View Single Post
  #9  
Old August 11th 03, 03:54 PM
Aleksandr Timofeev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:4EWYa.7556$2g.401@fed1read05...
Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
m...
Dear David,

Until you are trying to find a phenomenon in which wave physics
'doesn't work', and another phenomenon which is at least so-so
described by photon theory, you will be unable to grasp the essence of
issues.

First, before shoving the photon theory to the photoeffect, you should
determine, what are the properties of photon particles interacting
with electrons. In all previous posts you were, and surely will be
unable to do it.

Second, there exists a great difference between the quantum conception
of Planck - Niels Bohr and that by Einstein - Max Born. Remember, the
stunning results have been obtained just with the Bohr's conception.
But - I already wrote it in other threads - Bohr was an open opponent
of photon particles. And he was right, because it is field, not photon
particle what interacts with orbital electrons and electron gas.

Third, to calculate correctly the photoeffect on the basis of wave
theory, we have to take into account that on the surface of any
MATERIAL (be it metal, semi-conductor either dielectric) always exists
a surface potential. Compensating it, you can excite a current in
vacuum without any photoeffect - just what we see in diodes. When EM
wave excites the surface electrons, it promotes them to get the
potential barrier over. And this is the whole of problem.

Note, so-called photoeffect exists also in dielectrics, only it's
called otherwise. But the essence is the same. In order, the
phenomenology of phenomenon interpreted through the photon theory to
be consistent with the physics of process, you have first, your
photons to be not the 'boot-laces'. Or 'laces' will interact with
particles in unpredicted way. ;-)

I'm pro your suggestion to study things in turn and detailed. Only,
please don't avoid the questions and don't apply stupid relativistic
tricks to find a least proof, at least perverted, to confirm that
their gibberish is great. If you actually want to sort the issue out,
let us see its heart.


I guess we are done. Thank you for the conversation.


Thus, we are convinced once again,
that the so-called orthodox science is religion.

David A. Smith