(sean) writes:
[ ... ]

The original point was that I responded to Davids claim that resonance
was not possible described as a wave phenomena in refernce of course

I can't find an example where David says this.

I agree with your point that some phenomena may be not clasified as
wave s like a swing but it as a addendum I could still argue that a
swing does in a sense still have a maxima where the swing arc is
greatest and minima with the fulcrum . And the energy has a oscilation
period from each swing extreme as does a wave resonance so it becomes
a bit blurred I think the line between a swing resonating to a string
and then a medium. But maybe thats not important here.

Waves require a continuous medium and a propagation direction. A
pendulum-like swing embodies neither. The fact that the tha language
of *oscillations* can be used to describe waves and resonance does not
mean that they are identical.


[ ... ]
---

As to your statement a few weeks ago about the "atom capacitor" model
performing better than quantum mechanics and the Grangier experiment:
I heartily disagree. In our private correspondence I showed that you
made a number of identifiable mistakes (which leaves open the question
of as-yet unidentified mistakes); you disgregarded statistical
uncertainties (even though I should they were large); and you appeared
to ignore even fundamental mathematics. In numerous simulations of
thousands of runs I showed that the (simple) "atom capacitor" model
does *not* reproduce Grangier's results as you claim.

These points I dispute. Statistical uncertainties were a claim you
made to say that my results when giving a0 were a statistical fluke
I think are unfounded as I redid the numbers experiment about 15 times
in different amounts of atoms and all the results were compatible and
consistently below a=1 for waves. If anything the onus is on you to
show enough or any results that go against mine.

I did thousands of trials, not fifteen. Furthermore, I performed
thousands of trials at *each* set of parameters. Whereas I suspect
your fifteen include different parameters. And I also suspect that
some of your fifteen include double-counting problems.

The maths accusation stems from early on when Steve C told me that N1

No, the "incorrect math" comes in at least two places. First, that
you are unwilling to accept the fundamental statistical theorem that
two uncorrelated processes have multiplicative probabilities. Second,
that, in the mechanics of your method, you don't understand that
increasing all the "atoms" by a fixed amount is the same as decreasing
the threshold by the same amount. [ and, since you got different
answers with both methods, it suggests you are still making a
fundamental error. ]


And finally I dispute your claim that you `Did` the experiment. At no
time have you duplicated it correctly and therefore at no time have
you been in a position to claim you have performed the experiment I
use to show how classical can explain the photoelectric effect.
Looking back at our correspondence I find you have given each
detector only 1 atom and calculated what happens when 50 per cent of
.... much snippage ...
And just to remind you of how completely different your version of my
trials were here is sample of yours from back then.

Time history N2 N23 ALPHA
Trial 1 N3
02001000011100001100201000000010 10 3 0.6400
10100222001010001010010111010020 15
Trial 2
00020003100101000121000000100020 10 6 1.6000
02010002000101000001001120001110 12


Each single line above is your version of one of my whole tables !!!!

Incorrect. Each single line is a *SUMMARY*, but I simulated a
complete array of however many atoms. In fact, I simulated it a
number of ways: by pure probability alone; by your atom "array" method
with a decreasing threshold; and by the atom "array" method holding
the threshold constant and increasing each atoms occupation level. In
every case, the result was identical. The "atom capacitor" model
consistently produced a value of alpha = 1.0, with differing variances
depending on the parameters.


And you claim that this is duplicating my guidelines as you have used
some advanced probability formula to DO AWAY with the neccesity for
labouriously doing whole tables manualy.

Doing your tables manually is not required. Computers are well suited
for laborious mechanical tasks. Which is exactly your task.

I gaurantee that if you redo the trials exactly as I have specified
you will always get a0. And if even you do them over and over again
or with 100`s of atoms per detector you will always get well below a=1
and the smaller amount of light used per event will as I have started
to illuminate with my own trials will always give you a smaller alpha
value. And from a graph of my results I can already see a clear
decreasing log curve graph that points towards a=0.18 for a very small
photon per event number.

But I bet you Craig that you wont do these trials either because as I
have found, it takes days for just 1 set of trials or even if you
managed to program your pc to do it *correctly* and faster you would
not dare to find out that I am right . And thats a challenge .

I guarantee that you are wrong. I redid the trials long ago, exactly
as you described, and arrived at alpha = 1, as noted in my 20 Feb 2003
email.


And finally, the "atom capacitor" model disregards the fact that light
also has a detectably different wavelengths/frequencies/energies, and
instead lumps all radiation into a single "bucket."


This is eaxctly the argument David used and I am afraid I dont think
it works. It implies that the photoelectric particle theory accounts
for an atom being able to detect all frequencies just as easily but in
actuall fact all detectors are Very wave specific sensitive with
sensitivities centred really around 1 or maybe 2 distinct frequencies
with a sharp hump.
[ ... ]

This is quite simply incorrect. I am most familiar with X-rays.
Proportional counters can detect X-radiation over a range of 50 in
wavelength. Silicon CCDs detect over a factor of 10 or more. Pure
germanium can detect energies over a factor of 100 or more. Let me
make clear, I'm talking about a *factor* in dynamic range, for example
500 eV to 10,000 eV for CCDs. Coupled with a diffraction grating, it
is possible to measure the energy (or wavelength) multiple ways as a
cross-check.

"Sean," you often simply *make up* whatever physics suits your own
model. This is inappropriate. There are at least one hundred of
years of experience measuring the different wavelengths of light. You
can't simply ignore it.

CM