A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old September 12th 03, 10:32 AM
Aleksandr Timofeev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
(Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message

. com...

Excepting me, all participants of a controversy avoid arguing
properties of a PARAMETRIC RESONANCE. They reduce all kinds
of a resonance in an electricity only to a Helmholtz resonance,
i.e. to the theory of a resonance of the nineteenth century.
(XIX century!!!).

This problem is interlinked to psychology of thinking
by physical stereotypes.


The reason I started with simple resonance was that it
was clear that Sean was not familiar with even that. When
someone is learning a subject, it is logical to start with
the simplest form and once that is mastered move on to more
complex variations.


I well perceive you. A part of time, I train of the creatively
gifted young men to independent thinking at development
of the self-maintained designs from initial ideas and ending
concrete terminated embodying of the design. You have applied
the most effective methodological approach in the given situation.

However, you have asked for comments on your post so
here are mine.

snip to relevant text

1. A capacitive parametric resonance.
--------------------------------------
The electron, proton and space between them is the condenser.
Thus at each complete turnover of an electron, the exterior
electric field of a wave renders parametric change of a capacitor
CAPACITANCE of Atom.


Please show your calculation for the capacitance for
an isolated atom. Please then show how you derive your
equation for the dependence of the capacitance on the
strength of the electric field.


It can be made by a rather refined method in zero approach.
You evaluate capacity of a spatial figure of the relevant
geometry of allocation of a density of charge of electron cloud
of a concrete electron concerning a core.
Evaluation of differential capacity in first and other
orders I abandon on your discretion. ;-)

2. Inductive parametric resonance.
--------------------------------------
In system an electron and core, the motion of an electron is
the loop of an electric current.
Thus, the electron, moving on a closed path, can be submitted
as INDUCTANCE. Thus at each complete turnover of an electron,
the exterior magnetic field of a wave renders parametric change
of INDUCTANCE of Atom.


Please show your calculation for the inductance for
an isolated atom. Please then show how you derive your
equation for the dependence of the inductance on the
strength of the magnetic field.


It can be made by a rather refined method in zero approach.
You evaluate inductance of a spatial figure of the relevant
geometry of allocation of a current density for electron cloud
of a concrete electron concerning a core.
Evaluation differential inductance in first and other orders
I abandon on your discretion. ;-)


3. Complex parametric resonance of Atom.
--------------------------------------
The integrated Inductive parametric resonance and Capacitive
parametric resonance is the mechanism of a complex parametric
resonance of Atom.

Inductive component of a complex parametric resonance and
Capacitive component of a complex parametric resonance can be
in "phase", in "antiphase" or disbalanced state.


Please demonstrate how this is derived from your results
for points 1. and 2.


At first we should complete arguing 1. and 2.,
and then we can advance further. :-(

If Inductive component of a complex parametric resonance
and Capacitive component of a complex parametric resonance
are in "antiphase", the electron is in a stationary state,
therefore the Planck constant is a requirement
of "antiphases" of Inductive component of a complex parametric
resonance and Capacitive component of a complex parametric
resonance.


Please show how you derive the value of the Planck
constant from the above results.


The same as above. ;-)

================================================== ============
We have only angular Moment of an electron as alone parameter
for change of Capacitive and Inductive components of a complex
parametric resonance. Therefore angular Moment of an electron
"is quantized" by the Planck constant, as a requirement
of "antiphases" of Inductive component of a complex parametric
resonance and Capacitive component of a complex parametric
resonance.
================================================== ============

In what state there is an electron, if Inductive component
of a complex parametric resonance and Capacitive component
of a complex parametric resonance are in "phase"? ;-)


Aleksandr
  #72  
Old September 12th 03, 12:25 PM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS


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

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

snip to relevant text

1. A capacitive parametric resonance.
--------------------------------------
The electron, proton and space between them is the condenser.
Thus at each complete turnover of an electron, the exterior
electric field of a wave renders parametric change of a capacitor
CAPACITANCE of Atom.


Please show your calculation for the capacitance for
an isolated atom. Please then show how you derive your
equation for the dependence of the capacitance on the
strength of the electric field.


It can be made by a rather refined method in zero approach.
You evaluate capacity of a spatial figure of the relevant
geometry of allocation of a density of charge of electron cloud
of a concrete electron concerning a core.
Evaluation of differential capacity in first and other
orders I abandon on your discretion. ;-)


Now Aleksandr, I answered your questions on RC oscillators.
This is your analogy so it is up to you to present it. You
of all people should realise that without the maths to back
them up, words carry little substance in scientific circles.

2. Inductive parametric resonance.
--------------------------------------
In system an electron and core, the motion of an electron is
the loop of an electric current.
Thus, the electron, moving on a closed path, can be submitted
as INDUCTANCE. Thus at each complete turnover of an electron,
the exterior magnetic field of a wave renders parametric change
of INDUCTANCE of Atom.


Please show your calculation for the inductance for
an isolated atom. Please then show how you derive your
equation for the dependence of the inductance on the
strength of the magnetic field.


It can be made by a rather refined method in zero approach.
You evaluate inductance of a spatial figure of the relevant
geometry of allocation of a current density for electron cloud
of a concrete electron concerning a core.
Evaluation differential inductance in first and other orders
I abandon on your discretion. ;-)


Again, this is your idea, you can't expect others
to create it for you.

3. Complex parametric resonance of Atom.
--------------------------------------
The integrated Inductive parametric resonance and Capacitive
parametric resonance is the mechanism of a complex parametric
resonance of Atom.

Inductive component of a complex parametric resonance and
Capacitive component of a complex parametric resonance can be
in "phase", in "antiphase" or disbalanced state.


Please demonstrate how this is derived from your results
for points 1. and 2.


At first we should complete arguing 1. and 2.,
and then we can advance further. :-(


Agreed, but to do that you will need to present
something that can be argued.

George


  #73  
Old September 12th 03, 12:29 PM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS


"Paul R. Mays" wrote in message
...

I past bench hand in days gone by I bet....


Never professional, only a tinkerer.

I agree with every word George...


Thanks. I have to say your own reply to Sean was
also spot on.

George


  #74  
Old September 13th 03, 10:35 PM
Sergey Karavashkin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
Sergey Karavashkin:


a) the integral field of photon will be in this case non-zero, and
what about uncharged photon?


What about it? Photons have no charge. That's why charge is conserved.


Bilge, again you are starting your usual jugglery? In this case one
should answer not the question as it is but just what you have
spitefully snipped from my text. Namely, I asked David about the size
of photon and how this size relates to the period of EM wave. If the
wavelength doesn't correlate with the photon length, the integral will
not be zero. But you anyway will not understand because of too weak
mathematical education.


b) no changes in time can occur within photon,


That's a meaningless statement.


Again, don't foul. This question directly relates to what you have cut
off, too. My question is not senseless. Rather, you are trying to make
it senseless, cutting off my phrases. My question was, should the
photon contain within itself some alternating field, this alternating
field would have the phase of the field, and since photon moves with
the velocity of light, the group velocity will be either more or less
than c. Whence, photon cannot contain any alternating field within
itself.


as with it the field variation registered by the receiver would be
more either less than the light velocity (so-called group velocity
which is formed when within some system there exists a subsystem with
the time-variable phase shift);


The phase of a photon does not advance in time. In fact, it's
completely meaningless to discuss the absolute phase of a photon.


If it is senseless to discuss the absolute phase of photon (to the
point, no one said of ABSOLUTE phase), it's senseless at all to
discuss the representation of EM wave by photons. ;-)


then of what changes of E&B are you saying?
c) If the wave period consists of multitude photons, how photons do
correlate with each other, keeping a strong sequence for many
thousands and millions kilometres, especially when there propagates
not a monochromatic wave but a packet?


That's pretty naive. The photons (or any wave packet) emitted are
emitted by sources. If the sources are correlated, why wouldn't
the radiation carry those correlations to the receiver when the
intervening distance between the source and emitter is just the
vacuum in space and doesn't affect the radiation in any way?


Before accuse someone naive, you have to be some more educated in
physics. You say - correlated radiation of the assemblage of sources?
That you invented! Correlated radiation from an arbitrary surface of
source! What else will you invent to accuse me in your ignorance? ;-)


2. As to the beyond-cutoff luminescence of substance you have written
the following:

[David]
Or systems that express temperature, which is relative motion of the
individual emitters and absorbers. This is simply saying that

quantum
mechanics is right. What is not right about what you have said is

that it
has anything to do with resonant behaviour. Absorption of a photon

does
*not* occur for electrons in orbitals that are just under a photon

energy,
and produce a near-zero KE electron, they produce a conduction

electron
with all the energy. This is NOT resonant behaviour.


a) please show me the regularity of energy of secondary quanta in
Planck formula with respect to temperature; ;-)


What does "regularity of energy of secondary quanta mean"? Planck's
formula refers to the oscillators that produce the quanta. It says
nothing about the nature of the quanta other than what the principle
of detailed balance tells you.


Bilge, above unbridled, one has also to be able to understand, what
and why is written. Not me but David suggested fuzzy upper boundary of
frequency for quantum output in luminescence because the sources of
radiation depend on temperature. In this case, this regularity has to
be reflected in the Planck formula, but factually there is not such
regularity. This was just what I asked David to point. Thus jump on
David and his fantasies. ;-)




b) of which relative motion of individual emitters and absorbers are
you saying for a solid state of luminophor which so much distorts the
pattern of emission?

Only having answered these questions, you may judge, how much right is
QM.


First you have to ask a sensible question.


Not your wit will judge, is the question sensible or not. If you still
are sure that in the interference the intensities are summed up
algebraically, even arithmetic may seem you senseless. ;-)


[...]
I guess, you are speaking here of the photon theory as a part of
particle theory. If so, I would like simply to cite Niels Bohr:

In the view of quantum theory, the discussed hypothesis cannot be
nonetheless considered as a satisfying solution. As is known, just
this hypothesis brings insurmountable difficulties in explanation of
interference phenomena - the main means in studying the radiation
properties [see: H.A. Lorentz. Phys. Zs., 1910, *11*, 349].


Let's see, 1910... That was about 5 years before bohr had a model of the
atom,


Niels Bohr hadn't his own model of atom. He based on Rutherford's
model.

18 years before quantum mechanics was a theory

Should you can read, you would have read, Bohr's paper is called "On
the quantum theory APPLICATION to the structure of atom".

and about a quarter
century before there was a relativistic theory which included photons


Relativistic QT is not a theory even today, as it's still inconsistent
with SR. Even in quantum field theory. This is not my 'guess' but the
supporters of QT admit it.

and
about a half-century before quantum field theories came into existence.
What's your point? That bohr knew all of those things in 1910?


We have the fact, since 30th years quantum theory was developed by
people having no idea about dignity of physicist, scrupulous approach,
demand to argumentation of their statements (you're perfectly
personifying this part of planet population). We can only be happy for
Bohr that he hadn't to know this circumstance in that measure as we
know. Today his theory would be for certain defamed by such people as
you are. However, namely his theory has completely described linear
spectra of atoms - and they fully coincided with experimental study.
Furthermore, when derived his formula for line spectra, Bohr didn't
use Heisenberg uncertainty, neither idea of photon, nor boson theory.
In his theory all parameters of orbits have been strongly determined.
And this didn't prevent his formulas from agreement with the
experiment.


In any
case we can ascertain that the underlying statement of the hypothesis
of light quanta basically excludes the possibility to comprehend the
concept of frequency nu playing the main part in this theory.


The frequency plays a role. It just doesn't play the role described by
classical theory (which isn't really clear anyway).


Ignorant

Instead, the frequency
plays a role that is better suited to the word frequency: an interaction
probability.


I have nothing to speak with you about. You made me sure in it many
times before. Go and correlate the energy of your scalar photon and
don't thrust with a very clever appearance where you understand
nothing.


So the
hypothesis of light quanta is invalid to give general pattern of
processes which might include the entire amount of phenomena
considered in quantum theory applications




[Niels Bohr. On the quantum theory application to the structure of
atom. 1. The main postulates of quantum theory. Chapter 3. On formal
nature of quantum theory. Item 1. Hypothesis of light quanta].

This organically supplements what I usually say you and you stubbornly
don't hear.


So, essentially, you are arguing that given the understanding of
quantum mechanics in 1910, quanta don't make sense.


Don't garble my words. I never said against quanta of energy. I said
against representation of EM radiation as photons. Have I repeat it
again for especially talented?

That is certainly
true, since there was no such thing as quantum mechanics in 1910.
However, that is not an argument. No one understood E&M in AD 1500,
but that isn't an argument against maxwell's equations.

[...]

[Sergey]
Please take any book on photoeffect and open where the spectral
characteristics for metals are shown. You will see that the quantum
output dependence on frequency is not so much like a direct line as
Planck equation predicts.


Planck's equation?


Yes, Planck's equation, as the derivation of quantum output of
photoeffect is based on the Planck's equation. If you dont know the
derivation properly, first read, then experess surprising.


These curves are gently sloping near the
'red' boundary and increasing as the square of difference of
frequencies. After it you see an abrupt rise. And this rise relates to
the frequency band at which the material stops effectively reflecting
EM waves. The further the more. The curve reaches its maximum, then
the photoeffect abruptly falls. Began the material again reflecting EM
waves? Yes, but not so much abruptly as the quantum output falls.
Well, now please answer, David, my very simple question. As a result
of what there appears the maximum of absorption of EM waves by the
surface of metal?


Apparently, you don't understand the photoelectric effect. The quasi-
free electrons in a metal can certainly absorb radiation.


What-what? I didn't catch it. What quasi-free electrons in metal can
absorb? The matter is not that light can scatter in metal, but where
from the maximum of absorption of light by metal appears. This
extremum has been well and long ago experimentally studies. Thus,
don't raise your leg against the wind. ;-)

Where do you
think the energy that corresponds to the work function goes? Light
can be scattered in the metal. If you think a detailed answer is simple,
then the reason is you're understanding of the photoelectric effect
is naive and you missed even the simple results of the basic description.


In semiconductors the quantum output has some other pattern. In the
area of red boundary you see an abrupt raise and saturation and almost
smooth plateau. Here also the surface absorbs in the area of plateau?


A photodiode or phototransistor has an "abrupt rise" because there is a
fixed gap between te fermi surface and conduction band. In other words, an
electron/hole pair has a fixed mass and it takes a fixed amount of
momentum to create the pair. The saturation occurs for the same reason
that any other semiconductor saturates. The potential difference across
the semiconductor will be zero once there are enough charges created to
cancel the field. Increase the voltage and you increase the number of
charges that can flow before saturation. Increase the ptential too much
and you start pulling electrons from the atomic electrons (dielectric
breakdown otherwise known as a spark). It damages the crystal structure
(which in some cases can even be repaired by annealing).


This what you wrote only corroborates, in approach 'in the view' of
photon theory, the saturation of quantum output will not occur in
semi-conductor, because with growing frequency the energy of
photon-particle grows, and forcing the electron out will grow
monotonously. I'm emphasising - THIS IS THE VIEW OF PHOTON THEORY, but
you will not understand, just like you don't understand how absurd is
it - to relate the saturation of current through p-n junction of
semi-conductor to growing potential and saturation of quantum output
in limits of your photon theory. The barrier between the Fermi surface
and conduction range in semi-conductor can explain only the red
boundary. However this in no case identifies just the photon theory.
Such or other theory of photoeffect can be determined only by the
quality of explanation, how the regularity behaves in extreme parts of
frequency range. But this is not for you. You cannot think out
something better than to make a fool of yourself saying to everything
that one proved you nothing.

Sergey.
  #75  
Old September 13th 03, 10:36 PM
Sergey Karavashkin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

David,

You will take offence again that I'm responding not in the style you
would prefer, but the cause is yours. How can I keep up the style of
dialogue, when you do not try to analyse what I said and only repeat,
pointfully and not, the slogans of QM and Relativity. See yourself:

1) You are going on stating the point size of photon and that it has
no width. In your last post to me you are writing as to its length in
particular so:

[David]
"Period" is as descriptive for single photons, as it is for a host of
similar photons.

[Sergey]
And as to its width:

[David]
As I have said both to you and to Alexsandr, the concept of width is
very
fuzzy. Width in one sense has to do with establishing how far away
something has to be to have zero effect on a particle "path". Width
in a
more conventional sense has to do with establishing how far from a
path
something has to be to have a definite measurable effect. I see only
English has such duality of definition.

[Sergey]
But this is not true. You perfectly know, we receive by our receivers
the variations of vectors E and H sequentially in time. If photon
contains an integer number of periods, it has to have FOR US some size
in time, and consequently in space too. But if the period of EM wave
consists of many point-size photons, each of them have to contain less
than one period of a wave. FOR OUR REFERENCE FRAME IT CANNOT BE
OTHERWISE. But if so, if a single photon contains less than one period
of EM field, the integral over the length of photon IN OUR FRAME will
give some finite value of charge.

See an example to compare. Take a balanced dipole in which the charges
are disposed longitudinally. Let this dipole move relatively the
observer with some near-c velocity. In the observer's frame the
integral over the length of dipole will be zero - both when taking
into account the Lorentz transform and not taking. If the dipole is
not balanced and charges inequal, the integral will not be zero -
again, both taking into account GR and not taking. In the first case
we have only dipole moments. In the second we have a charged moving
system and, consequently, its interaction with other charged systems.
And here the photon theory fails already in interaction of photon
fields. But multi-field interactions are even more questionable. If in
described case the photon theory has no answers, for this case it
hasn't the more, and discrepancy with observations will only worsen. I
already wrote you, don't forget, you cannot chop off the field in
space, you can only compensate it. The field always has the distance
of action. You have to prove the opposite EXPERIMENTALLY - or NEVER,
directly or indirectly, rely on this argument. If photon is charged,
its interaction with the neighbouring photons and contradiction to the
facts observed in crossing light beams immediately follow from it. If
you are able to detect the light of crosstalk radiator at other's
receiver, people will create you a monument of mere gold while you are
alive! ;-)

Again, as to the width of photon. I already wrote you, the cause of
infinitesimal width of photon is not its cross-section of interaction.
If you think photon point-sized, it has to be charged and to have a
cross-section of interaction, even if its natural cross-section is
physically zero, as the interaction of fields will provide the
cross-section of interaction. You cannot deny, by crossing the beams
one basically can achieve any relation between the phases of beams,
and if the frequencies are inequal, we needn't even to select the
phases. Such interaction would have to be periodical and to have the
period proportional to the difference of frequencies of the beams.
Thus, either you experimentally prove DIRECT interaction between
photons, or you may not state the photon point-size. And I wrote you
as to the photon width, when the intensity of light beam increases in
hundreds and thousands times, the cross-section of beam doesn't
change. With the finite width of photon this is unrealisable. At the
same time, this is the multiply checked fact. Just so I called your
photons the boot-laces and doubted that such 'laces' would allow to
predict the angles of interaction with electron.

But you don't see, neither hear - and you want explanations from me.
What can I explain if you have shut your eyes and ears?

Now you are saying, the subject of our discussion is

[David]
The topic is "boundary conditions" for photons-as-waves, and you are
not
even close to describing them.

[Sergey]
Well, please do answer me as to the boundary conditions! Not me but
you are permanently avoiding these questions, and just you have
appealed to the photoeffect - the same as Einstein at his time
appealed to it, as if it were a magic wand, since the mathematical
tool of wave physics still was not developed enough. But now we have
another situation and your passes with the wand don't work. Now you,
supporters of Relativity, should answer for your unsubstantiated
slogans as to completeness of pattern which you attempted to describe
with the help of photons. This is the regular finish of that fetish.

2) This is just what I'm saying, with explanation of photoeffect we
have the same situation. You want, I to explain you the photoeffect in
the view of wave physics. Note, YOU want it! But with it you are
saying absurd things as to resonance in a system and don't perceive
and respond to the basic points which I showed you not once. It is
quite natural from me to ask you to corroborate your level in the area
of resonance systems, the more that you had a full course of it. I
suggested you to REPLICATE the solution of a problem that we published
in our paper. Note, this is a MECHANICAL, not electric model. Judging
that you are speaking of it as of some electric circuit, you didn't
see this model. But even if you looked at it, how can you at one and
the same time suggest me to enlighten you and colleagues concerning
the technique to solve such problems, call me magician trying
misdirection and state that one cannot describe the photoeffect with
this technique? Should you show me the solution of proposed problem,
having in this way proved that you know the way, should you
conclusively show that it's impossible way to describe photoeffect,
then my arguments would be a covered card. You did nothing of it. You
only are saying of some people having "the wherewithal to hear all
that you say". If they listen as you do and analyse as appeared from
deep absence Bilge, I can only suggest them to dig their "wherewithal"
into detection of gravitational wave from hundreds kiloparsecs
distance, or to make of their dollars photon aircrafts with the
dropper that drops water to the mirror to 'amplify' the effect. ;-)

If you David really want to be aware and to understand these things,
you would better first address to yourself the requirements which you
are now addressing to other people. I'm not sensitive to such magic
words which at due time used EL Hemetis, like "I'm sitting down and
listening you very attentively". No, I need a sensible dialogue,
understanding, but not innuendo. You are saying, I'm a conjurer? In
your view - possibly, but the practice corroborates my calculations,
while the opponents even don't know the techniques to approach. So by
all canons I'm right as a physicist, all the rest is of no importance
today, neither in the future.

Meanwhile I don't delete your last post, though in future, if you
retain the style of our discussion unchanged, it will really become
senseless for me. I can read relativistic slogans in whatever your
relativistic 'journals'. But there, just as in your posts, one cannot
find a thoughtful answer to the topical questions of physics. Well,
what's the sense of our discussion? To spend time? I'm really very
busy going on with the theory, practice and applications. You see, now
I post even more rare than before.

Regards,

Sergey.


\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:DER4b.42837$Qy4.30635@fed1read05...
Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
Oh, you don't appreciate good attitude, David. I have read attentively
your last post. You said many different things on me, but this is to
your account.

As I see, you put the question rigidly, requiring from me the
photoeffect with wave physics. However, you didn't understand, I can
explain it only to one who has a necessary amount of knowledge.
Unfortunately, you still don't demonstrate such knowledge.


There are lots of folks here that *do* have the wherewithal to hear all
that you say. Try explaining it, as you suggest.

Yes, I can explain photoeffect with the help of resonance phenomena in
EM wave interaction with the electrons of substance. In metal they are
the electrons of Fermi-gas, in semiconductors and dielectrics -
orbital electrons. I briefly said you of it before. If you want to
hear more, I'm pleased. But before I would like to make certain that
you know resonance systems enough. Aren't you against? You wrote,


Lets have it.

[David]
I took a class in "resonance systems". That is why I know that you

have
not even looked at what resonance is. I CAN calculate certain

limited sets
of exact solutions as the need arises.


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


I know some resonant systems. I say you describe behaviours that are
counter to my knowledge and experience. Enlighten the group.

[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


Circuit resonances. Has absolutely nothing to do with the photoelectric
effect.

...
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


circuit resonance. Has absolutely nothing to do with the photoelectric
effect.

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. ;-)


No glassy eyes required to see the magician is trying misdirection again.

After this we can advance into wave physics with a great speed, and
you will soon see, wave physics is not so simple as you used to think
outwardly, and photoeffect doesn't limit its scope.

Sergey.

P.S. I didn't want to touch other issues in this post, but couldn't
resist a temptation. ;-)

1. In your post you stated unambiguously that photon has a "zero"
size:

[David]
The size of the photon (as determined by experiment) is "zero", and
has nothing to do with the distance it travels before it achieves the

same
E&B orientation again.


At odd moment, could you explain me: if it has such size as you are
saying, it must be smaller than a period of wave (at least for radio
waves). It moves with the light velocity - it means, with the same
velocity as vector E varies in space. Hence, I have natural questions:


As I have said both to you and to Alexsandr, the concept of width is very
fuzzy. Width in one sense has to do with establishing how far away
something has to be to have zero effect on a particle "path". Width in a
more conventional sense has to do with establishing how far from a path
something has to be to have a definite measurable effect. I see only
English has such duality of definition.

a) the integral field of photon will be in this case non-zero, and
what about uncharged photon?


What integral and what field? The photon has no charge, correct.

b) no changes in time can occur within photon, as with it the field
variation registered by the receiver would be more either less than
the light velocity (so-called group velocity which is formed when
within some system there exists a subsystem with the time-variable
phase shift); then of what changes of E&B are you saying?


Why do you say time does not pass for the photon? It is not massive.
Lorentz transforms do not apply to the c frame. Time does obviously seem
to pass for the photon.

c) If the wave period consists of multitude photons, how photons do
correlate with each other, keeping a strong sequence for many
thousands and millions kilometres, especially when there propagates
not a monochromatic wave but a packet?


"Period" is as descriptive for single photons, as it is for a host of
similar photons.

2. As to the beyond-cutoff luminescence of substance you have written
the following:

[David]
Or systems that express temperature, which is relative motion of the
individual emitters and absorbers. This is simply saying that

quantum
mechanics is right. What is not right about what you have said is

that it
has anything to do with resonant behaviour. Absorption of a photon

does
*not* occur for electrons in orbitals that are just under a photon

energy,
and produce a near-zero KE electron, they produce a conduction

electron
with all the energy. This is NOT resonant behaviour.


a) please show me the regularity of energy of secondary quanta in
Planck formula with respect to temperature; ;-)


*Which* Planck formula? I find many attributable to him.

b) of which relative motion of individual emitters and absorbers are
you saying for a solid state of luminophor which so much distorts the
pattern of emission?

Only having answered these questions, you may judge, how much right is
QM.


QM is not the issue. Your claim that wave theory describes the
photoelectric effect is.

3. As to your following claim:

[David]
There are no behaviours that wave theory describes,
that particle theory cannot.


I guess, you are speaking here of the photon theory as a part of
particle theory. If so, I would like simply to cite Niels Bohr:

In the view of quantum theory, the discussed hypothesis cannot be
nonetheless considered as a satisfying solution. As is known, just
this hypothesis brings insurmountable difficulties in explanation of
interference phenomena - the main means in studying the radiation
properties [see: H.A. Lorentz. Phys. Zs., 1910, *11*, 349]. In any
case we can ascertain that the underlying statement of the hypothesis
of light quanta basically excludes the possibility to comprehend the
concept of frequency nu playing the main part in this theory. So the
hypothesis of light quanta is invalid to give general pattern of
processes which might include the entire amount of phenomena
considered in quantum theory applications

[Niels Bohr. On the quantum theory application to the structure of
atom. 1. The main postulates of quantum theory. Chapter 3. On formal
nature of quantum theory. Item 1. Hypothesis of light quanta].

This organically supplements what I usually say you and you stubbornly
don't hear. We all can take offence, the more when have such necessity
to avoid answering inconvenient questions. This, David, is too
trivial. ;-)


Trivial and "satisfying". And can be said for any particle. So wave
theory must extend to particles of all sorts. Are you up to that as well
as describing the photoelectric effect? Of course you were were referring
to QM, and not waves...

4. And one premature note on your dear photoeffect and your statement
that

[David]
Wave theory does not describe the photoelectric effect, and
particle theory does.


[Sergey]
Please take any book on photoeffect and open where the spectral
characteristics for metals are shown. You will see that the quantum
output dependence on frequency is not so much like a direct line as
Planck equation predicts. These curves are gently sloping near the
'red' boundary and increasing as the square of difference of
frequencies. After it you see an abrupt rise. And this rise relates to
the frequency band at which the material stops effectively reflecting
EM waves. The further the more. The curve reaches its maximum, then
the photoeffect abruptly falls. Began the material again reflecting EM
waves? Yes, but not so much abruptly as the quantum output falls.
Well, now please answer, David, my very simple question. As a result
of what there appears the maximum of absorption of EM waves by the
surface of metal?


And is completely beside the point for the photoelectric effect, since the
"work function" describes the threshold, and "resonance" fails to describe
the rest of the behaviour.

In semiconductors the quantum output has some other pattern. In the
area of red boundary you see an abrupt raise and saturation and almost
smooth plateau. Here also the surface absorbs in the area of plateau?
;-)

Of course, these are far from all questions, but if you can answer
specifically at least to these - I will be grateful. ;-)


Again, you have little regard fro what I have written to you in all
earnestness. Like a good con man, you flash little lights, and wave your
hands in other places to disguise the fact you would change the topic of
discussion.

The topic is "boundary conditions" for photons-as-waves, and you are not
even close to describing them.

David A. Smith

  #76  
Old September 13th 03, 10:45 PM
Sergey Karavashkin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

(Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message . com...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"sean" wrote in message om...

Hi Sean,

Yes I can understand that an object can have or generate `resonance`

Systems are usually said to 'exhibit' resonance.

but it is true also to say that standing waves and vibrating nodes in
mediums like sand water etc also can be said to be resonant systems

Take a very long taut wire and send two bursts of a wave
of the same frequency travelling in opposite directions
from the ends towards the cent

--\/\/\/\/\/\/\----------------------/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/---
--- ---

When they meet in the middle, they will create a standing
wave pattern of while they overlap (it's twice the height
but I can't show that) and pass through each other

-----------------\/\/\/\/\/\/\------------------------

after that they just separate though

--\/\/\/\/\/\/\----------------------/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/---
--- ---

The interference pattern in the middle is a wave phenomenon
but it is not resonance.

Now put a clamp on the wire to stop it moving at each end
of a section

------------------------------------------------------
^ ^

If you tap one end of the wire, it will vibrate. If you tap
in sync with the vibration, each tap adds a little energy
and the amplitude builds up. This is a resonant system.

It is insecure interpretation.
Composite interaction of oscillations of two independent
generators(oscillators) here is circumscribed. These
generators(oscillators) have by a loading the same resonator.

The exclusive importance of a "reference frequency" or SYNC
here visually is demonstrated.


The two waves do not even need to be of the same frequency.
If they differ, the pattern of nodes will drift sideways.

By the way. What devices are indispensable for
the generator(oscillator) of auto-oscillations?


No device is indispensable. You need a power source, gain
and feedback as Bjacoby said but there are many ways to
achieve those.


You have forgotten about nonlinearity, which one in actual
devices is the transformer of energy in energy of oscillations.

You have forgotten about nonlinearity, which one in actual
devices restricts a vibration amplitude or power.

Bjacoby has made the valuable note.

Bjacoby can give a valuable consulting for David Bilge about
stability of the generator(oscillator) and coherence
of two independent generators(oscillators).

The obvious example is a violin.

Now think of two mirrors, or a pice of wave guide with the
ends closed off. You can inject light and get a laser or
inject RF and get a standing wave as Aleksandr said. These
are also resonant but they are called "resonant cavities"
because it is the act of closing off the ends that creates
the resonance.

and store energy and be measured in the same terms of frequencies
oscillations as objects. These phenomena are also essentially
identical to what would be termed a wave only atom or `particle` .
They are stationary and point like

They are stationary but cannot be point-like because the
length of the cavity must be an integer multiple of half
the wavelength.

but are not objects like pendulums
or particles but superimpositions of many waves on a point source.So
it seems to me that for david to say only particles can explain
resonance is incorrect and wave only models seen classically as
standing wave s are also resonant systems

Superimposition and standing waves are not of themselves
resonant. What creates the resonance is the cavity that
contains them,

For a resonance is indispensable:
- power source;


A pendulum is resonant but contains no power source.


George, excuse me, but this is some inexact. Even mathematical
pendulum needs a source to excite free vibrations. We always forget
it, whence there appears your above opinion. And the amplitude of
pendulum's vibration much depends on, whether in the source spectrum
are present the frequencies coinciding with those resonant for
pendulum. ;-)



If we shall eliminate transients viewing, the source
of oscillations is indispensable for observation
of oscillations in resonant system.
If a source of oscillations, which one has frequency
close to frequency of resonant system, misses,
the oscillations in resonant system CAN NOT BE WATCHED.


Hi Aleksandr,

You are right as to observation of vibrations in absence of
corresponding frequencies of the source - in conventional view. In
reality this process is much more diversiform. If speaking of free
vibrations in resonance system, their frequencies exactly correspond
to those resonant. And these frequencies are discrete. But if speaking
of forced vibrations, practically all frequencies from zero to
infinity will excite in the system, except a number of ideal
frequencies (in ideal line) where we will see minimum of vibrations.
When autovibrations, we'll see the same, but the phase at the point of
force affection will exactly follow the exciting force (under usual
forced vibrations it will not).


- nonlinear transformer of energy;


A RLC circuit is linear and resonant.


It may sound strange but today the meaning of 'nonlinear system' is
quite fuzzy. Usually to them are related all elastic systems whose
solution cannot be found immediately. In particular, systems
containing resonance subsystems are ascribed to nonlinear. As we
showed in our paper "On complex resonance vibration systems
calculation"

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...html#resonance

they are linear. By the way, I suggested to David Smith to analyse the
pattern of resonances described there, but he disregarded. So, when
you wonder of David's position, you might note, he is very
'selective'. ;-)

Also, in other our paper, "Bend in elastic lumped line and its effect
on vibration pattern"

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...ents.html#bend

in chapter 4, page 93

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...3/bend093.html

we gave a solution (21) - (26) and vibration pattern for cyclically
closed elastic line. By its appearance this line is similar to
Rutherford's idea of atom orbits excited by some external force. But
factual distribution of electrons in orbits is much more complicated,
and their interaction with external field as well. So we shouldn't use
this model immediately to model the interaction of orbital electrons
with external EM field, though some common regularities are present in
the vibration pattern.

So when you are speaking of nonlinear transformer of energy and when
George Dishman speaks of linear RLC circuit, it would be interesting
to ask you for more precise thesis. Aren't you against?



If there is an inflow of energy, then there are oscillations.
If there is no inflow of energy, then the oscillations miss.

This "RLC circuit" is linear in a narrow gamut of hooked up power.
If the hooked up power will exceed electric strength
of "linear RLC circuit",
that one will become "nonlinear RLC circuit"... ;-)

- a source of a reference frequency;


A resonant system usually defines its own charateristic frequency
without an external reference.


" A resonant system usually defines its own charateristic
frequency " in a narrow gamut of hooked up power. ;-)

- an energy absorber.


There is always loss in any real system but it is not
a needed for resonance.


THE SYSTEM ABSORBS maximum POWER AT a RESONANCE.

************************************************** ****************
THE MAXIMUM of ABSORBED POWER by system is ESSENCE of a resonance.


See, Aleksandr, you are again right here in standard view, but in
complex resonance systems there occur some other processes. Please see
the formulas (21) - (26) for cyclically closed system - for example,
(21)

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...3/bend093.html

In its left part you see the shift along x axis (Delta) of the studied
element of elastic line. In the right part you can select the
projection of amplitude of external force (Phi_0*cos psi*exp) and some
ratio determining the amplitude of vibrations in the system. To check
your statement, it will be convenient to use our original dynamical
electromechanical analogy DEMA. You can find its basic relationships
in page 38, system (8)

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...38/load38.html

In the present case two relationships at the top of page are of our
interest. They show that the shift of studied element corresponds to
the strength in a nod, and amplitude of external force corresponds to
the current in related branch of the circuit. Thus, the above ratio in
(21) corresponds to the input reaction of studied chain of the
two-port (simpler speaking, the input impedance). Thus, maximal input
impedance corresponds to the maximal amplitude of voltage! Isn't it
strange? None the less. And the explanation is very simple. Maximal
vibration amplitude corresponds to the condition when reflections from
the ends of resonance system are matched! With it the input impedance
abruptly grows, but amplitudes of all reflected waves are summed. ;-)

I would like to emphasise, this rule is not absolute for all resonance
systems. In the model of atom, resonance will actually correspond to
the maximal absorption of energy. But atom has another model than that
on which we showed non-absolute pattern of standard statement which
you wrote. ;-) Please, don't take offence at resonance systems. They
sometimes ask such questions that the head goes round-round. But on
the whole, they are quite friendly. ;-)


************************************************** ****************
The vibration amplitude has minor value.

Further we shall consider classic QUADRIPOLES from the theory
of electric circuits, then my point of view on a resonance
will become more clear to you.

Contrary to your interpretation,
the PHENOMENON of a RESONANCE is ABSORPTION of energy of oscillations
by an only PURE RESISTANCE.


That would make every resistor connected to an AC supply
a resonant system.


It is an ingenious guess.
If the wave length of hooked up alternating stress is more than
the maximum geometrical size of the resistor, then the resistor
is in "resonance".

resistor
|
V
---
| | Area of resonance for resistor
---
---------|-----------------------------------------------------
0 Lambda_min Lambda of an AC supply


--------------------------------------------------------
We are never surprised to a that miracle, what expedient
the Resistor absorbs power of any frequencies by.
--------------------------------------------------------
The resistor is a classic TWO-TERMINAL device from the theory
of electric circuits.

I don't think your definition will catch on.


We are never surprised to a that miracle, what expedient
the Resistor absorbs power of any frequencies by.
The resistor is a classic TWO-TERMINAL device from the theory
of electric circuits. THE TWO-TERMINAL is an alternate name
for " of a black box ".

Thus " a black box ", TWO-TERMINAL, or QUADRIPOLE allow us
to forget about a interior composite structure of these devices.


See for examle of QUADRIPOLE Sergey Karavashkin's message:
================================================== ==============
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

"OSCILLATION PATTERN FEATURES IN MISMATCHED FINITE
ELECTRIC LADDER FILTERS"

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...42/load42.html
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...44/load44.html
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...46/load46.html
================================================== ==============


Thank you, Aleksandr.

Always, we are interested only in exterior properties these
" of black boxes " in all a frequency band.
The vibration amplitudes inside these " of black boxes "
have not practical advantage for us.


It depends... Recently I had to elaborate one pulse device after
'specialists' who neglected interior characteristics of charge system.
Despite the device in their hands insistently kept silence, I had to
replace a couple of capacitors (they didn't break down but so to say
slightly burned: when the capacity still remains but interior
impedance of charged capacitor abruptly falls). I made it working and
providing the technology. ;-)



************************************************** ****************
THE MAXIMUM of ABSORBED POWER by " a black box "
is ESSENCE of a resonance.
************************************************** ****************
THE SYSTEM ABSORBS maximum POWER AT a RESONANCE.

At a resonance the module of complex resistance " of a black box "
has minimum quantity.

it is the cavity that is described as
resonant and the waves are merely the form of energy that
it stores.


The resonator ("cavity") has an only PURE RESISTANCE on frequency
of a RESONANCE.


True.

As I said to Aleksandr, this is really just a question of
terminology. There is an accepted understanding of the word
resonance


The accepted understanding of the term "resonance" is disputable.

Other understanding of a physical phenomenon of a RESONANCE:

================================================== ===================
the PHENOMENON of a RESONANCE is ABSORPTION of energy of oscillations
by an only PURE RESISTANCE.


This is true only for very simple systems. In presence of resonance
subsystems, there appears such thing as negative measure of inertia.
No, this is not an antigravitation, but with it we see a special kind
of resonances. Besides, in non-ideal systems with mismatched load the
impedance not always is active at resonance.

================================================== ===================


It takes more than that.

and you will be able to explain your ideas best
if you stick to that meaning rather than try to adapt it.

Remember, a child on a swing is a resonant system, small
pushes correctly timed can build up a large amplitude,
but it is not a wave phenomenon.


May I ask you, what are the components of wave phenomenon? If a wave
propagates in water on which a child swims - this is a wave
phenomenon, but a child as a heterogeneity with which the wave
interacts - this is not a wave phenomenon? ;-) It seems, you are
suggesting too simplified approach.


You have described here PHENOMENON of the parametric
generator(oscillator) of oscillations.


No, I have described excitation of a simple harmonic oscillator
by a near-impulsive force. If I wanted to describe parametric
excitation, I would have talked of the child standing and sitting,
not being pushed.

George



But if a child sits on a pneumatic dolphin either stands on a boat,
will it essentially change the pattern? Perhaps you would like to say,
if we think a child as an integral body, this will be not a parametric
excitation, but if as a system having its own resonance subsystems,
this will be a parametric excitation? Possibly, but this is always a
very conventional issue that depends on relationship between the
natural frequencies and excitation frequency. ;-)

Have a nice week,

Sergey.
  #77  
Old September 14th 03, 12:28 AM
[email protected] \(formerly\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

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

You will take offence again that I'm responding not in the style you
would prefer, but the cause is yours. How can I keep up the style of
dialogue, when you do not try to analyse what I said and only repeat,
pointfully and not, the slogans of QM and Relativity.


Top posting is only considered rude. I guess we'll have to work with it.

See yourself:


Handsome devil.

....
[Sergey]
But this is not true. You perfectly know, we receive by our receivers
the variations of vectors E and H sequentially in time. If photon
contains an integer number of periods, it has to have FOR US some size
in time, and consequently in space too.


You are too confused for this to be a real argument. If you figure out the
amount of power received (based on the amplification) vs the amount of
energy in a single photon of the wavelength received, you are detecting
multiple photons. A classic signal. But you knew this.

....
Again, as to the width of photon. I already wrote you, the cause of
infinitesimal width of photon is not its cross-section of interaction.
If you think photon point-sized, it has to be charged and to have a
cross-section of interaction, even if its natural cross-section is
physically zero, as the interaction of fields will provide the
cross-section of interaction. You cannot deny, by crossing the beams
one basically can achieve any relation between the phases of beams,
and if the frequencies are inequal, we needn't even to select the
phases. Such interaction would have to be periodical and to have the
period proportional to the difference of frequencies of the beams.
Thus, either you experimentally prove DIRECT interaction between
photons, or you may not state the photon point-size.


Done. Papers presented where photons interacted with each other directly.
Multiple times. Ignored. Multiple times.

And I wrote you
as to the photon width, when the intensity of light beam increases in
hundreds and thousands times, the cross-section of beam doesn't
change. With the finite width of photon this is unrealisable. At the
same time, this is the multiply checked fact. Just so I called your
photons the boot-laces and doubted that such 'laces' would allow to
predict the angles of interaction with electron.

But you don't see, neither hear - and you want explanations from me.
What can I explain if you have shut your eyes and ears?


My pet theories as to the characteristics of a photon *are* half-baked.
Your pet theories to describe the photoelectric effect are equally
half-baked. Between us we do not have a fully baked meal, only a mess.
Shall we stop now?

Now you are saying, the subject of our discussion is

[David]
The topic is "boundary conditions" for photons-as-waves, and you are
not
even close to describing them.

[Sergey]
Well, please do answer me as to the boundary conditions! Not me but
you are permanently avoiding these questions, and just you have
appealed to the photoeffect - the same as Einstein at his time
appealed to it, as if it were a magic wand, since the mathematical
tool of wave physics still was not developed enough. But now we have
another situation and your passes with the wand don't work.


You have presented nothing. We have no "another situation". We have the
same wave-based tripe.

Now you,
supporters of Relativity, should answer for your unsubstantiated
slogans as to completeness of pattern which you attempted to describe
with the help of photons. This is the regular finish of that fetish.

2) This is just what I'm saying, with explanation of photoeffect we
have the same situation. You want, I to explain you the photoeffect in
the view of wave physics. Note, YOU want it!


Note, Alexsandr claims that beginnign and end of light's life are boundary
conditions to a wave equation. And that this is fact. I expect either you
or him to come up with something other than arm waving and accusing me of
being audacious.

But with it you are
saying absurd things as to resonance in a system and don't perceive
and respond to the basic points which I showed you not once.


You have done no such thing. You mention "resonance" and all are required
to bow to your personal misunderstandings. More hand waving.

It is
quite natural from me to ask you to corroborate your level in the area
of resonance systems, the more that you had a full course of it. I
suggested you to REPLICATE the solution of a problem that we published
in our paper. Note, this is a MECHANICAL, not electric model.


Link please. I recall no "mechanical" resonance model being presented in
our conversations.

Judging
that you are speaking of it as of some electric circuit, you didn't
see this model. But even if you looked at it, how can you at one and
the same time suggest me to enlighten you and colleagues concerning
the technique to solve such problems, call me magician trying
misdirection and state that one cannot describe the photoeffect with
this technique? Should you show me the solution of proposed problem,
having in this way proved that you know the way, should you
conclusively show that it's impossible way to describe photoeffect,
then my arguments would be a covered card. You did nothing of it. You
only are saying of some people having "the wherewithal to hear all
that you say". If they listen as you do and analyse as appeared from
deep absence Bilge, I can only suggest them to dig their "wherewithal"
into detection of gravitational wave from hundreds kiloparsecs
distance, or to make of their dollars photon aircrafts with the
dropper that drops water to the mirror to 'amplify' the effect. ;-)

If you David really want to be aware and to understand these things,
you would better first address to yourself the requirements which you
are now addressing to other people. I'm not sensitive to such magic
words which at due time used EL Hemetis, like "I'm sitting down and
listening you very attentively". No, I need a sensible dialogue,
understanding, but not innuendo. You are saying, I'm a conjurer? In
your view - possibly, but the practice corroborates my calculations,
while the opponents even don't know the techniques to approach. So by
all canons I'm right as a physicist, all the rest is of no importance
today, neither in the future.


You again have contrived a dialogue that says nothing substantial. You
again malign what I have said and done. Are you going to get down to it?

Meanwhile I don't delete your last post, though in future, if you
retain the style of our discussion unchanged, it will really become
senseless for me. I can read relativistic slogans in whatever your
relativistic 'journals'. But there, just as in your posts, one cannot
find a thoughtful answer to the topical questions of physics. Well,
what's the sense of our discussion? To spend time? I'm really very
busy going on with the theory, practice and applications. You see, now
I post even more rare than before.


Good. I will trim the old stuff, since you laboriously reconstructed and
resequenced it to suit your need.

David A. Smith


  #78  
Old September 14th 03, 09:11 AM
Craig Markwardt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS


(sean) writes:
[ ... ]

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


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

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


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


[ ... ]
---

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

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


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

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


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


And finally I dispute your claim that you `Did` the experiment. At no
time have you duplicated it correctly and therefore at no time have
you been in a position to claim you have performed the experiment I
use to show how classical can explain the photoelectric effect.
Looking back at our correspondence I find you have given each
detector only 1 atom and calculated what happens when 50 per cent of

.... much snippage ...
And just to remind you of how completely different your version of my
trials were here is sample of yours from back then.

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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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

[ ... ]

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

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

CM
  #79  
Old September 14th 03, 09:17 AM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS


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

...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message

om...

For a resonance is indispensable:
- power source;

A pendulum is resonant but contains no power source.


George, excuse me, but this is some inexact. Even mathematical
pendulum needs a source to excite free vibrations.


You are correct of course but being an engineer, I think of that
as the signal source. Aleksandr and I had been talking of RC
oscillators using this as an example:

http://home.earthlink.net/~doncox/wec/Oscillators.html

I understood "power source" to mean the equivalent of the
10V battery supplying the power to replace that lost in the
RC networks. My mistake.

- nonlinear transformer of energy;

A RLC circuit is linear and resonant.


It may sound strange but today the meaning of 'nonlinear system' is
quite fuzzy.


Examples of non-linearity for me would be the transistor in
the circuit above that has an exponential relation between
base current and Vbe, an FET used as the amplifier that
has a quadratic Vgs to Idss relation or a thermistor used
for amplitude stabilisation. The latter is non-linear if the
resonant frequency is close to the thermal time constant but
linear if it is much higher since the thermistor is a pure
resistor at any given temperature. The result of non-linearity
is usually to produce harmonics, predominantly second for
the FET, third for the thermistor and lots for the transistor ;-)

I hope that clarifies what I mean and why I do not consider
it "indispensable" for resonance. In my work it is usually
undesirable except in frequency multipliers.

So when you are speaking of nonlinear transformer of energy and when
George Dishman speaks of linear RLC circuit, it would be interesting
to ask you for more precise thesis. Aren't you against?


I hope I have clarified my meaning, there are no higher
order terms in the transfer characteristics of resistors,
capacitors or inductors hence no harmonics produced.
Note though that a pendulum need not be a linear system
in my view since the restoring force is only proportional
to displacement as an approximation at low amplitudes.

[I wrote:]
Remember, a child on a swing is a resonant system, small
pushes correctly timed can build up a large amplitude,
but it is not a wave phenomenon.


May I ask you, what are the components of wave phenomenon? If a wave
propagates in water on which a child swims - this is a wave
phenomenon, but a child as a heterogeneity with which the wave
interacts - this is not a wave phenomenon? ;-) It seems, you are
suggesting too simplified approach.


The words "wave phenomenon" mean a phenomenon created by
waves. The interference patterns created when the waves reflect
from the child are a wave phenomenon but the child would still be
there if the waves were removed.

But if a child sits on a pneumatic dolphin either stands on a boat,
will it essentially change the pattern?


I would say the pattern is a wave phenomenon but the child is
only part of the system that is creating the pattern. The child is
not created by the waves.

Perhaps you would like to say,
if we think a child as an integral body, this will be not a parametric
excitation, but if as a system having its own resonance subsystems,
this will be a parametric excitation?


Possibly, which parameter do you think is being varied?

Possibly, but this is always a
very conventional issue that depends on relationship between the
natural frequencies and excitation frequency. ;-)


Parametric excitation from what I have read on the subject
means excitation by variation of one of the parameters of
the system rather than by applying a simple signal.

I would call a system where there are multiple resonant
frequencies, such as the child on the boat, "compound".

If you connect a motor to the plates of a capacitor to move
them closer or further apart and use that in an LC circuit,
it is "parametric" and the parameter being changed is the
capacitance. One important aspect is that the resonant
frequency is varied during each cycle in the parametric
case although this is not a definition nor perhaps even
necessary (if the parameter does not play a part in setting
the resonant frequency).

George


  #80  
Old September 15th 03, 12:28 PM
sean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.