Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(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.
Ill look again but he says that resonance can only be exhibited by a
particle

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.


Thats a fair point but you say that I say that waves and resonance are
identical. Thats misquoting me because my argument is that waves "in a
medium" ,contained if neccesary, exhibit resonance. Did I say or do
you think I say that waves are identical to resonance? Why would I
mean that? Of course I realize that waves on there own arent
resonance.



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.

What on earth are these` parameters `you speak of. And are they in my
initial model ? Probably not as you seem to think its OK to cahnge my
guidelines to give you results that you prefer.
Please. Just give me the basic details needed for my experiment that
you claim, to have duplicated. Thats.. numbers of atoms and each of
the atoms filled values and I will check your results.
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. ]

I assume by ..."fundamental statistical theorem that two uncorrelated
processes have multiplicative probabilities".. you mean calculating
how a photon would behave using probabilities . Dont you read my
posts? Right back to a year ago whenever this thread started my
initial argument was that QT`s version of classical theory is
incorrect because it uses probabilities to calculate results. My
argument has always been that a classical model that does NOT use
probabilities and photons can work. NOTE,I shall repeat ...a
classical model that does NOT use probabilities and photons can work
and give correct results but one that does use probabilities cant .
When you change my model to incorporate probabilities and photons
into a classical model and then make calculations that supposedly
prove that classical theory cannot explain the photoelectric effect
all you really do is prove that my initial claim that probabilities
and photons cannot be used in classical theory as they will always
give incorrect results!

I`m not too sure yet about raising and lowering the threshold as I
have yet to see that method used on the original random selection of
numbers I generate for the atoms. But I think for now I will accept it
as it is not the fundamental disagreement I have with you. It is that
you do not as far as I know follow the basic guidelines of the
experiment I propose. As far as I can tell you do not start off with a
set amount of atoms per detector (ie I used 64 per detector) and you
do not bother to generate 64 different filled levels as I say must be
done to duplicate as closely as possible what I see as occuring
mechanically in a wave only atom detector. And finally the most
important parameter you fail to follow is that you can not use
probabilities or photons when calculatting wave only results. Maybe
you think its OK but remember I came into this argument saying that if
I didnt use probabilities or photons I could get a classical wave only
model.. TO GIVE CORRECT RESULTS.
And incidentally you have never posted to me the details of your
experiment but rather only supplied dubious final results. How can I
check the authenticity of your trials when all you supply me with is
two lines of numbers representing a whole complex series of
calculations. Why dont you at least even supply me with the amount of
atoms per detector you used !!! And Why not give me a list of those
randomn filled values? I have given all this info to you many times
over the past year regarding my trials. It is those random values and
amount of atoms per detector that ARE essentially my experiment.
Without those both it cannot be performed. So please.. I want your 2
lists of random filled atom values( one for each detector) and I will
then check your results.
Thats a fair request to make . After all you claim to have recreated
my experiment and got results different from mine.Is it not fair that
I ask you to supply the details of your trials so I can verify whether
or not you conducted the experiment I propose correctly. In any
dispute involving published theory in a journal there is a rigorous
process whereby the proposed experiment is recreated seperately by
sceptics and those results published and checked for adherence to
guidelines. Its no good you saying .."Well your wrong and I have
redone your experiment but I am not going to show you my notes or any
details of my version because you will just have to accept my final
verdict that you are wrong without knowing whether I correctly
followed the initial guidelines..""
Do you tell your bosses at NASA that you have discovered a new
phenomena about pulsars lets say but you wont show them any of your
photos or calculations etc and they will just have to take your word
for it? I doubt it .



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.

Right and am I supposed to take your word that that *SUMMMARY* line
was arrived at correctly? Forget it Craig. I want more details on how
you arrived at that *SUMMARY* Why? Because I dont believe you actually
did it correctly and furthermore I believe you performed those
calculations in violation of all the guidelines I have specified as
being prerequisite to my claim that a .."wave only theory can explain
the results seen in Grangiers experiments as long as no photons and
probabilities are used" .
I have always stated that if a classical model uses probabilities and
photons in any simulated calculation it will give incorrect results.
And you prove this by using probabilities and photons to try to
calculate what alpha value classical would give and you get the
alpha1 answer which only strengthens my argument. Thats what I
predict you will get IF you use probabilities!
But you dont do the one thing that I stipulate needs to be done. You
have to calculate the results manually mathematically,without
probability formula and with seperate atoms each filling seperately.
You dont do the one thing I say must be done to show that classical
theory CAN explain the photoelectric effect! And just to prove you are
not replicating my maths experiment I will redo a short set of trials
of your SUPPOSED duplication of my experiment you mention above in the
quote ..."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"...
Give me the a list of each filled level of each atom in each of your
two detectors . (I hope that you did not use too many atoms per
detector as for me 64 atoms per detector took days to do.)
I will then replicate your version of where you claim to supposedly
replicate my experiment. And we will see if I get the same results.
But I bet anything that you actually did not assign each seperate atom
in each detector with a seperate random amount which you then added
to. Instead I imagine you will reply with something like this.." Well
I didnt actually give each atom a seperate value and add up each atom
seperately but rather used a probability formula etc etc.. " Well if
thats your reply then you can retract your claim that you replicated
the experiment because at no time have you ever actually re done the
experiment as to my guidelines. And if you did replicate it my way as
you claim ,then you should be able to post me two lists of `atoms`
And each list should have the same amount of atoms in it and each atom
in the list should have a seperate randomly filled value between
0-100% full ,sort of like this... 0.0912, 0.1827, 0.2314 etc all the
way up to the top filled value which in my tests was 8.
If you actually have done it correctly then you should be able to send
me the above 2 lists . I will then verify your results by redoing them
just as in other scientific theory seperate trials done independently
have to be done to confirm experiments. In this case I dont believe
you have replicated my experiment correctly and I wish to test your
methodology.
If you refuse to give me this basic information then you cannot claim
that you have replicated my experiment as there is no way I can check
the authenticity of your `trials` of my proposed experiment. For all I
know you could have changed my experiment and substituted probability
theory and photons to get the results. Yes you can do that as a test
set of seperate trials to act as sort of a comparison against my
version but you also HAVE to redo the experiment following my
guidelines before you can claim that alpha =1 results from MY
Experiment.


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.
Doing my tables by pc is OK as long as it replicate s the same process
I do manually. My impression is that you fundamentally alter the
process instead of duplicating with a computers assistance
[ ... ]

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.

I dont deny you are much more familiar with technology then I am but
this factor definition of yours. You suggest that one particular type
of detector which I dont have the specs for CAN detect all or even
most wavelengths of emr!. I dont believe that. The PMT`s I checked
out had very narrow specs where maybe the max range was a few hundred
nm at most so some did infrared only or others UV etc. AND these PMT
detector materials used were I believe composite in the sense that
several diferent elements where either present or combined as a
molecule. In other words if only one element per PMT is used then the
response ranges would all be much narrower. And remember that also
these ranges when looked at in graph form are not `even response` but
a `rise peak decay` which really isnt the same as a flat response. So
my claim still stands that PMT`s cannot measure all wavelengths but
are only capable of `measuring` minute parts of the emr spectrum and
those are similar to what a resonating wave atom would detect .
Are you really suggesting PMT`s of single element composition can
detect ALL emr or at least most from lets say radio to high energy
gamma? Because thats what they would have to do to account for Davids
and your claim that a QT atom CAN detect all or most frequencies of
radiation.
My argument is that this is wrong and that atoms (in PMT`s ) cannot
detect all frequencies but only narrow bands and those narrow bands
are further restricted to a rise peak decay over only 10`s or maybe a
couple of hundred nm at most. And resonance in a classical model CAN
explain this sort of response over a small range of wavelengths with
the peak at one fixed wavelength. Once again in being dogmatic and pro
QT you try to insinuate that atoms can detect all wavelengths of emr .
Furthermore you ignore the fact that I did say that a wave atom can
detect a small range with a peak centred at one point . That is
exactly what graphs of PMT`s give in HAMAMATSU literature. And nowhere
does the literature say that their PMT`s can detect all wavelengths of
emr.
And finally mechanicall resonance like waves in water sound etc do
give resonace response to narrow bands centred around 1 peak and those
narrow bands in sound are equivelent to the 10-200 nm width type
response in pmts.( that themselves are multiple atoms which increases
their response width more than one element would)

And finally to reiterate. You claim to have duplicated my mathematical
experiment that proves that classical theory CAN explain the
photoelectric effect without using probabilities or photons. .. OK
show me the details of this experiment you say you conducted as I dont
believe you have recreated it according to my guidelines.I will then
check first that you have indeed followed the correct parameters and
not used probabilities or photons and whether you have set seperate
atom filled values . And second once those guideline have been met
and approved I will manually run my own tests to check your
calculations.
Sean