without any need to include conductive heat flow, the difficulties in explaining experiments by phonon wavelengths would be avoided. Bulk conductivity could then be assumed at the nanoscale even though there is no heat flow. Indeed, if such a heat transfer mechanism can be shown to exist, then all the above questions are answered.

QED induced EM radiation
One such heat transfer mechanism at the nanoscale that avoids phonons is the theory of QED induced EM radiation. QED stands for quantum electrodynamics and EM for electromagnetic. By this theory, absorbed EM is promptly conserved by the QED induced creation of photons within the nanostructure that then are emitted to the surroundings as non-thermal QED radiation at UV or higher levels. What makes this possible is that quantum mechanics requires the specific heat of atoms at the nanoscale to vanish. See  http://www.nanoqed.org/ at “Nanofluids and Thin Films”, 2009.

Vanishing specific heat may be understood from the fact the thermal energy of the atom given by the Einstein-Hopf relation depends on wavelength under the constraint that only submicron (< 1 micron) wavelengths are allowed to “fit inside” nanostructures. But submicron wavelengths are only populated at temperatures greater than about 6000 K. At ambient temperature, therefore, the heat capacity of nanostructures is “frozen out”, and so absorbed EM energy cannot be conserved by an increase in temperature. Conservation may only proceed by the QED induced frequency up-conversion of absorbed EM energy to the fundamental resonance of the nanostructure. Heat conduction is negated because the prompt conservation of absorbed EM energy by QED emission is far faster than the time it takes for the phonons to respond. Ibid, at “QED induced heat transfer”, 2010.  

Discussion
The prompt conservation of absorbed EM energy by QED emission means conduction does not occur at the nanoscale, and therefore phonon explanations of reduced conductivity in thin films are meaningless. Indeed, bulk conductivity at the macroscale may be assumed valid at the nanoscale. Ibid

The thermal conductivity by TDTR measurements of submicron samples is only apparent. Conductivity appears reduced from that of bulk only because QED emission was excluded in the heat balances. If included, there is no conduction and bulk conductivity is still valid. What this means is that the a priori assumption may be made that absorbed EM energy of any form by a nanostructure is promptly emitted as QED radiation at UV or higher levels Hence, Molecular Dynamcis (MD) simulations to determine the response of the nanostructure to the absorbed EM energy are no longer necessary.The only relevant MD simulation might be the interaction of the QED emission with the surroundings.Ibid

Conclusions

1. The conclusion that size in terms of the sample thickness is not expected to make a significant difference in measured conductivity for the 80 micron and 200 nm samples is negated by the size effect of quantum mechanics.

2. Conductivity appears reduced in submicron samples because QED induced radiation was excluded in the heat balances. If included, there is no conduction, and therefore the sample may be considered to have bulk conductivity under the condition of no heat flow. In fact, both submicron and 80 micron samples have bulk thermal conductivity.

3. Conclusions that phonons with a mean free path of ~ 100 nm make a sizeable contribution to conductivity not only contradict the fact current theoretical methods based on phonons cannot explain the higher conductivity of the 80 micron sample. In fact, both are meaningless because there is no conductive heat flow at the nanoscale.

4. TDTR measurements are likely caused by QED induced photons and have nothing to do with phonons.

5. The response of nanostructures to absorbed EM energy need not be determined by MD simulations; the only relevant MD simulation might be the interaction of the QED emission with the surroundings.

Cancer is caused by disorganization of epithelial tissue and not by DNA mutations

Posted on by

Mutations in the genomes of the tumor cell long thought to cause cancer is negated by QED induced ionizing radiation produced   as the MMP-3 enzyme disorganizes the basement membrane of epithelial tissues

Background Epithelial tissue forming the outer layers of the skin protect exterior surface of the body, but also provide protection for hollow organs and glands including the breast, prostate, colon, and lung from body fluids.  Epithelial tissue is organized by a submicron thick < 100 nm basement membrane (BM) that provides the structural scaffold template for the extracellular matrix (ECM). Breakdown of the BM is associated with the spread of tumors, e.g., loss of integrity of the BM in mice is known to cause tumors. See http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/LSD-cancer-f … 

Loss of integrity in the ECM is triggered by enzymes called matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs). Breast tumors in particular are known to have an increased amount of MMPs. Indeed, MMPs induce the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) that disorganize the BM and allows the dissociated epithelial tissue to move through the body. In breast cancer, EMT allows tumor cells more mobility to penetrate barriers like the walls of lymph and blood vessels, facilitating metastasis, e.g., the MMP-3 enzyme causes normal cells to produce a protein called Rac1b that is found only in cancers. Currently, Rac1b is thought to stimulate the production of highly reactive oxygen species (ROS) molecules leading to cancer by damaging the DNA. Ibid

Problem and Hypothesis
The problem with epithelial tissue as the source of DNA damage is that the protein Rac1b lacks a mechanism to produce energy of at least 5 eV from which the ROS of peroxide and hydroxyl radicals form to damage the DNA. The ROS can only be produced by ionizing radiation > 5 eV at ultraviolet (UV) levels or beyond. 

But what is the mechanism of ionizing radiation?

Certainly, there are no UV lasers in body fluids. The hypothesis may therefore be made that epithelial tissue during disorganization somehow emits low level ionizing radiation.

Emission of Ionizing Radiation by Submicron Entities
Cancer research is only beginning to recognize the remarkable fact that submicron entities present in body fluids emit low-level ionizing radiation. Over the past few decades, this fact has been supported by experimental evidence that shows submicron entities comprising nanoparticles (NPs) of natural and man-made materials cause DNA damage. Remarkably, the NPs alone – without lasers – somehow induce DNA damage in body fluids. See http://www.nanoqed.org/ at “DNA damage by NPs”, 2009 and  “DNA damage by signaling,” 2010.

QED induced EM radiation
Recently, the theory of QED induced EM radiation was proposed to explain the remarkable fact that NPs alone cause DNA damage. QED stands for quantum electrodynamics and EM for electromagnetic. Ibid. By this theory, quantum mechanics forbids atoms in submicron NPs to have specific heat. This may be understood from the fact the thermal energy of the atom given by the Einstein-Hopf relation depends on wavelength under the constraint that only wavelengths < 1 micron are allowed to “fit inside” submicron entities. But quantum mechanics only allows submicron wavelengths to be populated at temperatures greater than about 6000 K. At ambient temperature, therefore, the heat capacity of submicron entities is “frozen out”, and so NPs cannot conserve absorbed EM energy by an increase in temperature. Absent UV lasers, NPs in body fluids absorb EM energy from colliding water molecules. Conservation then proceeds by the QED induced frequency up-conversion of absorbed EM collision energy to the fundamental resonance of the NP.  Typically, ionizing QED radiation is emitted at UV or higher levels thereby explaining how NPs alone produce the ROS that damages DNA. Specifically, ionizing radiation > 5 eV necessary for forming ROS is produced for NPs < 100 nm. Ibid

Epithelial cell induced DNA damage
Epithelial tissue like NPs induce DNA damage provided submicron entities are produced upon disorganization by MMPs. QED induced radiation is emitted if the size of the biological entity is < 100 nm and has a refractive index greater than the surroundings. For biological materials, the index is about 1.5 > 1.33 for water. But epithelial cells themselves are not submicron and at 10-100 microns in the disorganized state do not emit ionizing radiation. However, ionizing radiation is emitted from the < 100 nm BM upon disorganization of epithelial tissue by MMPs.

By the theory of QED induced radiations, the disorganization of the BM by MMP-3 produces the ionizing radiation that forms the ROS that in turn damage the DNA. Current thought that the Rac1b protein itself damages the DNA is therefore placed in question. Indeed, the Rac1b protein is a cancer marker only because it forms in the process of ionizing radiation be produced by the disorganized BM. Nevertheless, Rac1b as a small protein is a submicron entity that once in the disorganized state like the BM also produces ionizing radiations that may damage surrounding DNA. See Press Release http://www.prlog.org/10793056-cancer-is-caused-by-disorganization-of-epithelial-tissue-and-not-by-dna-mutations.html

Conclusions

1. During disorganization by MMP-3, the BM emits QED induced ionizing radiation forming ROS that damage the DNA and produce the Rac1b protein found in most cancers.

2. Contrarily, the ROS are not induced by Rac1b to stimulate the development of cancer by directly affecting genomic DNA. Rather, the ROS are formed in a side reaction from the QED induced radiation emitted from the disorganized BM. Nevertheless, the Rac1b protein as a submicron entity is the product of the ROS and may also damage nearby DNA.

3. Loss of epithelial tissue organization produces QED induced EM radiation that damages the DNA before mutations occur in the genome of the tumor cell by other factors.

4. Oncogenes are activated by QED induced radiation from changes in the BM structure by MMPs.

5. UV absorptive drugs may be used to reduce QED induced radiation and attendant DNA damage from epithelial tissue disorganization by MMP-3.

The toxicity of colloidal silver and risk of cancer

Posted on by

Background

Scientific American in 2008 published an article entitled: Do Nanoparticles in Food Pose a Health Risk? The article reports the widespread use of nanoparticles (NPs) in food or food-related products that do not bear the warning that they may pose a health risk. The FDA does not require NPs to be proved safe, but rather requires the foods having NPs to not be harmful. In 2006, the EPA began to regulate nanosilver as a pesticide and as a result companies using nanosilver as an antimicrobial agent are required to register them as pesticides. Friends of the Earth, an environmental group, insist that reporting of nanosilver use by companies should be mandatory, given the potential risks and has suggested the definition of what constitutes a health risk to include NPs < 300 nm in diameter. But Andrew Maynard of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars notes it is the effect rather than the size that is significant. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-nanoparticles-in-food-pose-health-risk

Toxicity by Surface Area and Size

Currently, the mechanism by which NPs pose a health risk is not well understood. NP size controls the surface area and therefore the effectiveness of colloidal silver. NPs are thought to be more reactive than larger particles of the same substance, because they have more surface area and therefore have more opportunity to interact with other substances in their surroundings, i.e., a material that is otherwise harmless at the macroscale is likely to be toxic if it is processed to the nanoscale as NPs. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=will-nano-particles-present-big-health-problems The problem with quantifying toxicity by NP surface area and size is that both lack a mechanism to produce EM energy of at least 5 eV to form the reactive oxidative species (ROS) necessary to act as bactericidal agents. EM stands for electromagnetic. Similarly, the significance of “effect rather the size” in toxicity suggested by the Wilson Center lacks a mechanism to produce the ROS.

QED Induced EM Radiation Toxicity

More recently, the toxicity mechanism of NPs capable of producing ROS was proposed to find origin in quantum mechanics. Toxicity is found to almost be independent of the material, although silver has received the most attention because of its use as a bactericide in baby food. By this theory, atoms in NPs lack specific heat because at ambient temperature the heat capacity in submicron NPs resides at wavelengths < 1 micron that may only be populated at temperatures greater than about 6000 K. At ambient temperature, the heat capacity is therefore “frozen out”, and so NPs lack the heat capacity to conserve absorbed EM energy from colliding water molecules in body fluids by an increase in temperature. Conservation may only proceed by the QED induced frequency up-conversion of absorbed EM energy to the EM resonance of the NP. QED stands for quantum electrodynamics. Typically, ionizing QED radiation is emitted at UV or higher levels thereby producing the ROS that damage DNA from which cancer may develop. NPs < 100 nm are required to produce ROS through ionizing radiation. In contrast, NPs > 100 nm emit non-ionizing QED radiation in the VIS and IR. See http://www.nanoqed.org at “DNA damage by NPs”, 2010.

Colloidal Silver

Colloidal silver comprising silver NPs in solution is related to the controversy over the risks of silver NPs in food products. Colloidal silver has been used for fighting infections for thousands of years. But for the last 40 years, silver colloids have been proven to be cancer-causing agents. Indeed, silver is listed in the 1979 Registry of Toxic Effects as causing cancer in animals. Silver finds antibiotic action from the fact that it is a non-selective toxic biocide. See e.g., http://www.cqs.com/silver.htm  Regardless, fine silver NPs provide greater effectiveness than coarse NPs because toxicity is predicated on exposing the infected region to the largest possible surface area. See http://www.silver-colloids.com/Reports/reports.html#CompTable

 Safe Colloidal Silver?

Currently, comments to the Scientific American article stated if the widely touted “natural antibiotic” usage of colloidal silver is a potentially dangerous thing, then: Are there any safe colloidal silvers? Or Are the silver components in such preparations larger than problematic?  

Answers to these questions depend on effectiveness. Colloidal silver is perfectly safe if not taken at all, but is not effective if other antibiotic agents are not used. Least effective are silver colloids with coarse NPs > 100 nm because the QED radiation emitted by the NPs in the VIS and IR is non-ionizing. Most effective are fine NPs < 100 nm, but come at the risk of damaging the DNA by UV or higher ionizing radiation that can lead to cancer.

 Moreover, coarse NPs accompanied by fine NPs actually enhance the DNA damage above that by fine NPs alone. Hence, manufacturers would have to guarantee that all NPs in the colloidal silver are > 100 nm to avoid ionizing radiation. Manufacturers of colloidal silver would be required to label the minimum size of NPs in their products to allow the customer himself to weigh the risk of DNA damage to antibiotic effectiveness.  

 Conclusions

1. NPs by emitting QED induced ionizing radiation are significant antibiotic agents, but pose a health risk by collateral damage to DNA the consequence of which may lead to cancer. DNA damage must always be considered in the use of NPs as antibiotics.

2. All NP materials produce about the same QED radiation because their refractive indices are similar. Therefore, only the NP size distinguishes whether ionizing or non-ionizing is emitted. Labeling of the minimum size of NPs in a product allows the customer to weigh the respective advantages and disadvantages.

3. Colloidal silver with NPs < 100 nm produce ionizing QED radiation at UV or higher levels that damage the DNA and can lead to cancer even though being used for thousands of years.

4. Safe colloidal silver may be found at minimum effectiveness. If manufacturer control all NPs > 100 nm, non-ionizing QED radiation is then emitted.  Controlling NPs > 300 nm can only err on the safe side.

5. The safest way of avoiding future cancers caused by DNA damage is to ban all NPs < 300 nm from food products, especially baby food.

Thermophones Produce Sound Without Vibration

Posted on by

Background
In 1914, Lord Rayleigh communicated the description of the thermophone by de Lange to the Royal Society. But as early as 1880, Preece produced sound by passing current through micron sized platinum wires affixed to a diaphragm. Around 1800, the Russian engineer Gwozda produced sound by heating a straight wire without a diaphragm. Historically, the theory of thermophones is based on the production of sound from a thin platinum film published by Arnold and Crandall in 1917.
    Recently, Xiao et al. showed sound was produced by passing an alternating current through thin carbon nanotube (CNT) films. The high sound level at low electrical power for the CNT films were thought more efficient than platinum that required more power for the same sound level. However, the experimental frequency response did not agree with the long standing thermophone theory of Arnold and Crandall. Modifications were made to the theory including the conductive heat loss from the film to the air based on classical heat transfer methodology. See “Thermophones,” at link “Nano Letters Paper”, of www.nanoqed.org , 2009. Xiao et al. claim agreement of the modified theory and experimental data. However, the claimed agreement could not be confirmed by this author because of the experimental fitting necessary to determine the conductive heat loss.

Problems with Classical Heat Transfer Theory
Classical heat transfer theory predicts that sound levels in thermophones are produced by changes in thin film temperature caused by Joule heat produced from passing electrical current though the films. However, this cannot be correct. Classically, temperatures should increase in CNT thin films in proportion to the electrical power, but the CNT films produced high sound levels at lower power than in platinum films at high power levels.
   What this means is that temperature changes in thin films have nothing to do with the sound produced in thermophones. Alternatively, classical heat transfer theory that predicts sound is produced by temperature changes in thin films is not applicable to thermophones.      

Heat Transfer under Quantum Mechanics Restrictions
Quantum mechanics (QM) methodology differs from classical heat transfer in that the specific heat of the atom is required to vanish under electromagnetic (EM) confinement. Ibid, “Thermophones,” at link “Paper”. In heat transfer restricted by QM, Joule heat absorbed in the thin film cannot be conserved by an increase in temperature. Classical theory differs in that specific heat of materials in macroscopic structures is assumed to remain the same at the nanoscale.
   Regardless, EM energy is still required to be conserved at nanoscale. Lacking specific heat, thin films conserve Joule heat by the theory of QED induced EM radiation. QED stands for quantum electrodynamics. By this theory, the low frequency Joule heat is conserved by frequency up-conversion to the EM confinement frequency of the film. Like creating photons of wavelength L by supplying EM energy to a QM box having sides separated by L/2, the Joule heat in thin films creates photons having wavelength L = 2nd, where d is the thickness and n is the refractive index of the film. There is no increase in temperature of the thin film.
   The QED photons are only confined briefly because the EM confinement is quasi-bound, and therefore the thin film promptly leaks EM radiation at the confinement wavelength. Typical CNT thin films in thermophones have thickness d > 0.125 microns, and therefore the EM confinement produce radiation in the ultraviolet (UV) and visible (VIS). Unlike thermal radiation in classical heat transfer theory that requires high temperatures, the QED induced emission is non-thermal and occurs at ambient film temperatures.  

Sound from Thermophones by QM
Sound from thermophones requires pressure changes in the surrounding air. The QED induced emission in the UV-VIS is therefore required to be absorbed by air to increase its temperature and produce the pressure changes necessary for sound propagation. But nitrogen in air is transparent in the UV-VIS and cannot produce sound. Only oxygen has an absorption cross-section close to that necessary to produce sound. The Joule heating necessary to produce sound by oxygen absorption is found to be a very small fraction – around 10^-6 of the 1-4.5 watts supplied.
   Almost all of the supplied Joule heat is lost to the solid walls of the thermophone enclosure. To improve thermophone efficiency, the gas volume between the thermophone and microphone should be sealed and filled with a UV-VIS absorptive gas.

Conclusions
   1. By quatum mechanics, sound is produced by QED emission without vibration. Classical heat transfer is unable to explain sound without vibration.

   2. Classical heat transfer that includes finite specific heat in thin films is not applicable to thermophones. The Joule heat cannot be conserved by temperature changes of the thin film.

   3. Heat transfer by QED induced radiation as based on zero specific heat as required by QM should be used for the analysis of thermophone performance. The emission of UV-VIS radiation that conserves the Joule heat is required to be absorbed by the air surroundings to produce sound.  

 4. But the absorption of UV-VIS in air is very low.  Indeed, almost all of the Joule heat does not produce sound because of absorption by the walls of the enclosure. To improve sound levels, the space between the thermophone and microphone should be sealed and filled with a UV-VIS absorptive gas.