Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:MUWdb.26932$gv5.11511@fed1read05...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
...

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g. google.com

VLBI is the direct experimental proof glaring inaccuracy of a
hypothesis about existence of "photon" as a particle and
" "particle-wave duality" model ".

Which I see no proof of, and you will next draw your little antenna
diagrams to **** off various persons. If all objects are spatially
extended, then *here* is also to some extent *there*. Any particle can
behave like a wave.

But not any wave has behaviour similar to a DeBroigle's particle...

The Bohm-DeBroigle theory is on the wrong track when it postulates
* both * particles and waves for light. ;o)))

1. Burke B.F., Quantum Interference Paradox, Nature, 223, 389-390,
1969.
2. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

Steve Carlip:

On the other hand, it certainly *is* possible, and not too
hard, to give compelling evidence that the classical wave
theory has serious problems. Three strong arguments are
prompt electrons in the photoelectric effect,

the behavior of a single photon in a beam-splitter

Aleksandr Timofeev:

See disproof of "the behavior of a single photon in a
beam-splitter " located below.

, and (slightly more
complicated, but not by much) photon antibunching.


Martin Green:

But you seem happy to use misleading arguments about the
photo-electric effect to help build up your "preponderance
of evidence from different sources"....as long as you don't
claim the photo-electric effect is enough "by itself".

What *specific* ``misleading arguments'' are you accusing
me of?

And by the way, just because you cannot understand my
reasons for holding these opinions, it doesn't mean that they
are "silly", as you called them.

I used the word ``silly'' in one instance. It had virtually nothing
to do with your ``reasons for holding these opinions''; it had
to do with your instant and apparently reflexive dismissal of
an example of a conceptually simple experiment that showed
the existence of photons.

Let me repeat it, and perhaps you can tell me specifically why
you don't think it's suitable for undergraduates. The idea is
simple: trap what should be one photon's worth of light on an
optical table, send it through a beam-splitter, and see if you
can divide it in half. If a semiclassical wave theory is right, the
beam-splitter should split the wave in half, and if one half has a
probability p of triggering a detector, there will be a probability
p^2 that both detectors will be triggered. If quantum theory is
right, the single photon will trigger one detector or the other,
but never both.

Just in the given place of your physical interpretation
"the behavior of a single photon in a beam-splitter"
there is a methodological error.

This methodological error is mixing of two insulated
physical processes in one whole:

1. Process of transiting of electromagnetic
radiation through slots of an interferometer.

2. Process of shaping of an interference pattern.

Now there is a rather new type of an interferometer
- VLBI, in which one this methodological error is
demonstrated in the bright and decisive form:

The interference picture in VLBI (interferometer)
is pure mathematical abstraction, since the construction
of an interference pattern is carried out in the computer.
In VLBI there is no direct physical process of addition
" of waves " passing through slots!


Whether you can give physical interpretation
of principles of operation for an VLBI (interferometer)
from the photon point of view?

There are two graphic schemes illustrating the description:


Step 1.

The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 1.
----------------------------------------------------------
Block scheme.


.. [videotape 1] [videotape 2]
.. ^ ^
.. | |
.. radio-receiver 1 radio-receiver 2
.. | |
.. | Length of VLBI basis = Earth diametr |
.. |--------------------- {snip} ------------------|
.. /^\ antenna 1 antenna 2 /^\



..^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ {snip} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
..| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
.. Noise microwave radiation


VLBI (interferometer) simultaneously record the information
reflecting a state of an electromagnetic field in space of each
slot (from the antenna) on a magnetic tape, it is natural that
for each slot/antenna we use a separate magnetic tape.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^


Step 2.

.. The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 2.
.. ----------------------------------------------------------

.. "Interference pattern"
.. ^
.. |
.. [videotape 1] ------ [ COMPUTER ] ---------- [videotape 2]


The VLBI interference is a new kind of an interference -
so-called postponed in time or virtual interference, i.e.
abstractly or mathematically realizabled interference in the
computer.

In any time, convenient for us, we input the information from
macroscopic magnetic tapes in the computer and mathematically
on any required (demanded) algorithm (which can be changed at any
time) we obtain an interference in representation, necessary for us.



The physical principles of operation of an VLBI
(interferometer) enable physically to divide two physical
processes:

Step 1. Process of transiting of electromagnetic radiation
through slots of an interferometer.

Step 2. Process of shaping of an interference pattern.

Note 1. The interference pattern in VLBI (interferometer)
is pure mathematical abstraction, since the construction
of an interference pattern is carried out in the computer.
Note 2. Here there is no direct physical process
of addition " of waves " passing through slots!

How does the possibility of addition
" of parts of a single photon " from two magnetic tapes?

Is it possible? Or is it impossible?

What's so hard about that?


How do you get ``what should be one photon's worth of light''?
Easy: you gather the light from a single atomic transition. There
are various ways of doing this (atomic cascades to trigger a shutter,
using a parametric downconverter, etc.), but the details don't
really matter much---if you get the quantum result, you know
that your triggering mechanism succeeded in capturng a single
photon. There are some technical details in the analysis, having
to do with accidental coincidences when your shutter isn't fast
enough, but it only takes a few lines of simple math to show that
the quantum result is still drastically different from the classical
one.

What's so hard about that?

Steve Carlip

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com






But you still cannot describe the photoelectric effect, unless a photon is
also a particle (or quanta).

I did(made) this proof already many times, but...

The photon is mathematical abstraction, which in the implicit
(latent) form reflects existence of discrete power levels in
microsystems and as a corollary a capability of exchange by
electromagnetic energy between systems only by discrete portions.


Regards
Aleksandr Timofeev

PS Dr. Rodney B. Hall of the University of Iowa writes:

" Perhaps faith or the lack of it is simply a matter
of indoctrination. You have been indoctrinated
by the priests or the professors or both. "

http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_toc.html

How nice.


David A. Smith

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
m...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:MUWdb.26932$gv5.11511@fed1read05...
....
PS Dr. Rodney B. Hall of the University of Iowa writes:

" Perhaps faith or the lack of it is simply a matter
of indoctrination. You have been indoctrinated
by the priests or the professors or both. "

http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_toc.html

Since you are done with your own original words. and are referring back to
proofs you never offered, we are done. One conversation with Sergey is
enough.

David A. Smith

"sean" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

Nope, the restoring force pushing the water back down must be
proportonal to the height to get a sine wave. The power is
force times velocity. As the water passes horizontal there
is no force and maximum speed. As it continues to rise the force
is downwards but the speed is upwards so energy lost is
negative, the water gains potential energy but the force is
acting to slow the water so it loses kinetic energy. When it
is static at the top, it has maximum potential and no kinetic
energy.

Hi George

Hi Sean, I've trimmed all but the reference to "restoring
force" for context. I assume you now see why your use of
"capacitor-like" was confusing me. I'm sure you will find
a more appropriate analogy.

Interesting and very informative points you offer, thanks. I am
interested in particular in the points you mention above regarding the
length of the electron orbit being comparable to the containing energy
and the word you use `restoring force` which I sort of get but not
quite. Its a complex idea summarized briefly so I have guess a bit to
connect it together.

The simplest example is for a mass and spring. If you
displace the mass from its rest position, there is a
force from the spring that tries to restore it to the
rest position. That force will accelerate the mass but
when it gets back to that rest position, it is still
moving so momentum carries it past and so it oscillates.

I used the term loosely, in an electrical LC circuit,
the equivalent is the voltage that 'forces' the electrons
through the components.

I assume that a resonant system `breaks down if the incoming energy
input is too great` and the limit you mention is breached. What
happens to a classical resonating system if its pushed past its
limit?

That depends on the system but "resonance" just refers
to the phenomenon of the system absorbing more power
when a driving force is applied at the natural frequency.

I assume in strings the string snaps , releasing the energy. In
a vibrating jug of water its harder to visualize the result. Maybe the
water suddenly sprays randomly about and explodes.

Think of the classical example, an opera singer shattering
a wine glass. That it is an example of resonance is clear
because she has to get exactly the right note and hold it
for some time while the energy in the vibration builds up.

I think part of the reason I go for a wave only analogy is sometimes
the standard model of particles seems to not make sense. For instance
if a photon hits the electron and ejects it from its orbit thats
called photoelectric effect. What happens then when a photon of not
enough energy hits the electron? Obviuosly it doesnt eject an electron
so theres no photoelectric effect.

Right, or there is enough energy to displace it from the
atom but not from the bulk of the material.

Is the result just a reflected
photon with some energy lost and called the compton effect?

You can see the material so some photons are reflected.
The Compton effect is specifically about free electrons
but is an example of what you describe.

The other
unexplained is where does the energy lost in the compton effect go to?
I cant find any refernce that accounts for the lost energy except to
guess and say that maybe the electron that got hit by the photon has
increased energy taken from that lost by the photon.

Correct, and in fact that is essential analysing what happens:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...tonEffect.html

Note the two key points, momentum and energy are both
conserved.

But then the atom
and that electron are in a different heightened state and not only do
I find no reference to this it seems that this heightened state should
be observed as a increase in something observed. It just doesnt seem
to work for a particle theory from what I have read .

For an electron bound to an atom in a surface, the whole atom
can be affected. It is like hitting a knot in the middle of a
net, the energy dissipates into the bulk of the material.
Basically, the surface will be warmed up very slightly as the
vibration of the atom caused by the impact gets turned into
heat. The warming of the material when considering the
photoelectric effect is a side-effect so is seldom mentioned.

The bottom line is that energy and momentum must both
be conserved in any interaction.

Take a more detailed look at a PMT`s response frequency range. A graph
shows that there is an increase -peak- decline in energy detected by
the PMT as the wavelength of the incident light increases so the
sensitivity is not centered on one frequency but across a small range
and at different levels. How does the photon-electron model account
for this. If it was only one frequency of photon that has the energy
to eject the electron then you would have thought that the response
graph would be a single spike at just one frequency with no attack
decay.

The graphs are different, you are not comparing like
with like.

Either the electron gets ejected or it doesnt. A slightly lower
energy photon cant just `partly` eject an electron .

Correct and that is what is seen in lab, look at the graph at
the bottom but note also this is NOT using the same scales
as the PMT response curves.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/quant/node3.html

The line is straight and reaches zero at some frequency. Below
that frequency there are no electrons emitted no matter how
bright the light or how long it shines.

Above that cutoff frequency, you get electrons emitted and
what is shown on this graph is how much energy they have.
The photon arrives with energy hv and W is used up getting
the electron free of the surface. The remaining energy then
remains with the electron in the form of kinetic energy, it
is moving and some move towards the other plate. You can
measure how much energy the electron has by applying a
voltage between the plates that repels the electron. The
result is that the electron has maximum energy E whe

E = hv - W

where W is the work done to release the electron.

Note this implies you could get one electron per photon
at best. The brighter the light, the greater the current
that will flow.

Yet we get a
gradual increase and decrease of energy by the PMT as the input light
is increased in wavelength.

No, you get a gradual increase and decrease of _efficiency_,
the number of electrons per photon that are released. Nothing
is perfect. 100% means one electron per photon but says
nothing of the energy of the electron on emission.

And for that matter one would also have thought that any photon above
that level/frequency would have ejected the electron and still
continued its path deflected and at a lower frequency .

That is one reason why some electrons have less than the
maximum energy. The lab test increases the voltage until
the current falls to zero to find the maximum energy, but
the current will reduce as that voltage is approached.

The higher the
energy photon the less energy it loses . So a response graph for the
photoelectric effect should be that ABOVE the lowest energy electron
level that electron will always be ejected provided the incident
radiation photon was at that energy level or higher AND a additional
deflected lower energy photon should be detected .

Unless the photon is absorbed by, for example, a protective
glass cover before reaching the photoelectric material. That
may well happen to the short wave lengths for example in these
curves.

http://www.hpk.co.jp/Eng/products/ETD/pdf/m-specte.pdf

Yet the PMT
response graphs show a sharp fall off as the frequency of the photon
increases, and I find no mention of an associated refelcted light of
less energy than incident . That to me doesnt fit particle theory .

You are looking at practical devices with real world
limitations.

If I can interpret the length of the electron orbit which you say is
in a sense equivelent to what is containing the system . So in a
vibrating water jug the length of the electron orbit is equivelent to
the jug size and the water density/elasticity.
As an atom has many electron orbits it follows then that it must
have many levels of containment so that it is resonating at many
different frequencies and for each `level` there is a limit or what
you call maximum potential. And each of these `levels` can be defined
or measured as having distinct and seperate frequencies. I wonder , if
that is a correct interpretation then can one level effect another.
For instance.. an atom resonates at two electron levels: 200nm and
400nm and if an input of light at 200nm raises the energy level of
the 200nm `electron orbit` it must also raise the level of the 400nm
electron orbit as it is a multiple of the 200nm level.

It doesn't "raise the level of the orbit", it moves the
electron from one orbit to another. Imagine there is an
orbit at radius r where n cycles of the electron fit
into a circumference and the electron has energy E, and
there is another orbit at radius r' where n+1 cycles of
the electron would fit and it would have energy E'. Now
if there is an electron at radius r and a photon with
energy hv = E' - E arrives, it can move the electron up
to the higher orbit. The momentum is transferred to the
atom too of course.

The electron can return to the lower orbit and will emit
radiation at that same frequency hv = E' - E.

Or if the
electron level is only at 400 nm any multiple of that frequency should
effect that one level when incident on the atom.
Unfortunately I dont have any reference for an atoms emission spectra
in nm. Usually its just a plain black bar with coloured stripes
without any wavelengths numbers written on it to refer to.

The simplest example is for hydrogen:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html

(wavelengths in the table at the bottom) but the most
easily observed is sodium:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...um/sodium.html

Check your street lights ;-)


A _simple_ resonant system is like a flywheel, it stores
energy in a vibrating system but you need some sort of
non-linearity to convert it to other frequencies.

Aleksandr and Sergey have been talking a lot about complex
systems where multiple resonant circuits at different
frequencies are coupled together with non-linear parts
in various places.

Sorry, neither capacitors nor resonant systems quantise
anything. You can treat an electron in orbit round the
nuleus as a resonant system but it only accepts power
at it natural frequency, that's what resonance means.

That can be used to explain spectral lines but of course
it is the opposite of what you want for the photo-electric
effect. In that, once you exceed the threshold, the ejected
electron energy is

E = hv - W

Thats interesting . You suggest here that an atom as a resonating
particle even in QT is considered to eject its `electron ` only once
the `threshold ` has been exceeded due to increasing input energy.

Nope, the electron is constrained by the nucleus to form
a 'resonant system'. The electron can only jump between
levels that are well defined giving very narrow spectral
lines. The photoelectric effect is like shooting a satellite
out of orbit with a bullet. You need hit it with enough
energy to exceed escape velocity. After that, whatever
excess energy there was is carried of by the satellite
as kinetic energy.

In the energy diagrams on those web pages, note that the
higher numbers get closer together. It takes les energy
to jump up a level when the electron is farther from the
nucleus. There is a limit for n = infinity and you have
to provide that amount of energy to free the electron
from the atom.

Is
that not essentially what I was suggesting a wave only atom is doing
as a resonating system when it reaches its maximum limit, is breached
and ejects a pulse of stored energy in one go? I dont see a
difference there.

The difference is subtle but important. I think you were
assuming the atom could store a smoothly varying amount
of energy whereas resonance implies specific frequencies
and hence specific levels.

Isnt the electron ejected due to threshold
`breached` essentially the same as saying :A wave only atom has input
driving force of one frequency of light . Once the resonating
frequency( the same as that of the light) has its maximum amplitude
breached from the input driving wavelength it then releases its stored
energy in one pulse. You call that pulse an electron . QT gets around
explaining how wave only energy can build incrementally to produce a
pulse called a electron by saying that all the wave energy came in one
photon that knocked out the electron.

No, QT doesn't say that at all, it doesn't build an electron
incrementally.

The concept of the electron is QTs explanation only. It must surely
be the case that in classically observed resonating systems like
strings, water etc, a cataclysmic release of stored up excess energy
is also observed when the maximum is breached. What would happen is
the string may break or the water spray out of the jug. In classical
systems they only just ` break` whereas in a wave only atom it could
break, release its energy as observed(and sometimes called a electron)
and reset itself to the original amplitude . Surely this is a valid
explanation for wave only theory. I realize that my initial approach
to explain it in terms of different frequency input only (maybe)
explains the emmission spectra but maybe still an increases in
amplitude past the maximum can create the right conditions in
classically observed resonant systems. For instance if the input light
is lower the maximum amplitude is breached less frequently . THats
observed in PMT`s. The lower the light level the less frequent the
amount of blips `photons` are recorded
And for a clasical resonant system could one then also say that if the
amplitude of the input driving force is less then the maximum is
breached slower. If that same system were able to reset itself like
for instance if one could instantly change a broken guitar string then
the effect would be that ones string would break every 1/2 a second
under a certain amplitude of input driving force and if that driving
force were doubled lets say , the string might break every 1/4 of a
second?
It all hinges on what is observed in cklassical resonating systems
when the maximum is breached and I have no information on that. I
wonder even if that has been studied?

Things that break are studied, and resonant systems are studied
(mostly to prevent it) but resonance isn't about breaking things,
apart from wineglasses perhaps ;-)

If the input circuit of your radio exploded every time you tuned
in a station you would not be pleased!

George

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:MUWdb.26932$gv5.11511@fed1read05...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
...

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g. google.com

VLBI is the direct experimental proof glaring inaccuracy of a
hypothesis about existence of "photon" as a particle and
" "particle-wave duality" model ".

Which I see no proof of, and you will next draw your little antenna
diagrams to **** off various persons. If all objects are spatially
extended, then *here* is also to some extent *there*. Any particle can
behave like a wave.

But not any wave has behaviour similar to a DeBroigle's particle...

The Bohm-DeBroigle theory is on the wrong track when it postulates
* both * particles and waves for light. ;o)))

************************************************** **************
Below I destroy the myth of self-interference of "photon";
" - photons, like all particles can be made to self-interfere "
************************************************** **************

***

1. Burke B.F., Quantum Interference Paradox, Nature, 223, 389-390,
1969.
2. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

Steve Carlip:

On the other hand, it certainly *is* possible, and not too
hard, to give compelling evidence that the classical wave
theory has serious problems. Three strong arguments are
prompt electrons in the photoelectric effect,

the behavior of a single photon in a beam-splitter

Aleksandr Timofeev:

************************************************** ****
************************************************** ****
See disproof of "the behavior of a single photon in a
beam-splitter " located below.
************************************************** ****
************************************************** ****

, and (slightly more
complicated, but not by much) photon antibunching.


Martin Green:

But you seem happy to use misleading arguments about the
photo-electric effect to help build up your "preponderance
of evidence from different sources"....as long as you don't
claim the photo-electric effect is enough "by itself".

What *specific* ``misleading arguments'' are you accusing
me of?

And by the way, just because you cannot understand my
reasons for holding these opinions, it doesn't mean that they
are "silly", as you called them.

I used the word ``silly'' in one instance. It had virtually nothing
to do with your ``reasons for holding these opinions''; it had
to do with your instant and apparently reflexive dismissal of
an example of a conceptually simple experiment that showed
the existence of photons.

Let me repeat it, and perhaps you can tell me specifically why
you don't think it's suitable for undergraduates. The idea is
simple: trap what should be one photon's worth of light on an
optical table, send it through a beam-splitter, and see if you
can divide it in half. If a semiclassical wave theory is right, the
beam-splitter should split the wave in half, and if one half has a
probability p of triggering a detector, there will be a probability
p^2 that both detectors will be triggered. If quantum theory is
right, the single photon will trigger one detector or the other,
but never both.

Just in the given place of your physical interpretation
"the behavior of a single photon in a beam-splitter"
there is a methodological error.

This methodological error is mixing of two insulated
physical processes in one whole:

1. Process of transiting of electromagnetic
radiation through slots of an interferometer.

2. Process of shaping of an interference pattern.

Now there is a rather new type of an interferometer
- VLBI, in which one this methodological error is
demonstrated in the bright and decisive form:

The interference picture in VLBI (interferometer)
is pure mathematical abstraction, since the construction
of an interference pattern is carried out in the computer.
In VLBI there is no direct physical process of addition
" of waves " passing through slots!


Whether you can give physical interpretation
of principles of operation for an VLBI (interferometer)
from the photon point of view?

There are two graphic schemes illustrating the description:


Step 1.

The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 1.
----------------------------------------------------------
Block scheme.


... [videotape 1] [videotape 2]
... ^ ^
... | |
... radio-receiver 1 radio-receiver 2
... | |
... | Length of VLBI basis = Earth diametr |
... |--------------------- {snip} ------------------|
... /^\ antenna 1 antenna 2 /^\



...^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ {snip} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
...| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
... Noise microwave radiation


VLBI (interferometer) simultaneously record the information
reflecting a state of an electromagnetic field in space of each
slot (from the antenna) on a magnetic tape, it is natural that
for each slot/antenna we use a separate magnetic tape.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^


Step 2.

... The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 2.
... ----------------------------------------------------------

... "Interference pattern"
... ^
... |
... [videotape 1] ------ [ COMPUTER ] ---------- [videotape 2]


The VLBI interference is a new kind of an interference -
so-called postponed in time or virtual interference, i.e.
abstractly or mathematically realizabled interference in the
computer.

In any time, convenient for us, we input the information from
macroscopic magnetic tapes in the computer and mathematically
on any required (demanded) algorithm (which can be changed at any
time) we obtain an interference in representation, necessary for us.



The physical principles of operation of an VLBI
(interferometer) enable physically to divide two physical
processes:

Step 1. Process of transiting of electromagnetic radiation
through slots of an interferometer.

Step 2. Process of shaping of an interference pattern.

Note 1. The interference pattern in VLBI (interferometer)
is pure mathematical abstraction, since the construction
of an interference pattern is carried out in the computer.
Note 2. Here there is no direct physical process
of addition " of waves " passing through slots!

How does the possibility of addition
" of parts of a single photon " from two magnetic tapes?

Is it possible? Or is it impossible?

What's so hard about that?


How do you get ``what should be one photon's worth of light''?
Easy: you gather the light from a single atomic transition. There
are various ways of doing this (atomic cascades to trigger a shutter,
using a parametric downconverter, etc.), but the details don't
really matter much---if you get the quantum result, you know
that your triggering mechanism succeeded in capturng a single
photon. There are some technical details in the analysis, having
to do with accidental coincidences when your shutter isn't fast
enough, but it only takes a few lines of simple math to show that
the quantum result is still drastically different from the classical
one.

What's so hard about that?

Steve Carlip

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com








But you still cannot describe the photoelectric effect, unless a photon is
also a particle (or quanta).


I made this proof already many times, but...
For example:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com


The photon is mathematical abstraction, which in the implicit
(latent) form reflects existence of discrete power levels in
microsystems and as a corollary a capability of exchange by
electromagnetic energy between systems only by discrete Plank's E/M wave
portions. ;o)


================================================== ============
The hypothesis " of a phlogiston - photon " is excessive
both error from an epistemological and physical point of view.
================================================== ============

How nice.

David A. Smith

Please David answer quantum "paradox" circumscribed by me.

David do not evade.

Dest regards
Aleksandr

David,

What for have we to play Bilge? You see, he came and went away with
the same - to normalise his longitudinal photons with respect to
energy (if only he is able to do any thing with respect...). We also
will not analyse your flights along my questions. As well as, who
actually flew from one topic to another and made appearance that
nothing of the kind.

Let us stop on one item - your awareness in vibration theory; by this
we will judge, whether you have grounds for your categorical
assertions. To make so, let us copy-and-paste that place from my text
which you snipped in order to blur your answer and to blame me that
you are not aware in these matters.

The snipped text was following:

**************

Citation from my previous post:

5) To the point, you are saying, you didn't see my reference to the
solutions for mechanical systems. Again strange... Wasn't it you who
suggested me to enlighten the newsgroup, how do I yield them? If you
forgot, I can simply repeat this place from that my post to you.

Citation from my post to David A. Smith of 29.08.2003:

[Sergey]
Okay. Since you put the question point-blank and state that you know
in resonance systems what I don't, and also

[David]
There is no difficulty in expressing the formulas for resonance. And
the
behaviour is well known in lots of different types of systems.

[Sergey]
I will not bother you with complicated systems. Please go to page 42
of our paper "OSCILLATION PATTERN FEATURES IN MISMATCHED FINITE
ELECTRIC LADDER FILTERS"

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...42/load42.html

and see formulas (23) - (25). This is the exact analytical solution
for a heterogeneous line shown in Fig. 4a in the same page. You can
make sure, these solutions are exact. It is sufficient for it to
compare the diagrams in Fig. 6, page 44

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...44/load44.html

plotted with these formulas, with the experimental diagrams in Fig.
10, page 46

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...46/load46.html

The calculation of this mechanical elastic line is surely simple,
takes several pages and a trifle of time. Please do show me, how I
made it. This will make me sure that when I begin telling you, I will
not see glassy eyes. ;-)

Uncitation.

Not so long time ago... and the indicated formulas (23) - (25) are the
solution namely for mechanical system shown in Fig. 4a, as I said it
in the cited piece of post. And there was said about your absent
glassy sight, of intentional misunderstanding of questions I ask you.

End of citation from my previous post.

***************

Thus, I repeat my question:

PLEASE DO SHOW ME, HOW I MADE IT.

This question concerns my solutions (23)-(25). Before these solutions
in page 42 you see the following text:

Citation from the referred paper:

Take as the mechanical analogue a finite elastic lumped line shown
in Fig. 4a, whose last (n + 1)th element has the mass M different from
the rest of elements. The exact analytical solutions for this model
have the following form: ...

Uncitation from the referred paper.

Besides, in the above mentioned formulas, dependencies Delta of shifts
of related masses are expressed through the masses of elements M and
m, stiffness of constraint s, amplitude of affecting force F_0 and
frequency omega of the external force affection. You can ask
electrical engineers, whether these parameters characterise electric
circuits. If these parameters say nothing to you mechanical engineer,
- well, I'm just saying, it's senseless to discuss serious topics with
you. Is it for bridges or not, only for bridges or not - we will
discuss later, when you show your elementary level of knowledge. I
also expect that you will specify, where in the cited text I say, this
model is supposed to be the analogue for photoelectric effect.

At this point I would stop further consideration and wait until you
corroborate your ability to discuss at such level. ;-) Until that
time, I can return you yours:

Good to the end, as always, David.

Sergey.


\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:YPqcb.10719$gv5.7812@fed1read05...
Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
You are taking the offended pose and accuse me rude and wrong, but is
it really so?

Top posting is considered rude. You constantly refer to models that are
wrong. You are not wrong, but perhaps only mistaken.

I many times wrote you of contradictions in photon
properties that are the underpinning of theory which you try to
defend. But instead lifting these contradictions in my eyes, you every
time change the subject of our discussion and accuse me hands-waving.
See - even calling me devil again - see:

You are not the devil. You do conjure arguments that are not associated
with the topic at hand. It will not serve either of us to get swayed from
the topic. If you wish to start a new one, then posters that know
something about the topic, and are not inured to speaking with you about it
can do so.

1) We all know, we receive EM waves

"We" do not know this. This is your assertion.

sequentially at the receiver and
then amplify the signal (far from always - if necessary, we can
investigate without amplifying). This is not the matter. The matter
is, what the receiver receives! In order the received signal to have
the time of coherence about 100 hours for radio waves and fractions of
a second for special masers, with your representation of the flow of
infinitesimal photons, photons have to be very well ordered.

As does DNA. But this seems to occur frequently also.

But, as
is known, according to Planck's postulate, all the energy is within
quantum. But to order photons, you need some additional controlling
energy! Or they violate also conservation laws? With your approach,
everything is possible. ;-)

To order photons, you only need a Universe that maintains an "arrow of
time". This is an easy thing. The photons arrive in the order emitted.

2) If your photons are infinitesimal, they would have quite strange
fields. Their E-field would be not central but transverse and lie in
polarisation plane of dynamic EM field. A half of period this field
would be directed to one side, and another half - in opposite
direction. Their H-field would be also very strange. I even don't
mention that photon density in your model would vary along the field
propagation, and in maximums of field strength there has to be
bunching of photons (as you know, the energy of photons having the
same frequency is similar - it means, the alternating field can be
created in this case only and exceptionally by variation of their
density). If we take into account that these photons are emitted by a
huge number of atoms, the additional field that has to order these
photons must be incredibly strong, and it has to propagate with
photons. ;-)

And this all agrees with experiment. In fact they are using light to do
the reverse... manipulate matter based on the magnetic moment the matter
has (or can be induced to have).

3) I separated the substantiation of the last statement to this item.
You are stating, photons interact with each other in absence of any
particles, and particular, of electrons.

Only in head-on collisions. There is no evidence that photons are aware of
one another otherwise. Presumably gravitation would allow hosts of photons
to affect individual members...

The fact that in this case
you may not use QM, neither QED, nor QFT where the opposite has been
proved - this is for your account. You even don't understand: when you
so sufficiently and in all aspects change conventional interpretations
of the theory which you are trying to defend, you in this way
unambiguously admit these theories wrong!!!!!

They cannot be wrong based on my testimony.

But here is also another
aspect. I understand, when you had to admit the infinitesimal size of
photons, you have to admit it charged.

I did no such thing. I also admitted the photon was the width of the
Universe, if you'll recall.

But if photons were charged, it
will lead to the situation that the light beam will be sharply
diverging and no lens can help you to reduce it to a point.

This is your fabrication. You fix the apparent problem.

Furthermore, as all photons move with the same velocity, a part of
photons has to brake the photons following them.

I don't follow why you think this "coupling" would be necessary or
possible.

In this case to
postulate the constant velocity for particles would be ignorant, and
SR will not help you to substantiate such postulates.

In this case, you are talking to your shadow. I have said no such things.

This is the wave
process where the velocity of propagation of process in homogeneous
space is constant - here we haven't such condition connected with the
properties of medium. ;-) To arrange photons in the given shape, you
cannot make it do without some additional field which would carry all
information, as just it will form photon flow. What for are then the
very photons? ;-)

As I have stated to others, and I had thought I had for you, if the photon
is the width of the Universe, the Universe is the medium.

4) Some more about point-sized photons. This is the problem of
instantaneous radiation-absorption. You suggest photon point-sized and
naturally suppose it carrying the field well less than period. Fine!
Please explain me, how does photon carry the information about the
light frequency?

Frequency is observer dependent. This is not the photon's responsibility.

As you know, in one reference frame the light has one
frequency, in second - another, in the third - third frequency. Photon
is not only point-sized and so it cannot contain the information of
frequency, but it cannot transform, since all bodies that move with
the light velocity aren't already subject of any transformations. ;-)

Light has no mass. Therefore the transforms don't apply.

What can change within photon if it doesn't carry any information and
cannot transform as GR? I hear, you are again accusing me in
ignorance... Also fine!

I do not accuse you of ignorance, but of posturing (talking around the
point) and obfuscation (hiding your intentions behind misdirection).

It means, the detected frequency depends on
the velocity with which we receive these flows? Right? ;-) Well, where
is the information of frequency - in photon either in the distance
between photons? This means, the energy of photons doesn't obey Planck
law? ;-) You see, when we change the reference frame, the frequency
changes - it means, the energy changes! ;-) See David, where to brings
you your insistence to do not see and to accuse all us ignorant.

Not "us all", Sergey.

Physician, heal thyself. ;-) You have fully violated - rather, smashed
the postulates and mathematical tool of QM, QED, QFT - and you want to
prove us something? What's the conception on which you rely?

That you again speak to all but what is the point.

To which
papers are you referring?

For which of tens of topics that you have raised in an effort to avoid
supporting "resonance" as a means of describing the photoelectric effect?
Which topic do you need me to produce a paper on?

Which mathematical tool do you use? This to
what you are trying to refer has been built on other postulates, so
even your virtual light particles you may not call photons, as this
word means other concept, this concept has other phenomenology for
which the tool of QM, QED, QFT has been developed.

Your assertions, so far unsupported.

5) Concerning the boundary conditions for light which you don't grasp,
despite Aleksandr's multiple explanations. What namely don't you
understand? In your conception, light consists of photons whose
density varies in space. These photons are permanently emitted by
radiator and somewhere absorbed by receiver.

Good so far...

Of course, you took the
full course of resonance systems! Don't you understand that the
boundary conditions for a flow are determined by the pattern of source
and sink? '-)

Actually only for a bonded structure does the distance between source and
measured displacement come in. Does the work function vary based on how
far apart the source and conductive plate are? Do the electrons get a
different remainder KE? The answer to both is "NO". Your argument is
invalid.

Strange... To the point, you are saying, you didn't see
my reference to the solutions for mechanical systems. Again strange...
Wasn't it you who suggested me to enlighten the newsgroup, how do I
yield them? If you forgot, I can simply repeat this place from that my
post to you.

Thank you. I saw these as electrical circuits, despite the word
"mechanical" embedded therein.

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...42/load42.html

This is the dynamics (essentially) of a bridge, ladder, etc. The
photoelectric effect does not seem to care what the bonding structure of
the base metal is, nor is there a time delay in release of the
photoelectron. This behaviour cannot be expressed by your structure.

Your analog is invalid.

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...44/load44.html

Still more bridge stuff...

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...46/load46.html

Mechanical?

Good to the end, as always Sergey.

David A. Smith

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...

The same in your discussion with George Dishman. I don't discuss his
position: he is supporter of photon theory, so his task is to negate
the wave physics anyway.

You misrepresent me Sergey. If I am considering diffraction,
interference, refraction or other phenomena I treat EM as
waves. If the photon model is more appropriate I will use
that.

For example if I want to know what I will see if I bounce a
laser off the moon, I will divide the pulse energy by hv and
calculate the probability of getting different numbers of
photons in the light collector.

The question is, how do you formulate the
phenomenology of vibration process. Opposing your seeing to George's
opinion on dominating role of boundary for resonance, ...

I don't consider a boundary to have a "dominating role"
directly, rather I would point out that resonance requires
that some energy be carried forward from one cycle of the
oscillatory system to the next otherwise you merely have
"forced oscillations". That can be achieved in many ways
but it is very unusual for it not to define boundary
conditions as well as containing the energy.

George


Dear George,

Perhaps I actually misunderstand you. I'll try to explain in one
respond to both your posts.

On one hand, you are right indeed confirming elastic line with massive
constraints to be linear system. Really, when forced vibrations, the
frequency will not be multiplied. Only the resonance peaks will be
shifted because of resonance of subsystem in elastic constraints. At
the same time, considering free vibrations, in such system not one
harmonic but few at once will resonate - just as in an ideal string
under free vibrations caused by a pick there is present a broad
discrete spectrum of harmonics. All the overtones that create unique
sound of instruments are created by string and only amplified by the
frame. This all is so. At the same time, the fact that conventional
techniques are unable to solve the problems with massive constraints
misled very many people and they considered such linear problems as
nonlinear - and I said you this.

On this background, in another place you are saying, opposing
Aleksandr:

[George]
I say that it is
not "indispensable" and that resonance commonly occurs
in systems where the power is absorbed by a linear
element such as a resistor.

[Sergey]
Actually, to excite resonance vibrations, nonlinear transformer of
energy is not necessary in general case. But the energy absorption by
resistance of the system has no relation to resonance phenomena. On
the contrary, the increase of resistance of the system strongly
decreases resonance peaks. Another thing that at the resonance
frequency the impedance of system becomes active (true, only in quite
simple circuits). But it doesn't mean that just it absorbs the energy
which determines resonance vibrations. Amplitude of resonance
vibrations is some balance between the exciting force and dissipative
ability of the system. The more conservative is system the more will
be vibration amplitude.

Again, you are wondering, what is the difference in your and my seeing
of a child on the waves. We agree, a child, a boat, water and outer
source that excites waves are the elements of some common system in
which we consider vibrations in this case. However you separate the
resonance phenomenon from vibration system but I don't. To call
resonance the independent phenomenon is the same as to try hearing the
sound of guitar when it's absent here. If you heard it before, you can
imagine this sound, but if your opposite person never heard guitar but
knows how banjo sounds, he will associate your attempts to explain how
guitar sounds with the sound of banjo. ;-) Any vibration system has
very versatile kinds of vibrations which scientists at due time have
classified by their features and revelations, but all these kinds are
realised only at different conditions and are inseparable from the
system in which they arise. We considered the channel and saw how one
forms of vibrations transit to another and that there is no difference
between vibrations and wave processes. All these are vibrations, and
the kind of vibrations can be different. So it is fully ignorant to
assert as David does that atom is non-resonant system (the starting
point of this discussion on resonance). Atom is quite resonant system,
and the fact that Niels Bohr's resonance calculations have fully
coincided with the experiment only corroborates this.

I can hardly judge what Aleksandr means saying the nonlinear
transformer necessary, but the system of atom is not so simple as it
seems to you. Bohr couldn't advance above the energetic description of
orbits, the Schroedinger equation is also limited by that level of
knowledge. But what is the orbital electron excitation by external EM
field? Of course, you are right when saying,

[George]
any change in
the energy of an orbiting electron in such a
model would be likely to affect the radius of the
orbit.

But not only. When EM wave excited atom, the wave would be unable to
enlarge the electron's orbit, should the system of atom be linear. We
have also to account that the size of electron's orbit is determined
by its kinetic energy and the frequency of its spin is much higher
than that of the affecting force. So per one revolution the external
field will vary negligibly. If we consider E-component, this feature
will make the electron's orbit swinging! If the swing period coincides
with that of external E-field, the amplitude of these swings will
grow, will not it? ;-) Should the system of atom be linear, the
interaction would be confined to it. But a very important feature
superimposes on it. When in some part of trajectory the field removes
the electron from nucleus, the returning force will decrease! And when
it brings the electron closer to the nucleus, the force grows. And
these variations obey the quadratic regularity. Due to it the
trajectory of the orbit deforms and the electron gains additional
kinetic energy, changing the diameter of orbit. The magnetic component
of the external field, if it is perpendicular to the orbital plane,
will make the orbit pulsing. Thus, E and H components affect so that
if the period of pulses coincides with the period of external field,
these pulses will increase. Is this resonance or not? But this is not
the resonance which we observe in linear systems. I would add, the
field of electron will effectively compensate the external field only
in case if these periods are divisible. Here also is superimposed a
feature related to the increasing force of atom. In the conventional
interpretation this associates with the energy absorption, as the
trajectory grows. At the same time, under definite relationship
between the periods, we will observe pulsation and swing of the
electron's orbit opposite in phase of the external field, and then the
electron begins to emit either to reflect the energy. In sum, there
are many problems. The main difficulty in the problem under
consideration is caused by the quadratic dependence of the field of
nucleus which makes the problem nonlinear and very complicated in
solving. I showed far from all features of interaction, but none the
less, it is not simple problem. David thinks, one can so easy tell it
in the newsgroup for so unaware in theory guy as he is, with his
insistent unwilling and inability to listen, to analyse and to
understand! The task unrealisable even for titans, what to say of us
ordinary mortals. ;-) Some time ago I tried to show to Bilge that
interference means geometrical addition of E-field vectors... He still
remained asserting, if in Bose-Einstein statistics there have been
laid the algebraic summation of boson energies, this is so in reality.

Concerning the boundary conditions. For the resonance we surely need
to localise the energy in space with minimal dissipation. In linear
systems it corresponds to finite lines. In circular systems the
resonance arises with multiple superposition of periods of waves
propagating in the ring. Here we haven't the boundaries in usual
meaning. In vibration systems of atoms the resonance arises in case
when swing periods of orbits coincide with affecting force periods.
There are no boundaries in usual meaning. One cannot guess it, but all
these features are reflected in modelling system of equations, if we
use not some abstractly generalised template but specific system of
differential equations for the specific vibration system. With such
approach, ADDITIONAL giving the boundary conditions is excessive. Just
in such context I said you about boundary conditions and repeated it
multiply in the newsgroups before. Additional boundary conditions only
duplicate the features which we have to reflect in the very system of
equations. And I can repeat, we can "guess" the boundary conditions
only for most simple vibration systems (not for all). For complex
systems with mismatched transitions it is simply impossible. It
means, we have to be not lazy and to solve the system in the form
which describes the specific model. We in our laboratory make so quite
successfully and wish you all to do so. ;-)

As to the resonance of subsystems. The matter is, factually the
resonance subsystems essentially affect the amplitude-frequency
characteristic of the main system. If its resonances are located above
the critical frequency of the main system, they will appear in the
region overcritical for the main system. If its resonances are in the
region of main resonances, this leads to essential shift and
distortion of the main resonances. If the resonances of subsystem are
located below the resonances of the main system, in the
amplitude-frequency characteristic there appear the absorption lines.
Thus, we can control the resonances of subsystem both theoretically
and practically. In my previous post I mentioned one of simplest cases
of wave transformer. As far as I know, it matches well enough. ;-) And
this is far from being the limit of possible. If the colleagues were
thinking of the problems, not of their ambitions, we could do so much
and solve many problems. But things are such as they are. ;-)

Indeed, I answered not all your questions, and probably now you have
even more questions than I lifted. Well, this is natural. Colleagues
try to read the book from its end, while it is written from the
beginning. Naturally, many things remain for them strange. Though this
is their wish. All what I can I try to adopt to the level
understandable for them, but it's too hard to squeeze the camel into a
needle eye. ;-)

Kind regards,

Sergey.

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...

The same in your discussion with George Dishman. I don't discuss his
position: he is supporter of photon theory, so his task is to negate
the wave physics anyway.

You misrepresent me Sergey. If I am considering diffraction,
interference, refraction or other phenomena I treat EM as
waves. If the photon model is more appropriate I will use
that.

For example if I want to know what I will see if I bounce a
laser off the moon, I will divide the pulse energy by hv and
calculate the probability of getting different numbers of
photons in the light collector.

The question is, how do you formulate the
phenomenology of vibration process. Opposing your seeing to George's
opinion on dominating role of boundary for resonance, ...

I don't consider a boundary to have a "dominating role"
directly, rather I would point out that resonance requires
that some energy be carried forward from one cycle of the
oscillatory system to the next otherwise you merely have
"forced oscillations". That can be achieved in many ways
but it is very unusual for it not to define boundary
conditions as well as containing the energy.

George


Dear George,

Perhaps I actually misunderstand you. I'll try to explain in one
respond to both your posts.

On one hand, you are right indeed confirming elastic line with massive
constraints to be linear system. Really, when forced vibrations, the
frequency will not be multiplied. Only the resonance peaks will be
shifted because of resonance of subsystem in elastic constraints. At
the same time, considering free vibrations, in such system not one
harmonic but few at once will resonate - just as in an ideal string
under free vibrations caused by a pick there is present a broad
discrete spectrum of harmonics. All the overtones that create unique
sound of instruments are created by string and only amplified by the
frame. This all is so. At the same time, the fact that conventional
techniques are unable to solve the problems with massive constraints
misled very many people and they considered such linear problems as
nonlinear - and I said you this.

That's a fairly good summary of what I have said and I agree
with it all.

On this background, in another place you are saying, opposing
Aleksandr:

[George]
I say that it is
not "indispensable" and that resonance commonly occurs
in systems where the power is absorbed by a linear
element such as a resistor.

[Sergey]
Actually, to excite resonance vibrations, nonlinear transformer of
energy is not necessary in general case. But the energy absorption by
resistance of the system has no relation to resonance phenomena.

I agree entirely.

On
the contrary, the increase of resistance of the system strongly
decreases resonance peaks.

It can also slightly alter the resonant frequency but that is
usually a very minor effect.

Another thing that at the resonance
frequency the impedance of system becomes active (true, only in quite
simple circuits). But it doesn't mean that just it absorbs the energy
which determines resonance vibrations. Amplitude of resonance
vibrations is some balance between the exciting force and dissipative
ability of the system. The more conservative is system the more will
be vibration amplitude.

Yes, for example in an RLC circuit, the amplitude is
approximately Q times what the input power would produce
if directly connected to the resistor. From conservation,
if a fraction 1/Q is lost per cycle, the amplitude will
be Q times greater to balance the power lost to dissipation
with that obtained from the input. I am sure you also know
why this leads to the amplitude approaching the steady-state
level exponentially on the sudden application of an input.
This is a clear example of the energy stored in the system
being accumulated over time from a low-power source.

Again, you are wondering, what is the difference in your and my seeing
of a child on the waves. We agree, a child, a boat, water and outer
source that excites waves are the elements of some common system in
which we consider vibrations in this case. However you separate the
resonance phenomenon from vibration system but I don't.

Not quite. We were discussing Sean's term "wave phenomenon" and
I separate the things producing the effect, the water, boat and
child, from what is produced by the effect, the pattern of
interference and the phenomenon of resonance.

To call
resonance the independent phenomenon is the same as to try hearing the
sound of guitar when it's absent here. If you heard it before, you can
imagine this sound, but if your opposite person never heard guitar but
knows how banjo sounds, he will associate your attempts to explain how
guitar sounds with the sound of banjo. ;-) Any vibration system has
very versatile kinds of vibrations which scientists at due time have
classified by their features and revelations, but all these kinds are
realised only at different conditions and are inseparable from the
system in which they arise. We considered the channel and saw how one
forms of vibrations transit to another and that there is no difference
between vibrations and wave processes. All these are vibrations, and
the kind of vibrations can be different. So it is fully ignorant to
assert as David does that atom is non-resonant system (the starting
point of this discussion on resonance). Atom is quite resonant system,
and the fact that Niels Bohr's resonance calculations have fully
coincided with the experiment only corroborates this.

Yes, I agree, I also pointed that out to Sean. Where I
disagreed was when you described the child as a "wave
phenomenon" which means that the child is produced by
the waves. The child is part of the system that oscillates
as a result of the waves but obviously the child would
still exist if there were no waves.

I can hardly judge what Aleksandr means saying the nonlinear
transformer necessary,

I believe he was saying that the blackbody spectrum of
heat radiated by a resistor is not linear but that,
although true, is not the usual criteria for defining
a system as non-linear, it is based on the equation
that defines the motion.

but the system of atom is not so simple as it
seems to you. Bohr couldn't advance above the energetic description of
orbits, the Schroedinger equation is also limited by that level of
knowledge. But what is the orbital electron excitation by external EM
field? Of course, you are right when saying,

[George]
any change in
the energy of an orbiting electron in such a
model would be likely to affect the radius of the
orbit.

But not only. When EM wave excited atom, the wave would be unable to
enlarge the electron's orbit, should the system of atom be linear. We
have also to account that the size of electron's orbit is determined
by its kinetic energy and the frequency of its spin is much higher
than that of the affecting force.

More importantly, you have to take into account that it
seems that the parameters can only have discrete values.
For a violin string, the wavelength is related to the
length between bridge and fret but the amplitude can take
any value. That is not the case for the atom, there seems
to be no continuously variable parameter that could be
gradually increased. This is where I think the idea of
resonance as a means to explain the photoelectric effect
in the way that Sean seems to be suggesting will prove to
be most difficult.

So per one revolution the external
field will vary negligibly. If we consider E-component, this feature
will make the electron's orbit swinging! If the swing period coincides
with that of external E-field, the amplitude of these swings will
grow, will not it? ;-) Should the system of atom be linear, the
interaction would be confined to it. But a very important feature
superimposes on it. When in some part of trajectory the field removes
the electron from nucleus, the returning force will decrease! And when
it brings the electron closer to the nucleus, the force grows. And
these variations obey the quadratic regularity. Due to it the
trajectory of the orbit deforms and the electron gains additional
kinetic energy, changing the diameter of orbit. The magnetic component
of the external field, if it is perpendicular to the orbital plane,
will make the orbit pulsing. Thus, E and H components affect so that
if the period of pulses coincides with the period of external field,
these pulses will increase. Is this resonance or not?

That depends. If it is resonance, the orbit should be able
to gradually change from one energy level to another as it
absorbs energy over many cycles. If it is driven from one
stable orbit to another immediately, or if the composite is
simply a combination of the orbit plus the applied field,
then is is not resonance but forced oscillation.

But this is not
the resonance which we observe in linear systems. I would add, the
field of electron will effectively compensate the external field only
in case if these periods are divisible. Here also is superimposed a
feature related to the increasing force of atom. In the conventional
interpretation this associates with the energy absorption, as the
trajectory grows. At the same time, under definite relationship
between the periods, we will observe pulsation and swing of the
electron's orbit opposite in phase of the external field, and then the
electron begins to emit either to reflect the energy. In sum, there
are many problems. The main difficulty in the problem under
consideration is caused by the quadratic dependence of the field of
nucleus which makes the problem nonlinear and very complicated in
solving.

You are correct in all you say there, but I think the greater
problem is that we cannot detect any intemediate energy states.
You cannot gradually and smoothly increse the energy in the
orbit from one level to another, it appears to jump instantly
between the levels.

I showed far from all features of interaction, but none the
less, it is not simple problem. David thinks, one can so easy tell it
in the newsgroup for so unaware in theory guy as he is, with his
insistent unwilling and inability to listen, to analyse and to
understand! The task unrealisable even for titans, what to say of us
ordinary mortals. ;-) Some time ago I tried to show to Bilge that
interference means geometrical addition of E-field vectors... He still
remained asserting, if in Bose-Einstein statistics there have been
laid the algebraic summation of boson energies, this is so in reality.

Concerning the boundary conditions. For the resonance we surely need
to localise the energy in space with minimal dissipation.

Yes, that is the point I was trying to convey to Sean.

In linear
systems it corresponds to finite lines. In circular systems the
resonance arises with multiple superposition of periods of waves
propagating in the ring. Here we haven't the boundaries in usual
meaning.

Exactly, it can be cyclical, the signal propagating round
the orbit must return to the start point in phase with
the original.

In vibration systems of atoms the resonance arises in case
when swing periods of orbits coincide with affecting force periods.
There are no boundaries in usual meaning.

Exactly, that is why I said (quoted at the top of this post):
I don't consider a boundary to have a "dominating role"
directly, rather I would point out that resonance requires
that some energy be carried forward from one cycle of the
oscillatory system to the next otherwise you merely have
"forced oscillations". ...


One cannot guess it, but all
these features are reflected in modelling system of equations, if we
use not some abstractly generalised template but specific system of
differential equations for the specific vibration system. With such
approach, ADDITIONAL giving the boundary conditions is excessive. Just
in such context I said you about boundary conditions and repeated it
multiply in the newsgroups before. Additional boundary conditions only
duplicate the features which we have to reflect in the very system of
equations. And I can repeat, we can "guess" the boundary conditions
only for most simple vibration systems (not for all). For complex
systems with mismatched transitions it is simply impossible.

I know, I am working on a project with such a problem. Luckily
it is not a major part of the system and I can use other
techniques to get round it but we have to build a simulator
and I stated at the beginning this could not be included.

It
means, we have to be not lazy and to solve the system in the form
which describes the specific model. We in our laboratory make so quite
successfully and wish you all to do so. ;-)

As to the resonance of subsystems. The matter is, factually the
resonance subsystems essentially affect the amplitude-frequency
characteristic of the main system. If its resonances are located above
the critical frequency of the main system, they will appear in the
region overcritical for the main system. If its resonances are in the
region of main resonances, this leads to essential shift and
distortion of the main resonances. If the resonances of subsystem are
located below the resonances of the main system, in the
amplitude-frequency characteristic there appear the absorption lines.
Thus, we can control the resonances of subsystem both theoretically
and practically. In my previous post I mentioned one of simplest cases
of wave transformer. As far as I know, it matches well enough. ;-) And
this is far from being the limit of possible. If the colleagues were
thinking of the problems, not of their ambitions, we could do so much
and solve many problems. But things are such as they are. ;-)

Indeed, I answered not all your questions, and probably now you have
even more questions than I lifted. Well, this is natural. Colleagues
try to read the book from its end, while it is written from the
beginning. Naturally, many things remain for them strange. Though this
is their wish. All what I can I try to adopt to the level
understandable for them, but it's too hard to squeeze the camel into a
needle eye. ;-)

In many ways Sergey I think we are entirely in agreement. The
few places we have disagreed, I could put down to differences
in language, not differences in our physics.

best regards
George

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
....
How does the possibility of addition
" of parts of a single photon " from two magnetic tapes?

Is it possible? Or is it impossible?

The photon is not captured on the tape. An avalanche of electrons is
capured on a tape, and synchronization occurs based on pattern matching.
There is no evidence that reveals how many photons were involved in the
avalanche at either detector. There is no evidence that it was not two
such photons from a single source, and no real argument against it.

....
Please David answer quantum "paradox" circumscribed by me.

David do not evade.

Hope I got the right paradox. Searching through all the text is a bit like
an easter egg hunt, with no candy at the end.

David A. Smith

Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
David,

What for have we to play Bilge? You see, he came and went away with
the same - to normalise his longitudinal photons with respect to
energy (if only he is able to do any thing with respect...). We also
will not analyse your flights along my questions. As well as, who
actually flew from one topic to another and made appearance that
nothing of the kind.

I provided a corrected diagram of a metal structure. A correct analogy (or
circuit) will be coupled at 3 and 4 steps, which will destroy resonance.
You are dodging the truth. And I spent a lot of time on the diagram. Oh
well...

Let us stop on one item - your awareness in vibration theory; by this
we will judge, whether you have grounds for your categorical
assertions. To make so, let us copy-and-paste that place from my text
which you snipped in order to blur your answer and to blame me that
you are not aware in these matters.

You have an incorrect model. You are hiding.

....
Thus, I repeat my question:

PLEASE DO SHOW ME, HOW I MADE IT.

You made it based on a circuit that does show resonance, but does not agree
with any known *physical* model of bonding in metals. Find how your model
describes reality.

Next, do not hide in "quantum mechanics" for they have already accepted
that light energy arrives in discrete packets. Therefore, when you go to
quantum theory, you must also accept that light arrives in discrete
packets.

Since you are now evading the facts, I must assume you no longer wish to
discuss anything with me. Good luck in your future endeavors.

plonk

David A. Smith

Dear George,

Perhaps we have different ways to express our thoughts, but you
clearly didn't understand me. No one of us is God, but each of us
three knows enough much. I had no intention to prove you that you
don't know something - on the contrary, as far as I can see, you know
physics well. I would like to say you in my previous posts that Sean
also knows much, only you both emphasise different components of
vibration process, negating another - and only this makes your
controversy. At the same time, among many theories which I have read
in the newsgroups, Sean's theory is much more thoughtful and sober.
Should only he surmount his pain that he "has not been appreciated"
and see in his work the essence to which colleagues try to draw his
attention, he could success. Indeed, his model clearly insufficiently
describes the interaction between orbital electrons and EM wave, but
the idea itself of spontaneously discharging capacitors is beautiful.
Of course, not to the case when he tries representing so the nature of
matter - here it will not work. But he could find another good
application to these thoughts, he should only think attentively.
However, I still see Sean following bad experience of other colleagues
who in similar situation retired into themselves and stopped working
namely at the moment when the very work would begin. Possibly, by this
reason they still cannot surmount the barrier of existing dogmata, as
are thinking not of hard way to the unknown, not of getting the
obstacles over, but of Nobel Prizes. ;-) What can we both prompt them?
Everyone chooses his way himself. ;-)

Best regards,

Sergey.




"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"sean" wrote in message
om...
..
Secondly I thought about it and actually a medium can resonate and
standing nodes of maxima CAN occur in our observable world in water or
etc in open uncontained systems . This can be done simply by having 2
identical energy sources creating waves and at the point or in the
region between the two sources there are standing waves produced
| | |

A | | | B

| | |

Above A and B are vibrating sources in an open uncontained medium and
the vertical lines denote maxima where overlapping waves create
standing waves .
This is seen in water tanks etc experiments and shows how classical
waves can resonate in an open system and create maxima (in this case
bands rather than nodes)

[George]
Sergey, ask yourself based on Sean's post, does he
understand what the word resonance means or is he
confusing it with interference. Many aspects are
common to both but was he clear about the difference
when he posted that?

[Sergey]
Dear George,

In my previous post I described you a model of channel with two
screens across it. When we take one screen, in the active part of
channel between the source and this screen there form standing waves
in full accordance with the interference pattern from two opposing
sources. When you put the second screen, there in the channel forms
resonance. But again, it forms due to reflection from walls and
multiple addition of waves. We have the interference pattern. When we
limit the region where the wave propagates and make reflected waves
multiply going along the channel, we obtain resonance. So the
difference is not so large and dramatic. ;-)

Sean's posts suggests he thought all that was necessary
was to show there were nodes and he had proved resonance.
You are again giving an example that uses waves so it
does not help to separate interference and standing
waves from resonance.

I would agree with your opinion if I read only Sean's posts. But I
have read also yours. Meaning no offence, there are no less such
inaccuracy. Simply I already have got accustomed that today scientists
are so much sure, their knowledge of wave systems is final, that they
don't think a least what there really occurs. And when I say what
occurs, I see from them nothing except arrogance, offence and
unwilling to perceive. The most sad is that I really have accustomed
to such reaction.

The problem here is that while I have tried to help Sean
understand the basic meaning of resonance, you have only
clouded the issue with examples of more complex systems.
I am not claiming I know everything, but clearly Sean was
unclear about what the word "resonance" meant. I hope he
now has a better understanding, but if you used you
knowledge to explain it to him as well, I am sure it would
be more useful than telling me I don't know it all.

[Sergey]
Why not? You already have got involved. As I see, you have a great
experience in electric resonance.

Too much like work ;-) I read this group to get away
from such concerns.

P.S. George, by some reason I cannot find your post of 22 September,
so I replied here.

Curious, Google doesn't seem to have the message though
it is on my news server. I wonder how many others have
been lost :-(

best regards
George