recoiling photons evidence?

"ralph sansbury" wrote in message
...
Craig,
Glad to see you finally realize the value of Maxwell's
magnetic explanation of radiation pressure in addition to the
conservation of momentum explanation re the Compton effect and
other measurments of radiation pressure.
The whole reason for defining the photon was that Maxwell's
equations could not explain the photoelectric effect. That is,
Maxwell's spread out wave could not explain the nanosecond
quickness of the UV radiation source imparting enough energy to
eject electrons from a photoemissive surface.
So Einstein and others said the energy of the radiation,
instead of being spread out in a massless wave must be
concentrated in a massless particle moving like the massless wave
front at the speed of light.
So it may not be possible to conflate the two concepts to say
the oscillating electric field like the oscillating charge in its
source is compressed inside the photon and so can induce
oscillating charge in the receiver and at the same time
magnetically push on and be pushed by the receiver; and that
the photon emitted by the receiver as a result of this induced
oscillation would also push on and be pushed by the receiver.
I also recall the comment in some text that the photon concept
was applicable for UV and above but not for visible light and
lower frequencies.

No,
that's the other part of the reason for invoking photons to explain the
photoelectric effect. A photon of red energy does not have enough energy to
eject an electron, whereas a UV photon does. The photon concept is still
applicable.


DaveL

Thus it is not obvious to me at the moment which formula to use
to assess the magnetic effect of the 10^26Wsun and the 20kW
earth transmitter on induced oscillations in the spacecraft or on
the 8W oscillations of the spacecraft transmitter.
And it is not obvious to me yet the error in the detected
frequency of the Doppler shift from Pioneer 10. I feel you and
George overstate it and that it may be very small but not as
small you as claim. Would it be small enough to detect
specifically small pressure effects?
Ralph


"Craig Markwardt" wrote in
message news

"ralph sansbury" writes:
[ Markwardt: ]
Free atoms
are pushed around by laser light. These systems are all
small
compared to the distance to the radiator.

But the magnetic fields of the laser source are strong
enough
at these distances to produce the observed radiation
pressure.

I note your continued use of arbitrary terms like "strong
enough."

Again, your requirements of "weak" and "strong," and
"nearby" and
"distant," are completely arbitrary, to the extent that you
could
arbitrarily reject any evidence not to your liking.

As you can clearly see from my correction to the above
there is nothing arbitrary here. The point is that the
source and
the receiver must be in the case of weak sources near the
receiver
and in the case of the sun etc the receiver can be more
distant.

Without a definition of those terms, your distinction is
completely
arbitrary. Maxwell's equations do not distinguish between an 8
W
transmitter (Pioneer 10), or a 2 x 10^{26} Watt transmitter
(the Sun).

CM

"ralph sansbury" writes:
Glad to see you finally realize the value of Maxwell's
magnetic explanation of radiation pressure in addition to the
conservation of momentum explanation re the Compton effect and
other measurments of radiation pressure.

Finally? Of course Maxwell's equations are valuable. As I've said
many times, under both classical and quantum mechanics,
electromagnetic radiation carries momentum. Maxwell does not have a
"magnetic explanation" for radiation pressure.

Thus it is not obvious to me at the moment which formula to use
to assess the magnetic effect of the 10^26Wsun and the 20kW
earth transmitter on induced oscillations in the spacecraft or on
the 8W oscillations of the spacecraft transmitter.

What is obvious to your or not is really not relevant.

And it is not obvious to me yet the error in the detected
frequency of the Doppler shift from Pioneer 10. I feel you and
George overstate it and that it may be very small but not as
small you as claim. Would it be small enough to detect
specifically small pressure effects?

If you would read some of the papers, it would be obvious. Confidence
limits are quoted in the abstracts. Within the papers, the estimated
uncertainty analyses are extensive.

CM

"Craig Markwardt" wrote in
message news

"ralph sansbury" writes:
Glad to see you finally realize the value of
Maxwell's
magnetic explanation of radiation pressure in addition to the
conservation of momentum explanation re the Compton effect
and
other measurments of radiation pressure.

Finally? Of course Maxwell's equations are valuable. As I've
said
many times, under both classical and quantum mechanics,
electromagnetic radiation carries momentum. Maxwell does not
have a
"magnetic explanation" for radiation pressure.

Yes he does The time average of F=qvB is the magnetic force
where B=E/c so that qE times v/c is the rate of change of the
product of force times distance or energy divided by time and
the energy divided by c is the momentum.



Thus it is not obvious to me at the moment which formula to
use
to assess the magnetic effect of the 10^26Wsun and the 20kW
earth transmitter on induced oscillations in the spacecraft
or on
the 8W oscillations of the spacecraft transmitter.

What is obvious to your or not is really not relevant.

It is a question I assumed you were interested in or
otherwise why continue this.

And it is not obvious to me yet the error in the detected
frequency of the Doppler shift from Pioneer 10. I feel you
and
George overstate it and that it may be very small but not as
small you as claim. Would it be small enough to detect
specifically small pressure effects?

If you would read some of the papers, it would be obvious.

I see conclusions but no clearly stated reasons.

Confidence
limits are quoted in the abstracts. Within the papers, the
estimated
uncertainty analyses are extensive.

Again I dont see any clearly stated reasons for these
conclusions.

Ralph

Craig,
I think this shows pretty clearly the magnetic force implict in
the calculation of photon momentum and pressure.
I think it also shows a fundamental flaw in quantum mechanics.
That is, the magnetic field in a photon emitted by a radiation
source
perhaps even if less than xray and uv fequency, would appear to
act back
on the source and there would be a recoil of the source as
result.
However there are implicit oscillating fields there are no
oscillating charged masses in the emitted
photons. Anyway what is the evidence of such recoil in the
(2)10^26
W sun or 20 kilowatt DSN transmitter or 8 W craft transmitter or
whatever?
That is in the Compton example the linear movement of the
electron
and its oscillations at a lower frequency than the xray source
could be
caused by the magnetic effect between xray source and
oscillations
in or around receiver electron
as opposed to between photon emitted at the receiver and the
electron.
Ralph

"ralph sansbury" wrote in message
...

"Craig Markwardt" wrote
in
message news

"ralph sansbury" writes:
Glad to see you finally realize the value of
Maxwell's
magnetic explanation of radiation pressure in addition to
the
conservation of momentum explanation re the Compton effect
and
other measurments of radiation pressure.

Finally? Of course Maxwell's equations are valuable. As I've
said
many times, under both classical and quantum mechanics,
electromagnetic radiation carries momentum. Maxwell does not
have a
"magnetic explanation" for radiation pressure.

Yes he does The time average of F=qvB is the magnetic force
where B=E/c so that qE times v/c is the rate of change of the
product of force times distance or energy divided by time and
the energy divided by c is the momentum.



Thus it is not obvious to me at the moment which formula
to
use
to assess the magnetic effect of the 10^26Wsun and the
20kW
earth transmitter on induced oscillations in the spacecraft
or on
the 8W oscillations of the spacecraft transmitter.

What is obvious to your or not is really not relevant.

It is a question I assumed you were interested in or
otherwise why continue this.

And it is not obvious to me yet the error in the
detected
frequency of the Doppler shift from Pioneer 10. I feel you
and
George overstate it and that it may be very small but not
as
small you as claim. Would it be small enough to detect
specifically small pressure effects?

If you would read some of the papers, it would be obvious.

I see conclusions but no clearly stated reasons.

Confidence
limits are quoted in the abstracts. Within the papers, the
estimated
uncertainty analyses are extensive.

Again I dont see any clearly stated reasons for these
conclusions.

Ralph

"ralph sansbury" writes:
I think it also shows a fundamental flaw in quantum mechanics.
That is, the magnetic field in a photon emitted by a radiation
source perhaps even if less than xray and uv fequency, would appear
to act back on the source and there would be a recoil of the source
as result.

So you admit that, at least under classical electromagnetics, there
could be recoil force due to emitted radiation pressure?

However there are implicit oscillating fields there are no
oscillating charged masses in the emitted
photons.

Electrons in atomic orbitals are oscillating charges.


CM