|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|