Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

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

You
of all people should realise that without the maths to back
them up, words carry little substance in scientific circles.

The conceptual systems of physical ideas are a main core
of physical sciences. The mathematical statement of
conceptual system of physical ideas is rather relevant,
but minor aspect of physical science.

There we differ. IMHO, the mathematical statement
is paramount since only that allows quantitative
predictions. The accompanying model makes it easier
to see how apply the theory is any given situation
but that is all.

My English is rather far from perfection. :-(

Whether you can explain to the participants (David A. Smith)
of a controversy general principles of an impedance matching
of a "generator" and a "loading"?

["generator"] --- ["loading"]

I can do that if he wishes but I don't see a need at
the moment.

space, parabolic RESISTOR or BLACK BODY or
antenna ("generator") --- "loading"


A BLACK BODY as the receiver of microwave radiation.
================================================== ===

-
-
- parabolic antenna
-
- \
- \ ----------
- \ [ ] -"loading"
- \ [ ] BLACK BODY or
- ) )--- ] " microwave receiver "
- / [ ]
- / [ ]
- / ----------
- /
-
-
-
- microwave
- radiation


THE BOLOMETRIC RECEIVER.
================================================== ===
-
-
- parabolic antenna
-
- \
- \
- \
- \ RESISTOR or BLACK BODY or
- ) )------| " microwave receiver "
- / |
- / |-|
- / | | -"loading"
- / | | RESISTOR
- |-|
- |
- |
- microwave |
- radiation === Ground return circuit

This diagram is easier than the diagram of the elementary
detecting radio receiver, here detector is the resistor.

PARADOX. Contrary to the conventional judgement
the pure RESISTANCE is not a linear device from a physical
point of view, since the pure RESISTANCE transmutes energy
of currents of any frequencies into heat.

You can look at this in a number of ways. The antenna can be
modelled as a voltage generator and series source resistance.
If the antenna were connected directly to ground a certain
current would flow. With the load resistor in circuit, the
current is reduced because the voltage produce across the
load resistor reduces the voltage across the source
resistance. The energy dissipated in the resistor does not
directly affect any of the electrical conditions in the
circuit so when considering the resistor as an electrical
component, it should be described as a linear component
because the voltage developed across it is linearly
related to the current flowing through it.

---------------------------------------------------------
Thus RESISTOR is the nonlinear transformer
of electromagnetic energy similar to an ideal BLACK BODY.
---------------------------------------------------------

While black body radiation as you say is not a linear
relationship, the power being related to the temperature
as t^4, in almost all electronics, the heat lost by radiation
is negligible compared to conduction and components are
characterised by thermal resistance in units of C/W. This
is of course linear too ;-)

From other ONLY MATHEMATICAL point of view, the pure
RESISTANCE enters inside of the equations as a constant,
i.e. the pure RESISTANCE is a LINEAR device.

---------------------------------------------------------
Thus RESISTOR is the a LINEAR device. ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------

Yes, a resistor is a linear device.

George

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


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

A | | | B

| | |

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

... above I have shown
that the medium does not need to be contained to resonate and
create
maxima. Everyday examples in water and air show how open systems
of
mediums of homogenous density CAN resonate and can produce nodes
of
maxima.


... do you agree that
a medium can resonate in an open system. as I have shown above?


Hi George
I think you fell for Craigs trap there too . Notice he says that I say
that waves are resonances. Note that my quote has waves ,(from a
energy source) IN A MEDIUM can exhibit resonance. Wait here I will say
it again .... Waves in a medium can exhibit resonance. In other words
I did not say waves are resonance. Those are two seperate words (waves
, resonance) and he was trying to make it look like I thought that
waves and resonance were essentially the same thing.

No, as I read what he said, he was trying to point out that it
takes more than just waves in a medium to exhibit resonance.

That they meant
the same thing. IF on the other hand he meant that quote above then I
still stand by it. I have seen in water two sources vibrating that
produce standing waves or maxima at a point between the two sources.
That to me is resonance.

And that is exactly the point. To everyone else that is _not_
resonance, it is only intereference. The best example of resonance
for you to consider is the child on a swing. If you want the child
to go high in the air, you could just push and hold him there. It
is a lot easier to give a small push in time with each swing and
gradually build the amplitude. It is the ability to generate a large
amplitude from a small force by accumulating the energy in the
system that is the phenomenon known as resonance. Whether a
particular example makes use of waves or not is entirely beside the
point, and whther or not a wave system exhibits nodes or maxima is
also completely irrelevant.

Furthermore I am sure that if a extra driving
force was added at a similar frequency those maxima would increase in
amplitude. That fuylfils the textbook definition of resonance. But
dont be mistaken , Craig was trying to insinuate that I thought that
the words waves and resonance both meant the same thing. I dont and I
have never said that. I know they are different meanings but I also
know that waves in a medium can exhibit resonance.

I don't think he was suggesting you were saying they were the
same though I can see how you would get that impression. I think
he was saying that although waves and maxima are involved in some
examples of resonance, they are not enough on their own to
constitute resonance.

However, the reason I juxtaposed your quotes is that in the
first you say:

"my argument is that waves 'in a medium' ,contained if neccesary,
exhibit resonance." and "Of course I realize that waves on there
own arent resonance."

yet you had previously said:

"This ... shows how classical waves can resonate in an open system
and create maxima (in this case bands rather than nodes)"

"in a open infinite universe the aethger medium could resonate and
nodes of maxima would be possible."

"above I have shown that the medium does not need to be contained
to resonate and create maxima."

"do you agree that a medium can resonate in an open system. as I
have shown above?"

Clearly you had been arguing that waves on their own could exhibit
resonance, and as far as I can see you are still doing so. As I
have said before, the problem is not your grasp of the physics,
just your understanding of the terminology. Adopting the same
meaning for the word as everyone else will simply help you
communicate.

George

Hi George
I`m glad you understand how I interpret his quote that he thinks that
waves are resonance. Especially considering I juxtaposed that with the
second part of the line that says that I think that waves in a medium
can exhibit resonace. Initially I thought that if I could get David to
agree that a contained system could resonate with a medium etc however
you want to word it then I could then put forth an argument that shows
how then a node in a contained resonating system could in a sense be
comparable to a wave only atom mechanically speaking.

I think you need to read up on basic QM before you go too far down
this road. Look at the calculation of the frequencies of the spectral
lines of hydrogen, DeBroglie waves and Schroedinger's wave equation.

You present an argument that says that the medium has to be contained
to exhibit resonance whereas yes iniitially I was hoping to argue that
an infinite homogenous universe could aLSO do the same . OK I wont
push that open homogenous idea right as you in a sense provided an
answer in that your post a few back said that a sun could exhibit
resonance and even interstellar space with gas clouds could also be
interpereted as `contained ` systems`. Thats your quote not mine and I
`ll take that as the implication that an infinite universe is NOT
homogenous and therefore is not uncontained at any one point.

You need to be careful about what you think the 'medium' is in this
context, that is, what is it that is homogenous or otherwise.

Hence my
infinite universe can at any point have a `contained` prerequisite`
But initially though YES I assumed that Craig was trying to suggest
that I didnt know the grammatical or dictionary difference between the
two words. Otherwise if he had said a medium can exhibit resonance I
would have said yes and argued it using the above argument.
So what do you think ?You suggest ear;ier all interstellar space is
not homogenous

Yes, but note that we were talking specifically of the interstellar
medium which is very rarified gas, mostly hydrogen.

and you admit a medium contained can exhibit resonance
like the sun.

Yes, it does.

Whats wrong with me then saying OK At any point in the
universe be it in a star or solid or interstellar gas resonace can be
exhibited

What is wrong is that you are ignoring the other requirements for
resonance. Resonance is the name we give to a phenomenon where a
system, be it the sun, a bell, a child on a swing, an electrical
circuit or anything else that can "ring like a bell" on its own
can be driven to high amplitudes of vibration by small driving
forces. The main thing is that if you give it some energy in the
form of oscillation, it must not lose it too fast.

Take a pendulum as an example. If you removed the main spring in
a grandfather clock and let the pendulum go from a stationary start
at one side, it would swing for a while but the amplitude would
gradually decay. If tap it in the right direction as it passes the
bottom, a small force, just enough to replace what is lost to air
resistance and friction in the pivot, will keep it swinging. That
phenomenon, a large amplitude for a small force when applied at
the natural frequency of the swing, is called resonance.

Now suppose you filled the clock with thick oil. You again pull the
pendulum to one side and release it. If the oil is thick enough,
the pendulum will slowly drift to the vertical position. It will
never quite reach it and will approach vertical exponentially.
The system is "overdamped". You cannot see resonance now because it
loses too much energy per swing (all of it in this case!). If you
tap the pendulum, each tap would displace it slightly and it then
creeps back towards vertical. In terms of your textbook definition,
this is no longer a "vibrating system".

Now if you look at a region of space where sound in the interstellar
gas meets abrupt boundaries and they are close enough together for
that sound to bounce between the boundaries with some natural
frequency, then exciting it at that frequency will produce resonance.

If the medium is too lossy and ripples die out before they cross
between the boundaries, or the boundaries are gentle and dont
reflect enough of the energy, then you don't get resonance.

and therefore that could be said to be how a wave only
atom is explained.

That is a different problem. For example, you could not explain that
water molecules were an antinode of a wave pattern in water waves,
becasue the waves themselves consist of large numbers of water
molecules regardless of any consideration of resonance.

In the same way you cannot explain hydrogen atoms as waves in
the interstellar gas because the gas is (mostly) hydrogen.

And thats why more complex atoms can only be created
in denser mediums like stars. And how did the initial hydrogen
building blocks get created . I cant explain that but neither can QT

Baryogenesis is fairly well understood and is observed in high
energy labs. I would highly recommend you read Steven Weinberg's
"The First Three Minutes". It is just a small book but nicely
written.

as it cannot explain before less than a fraction of a second the big
bang as conditions are not understood. Som if QT cant explain parts
then wave theory gets that same `out`so to speak.

Sure, nobody expects you to cover it all, but your ideas should
deal with the basic evidence for particles. I know you are looking
at the photoelectric effect and that is certainly a good place to
start. The behaviour is well documented and simple to understand,
yet very difficult to explain with a wave-only model so makes an
ideal choice.

George

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:pKN8b.55909$Qy4.42357@fed1read05...
[snip]

See yourself:

Handsome devil.

...

[snip]


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.

Burke B.F., Quantum Interference Paradox, Nature, 223, 389-390, 1969.

Ah, so you don't disagree that a photon is a quantum particle. How nice.

The beginning or ending of life for a photon is a change in momentum of
a
particle with charge. Bring the host in if you must, but you again
hide
this discrete endpoint. Your model is useful, but it is still a model,
and
not any closer to the complete story.

The quantum jumps in matter are subject to the Planck's postulate.
Thus process of DETECTION of electromagnetic radiation is nonlinear
quantum process, which one is subject to the Planck's postulate.

Since the quantum jumps in matter are subject to the Planck's postulate,
================================================== ==============
the hypothesis about "particle - photon" is exuberant and WANTON
================================================== ==============
from a theoretical point of view.

Besides the photoeffect is a special case of nonlinear quantum
process of DETECTION of electromagnetic radiation in matter,
which one is accompanied by an ejection of electrons. ;-)

And an affect you have not yet described with a wave model and "resonance".

I think we have pretty much gone around this circle about four times. I
remind you how powerful the wave model is. I remind you that it only
doesn't describe the instant of death (and perhaps birth), and that I feel
you could just treat it as a boundary condition. I remind you that
treating it so, doesn't make it so. And then you start describing
antennas, and dragging in quantum theory (which is based on a particle
model, for all of its eigenfunctions, etc.).

I think we could stop.

David A. Smith

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:3o6ab.57651$Qy4.15737@fed1read05...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:pKN8b.55909$Qy4.42357@fed1read05...
[snip]

See yourself:

Handsome devil.

...

[snip]


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.

Burke B.F., Quantum Interference Paradox, Nature, 223, 389-390, 1969.

Ah, so you don't disagree that a photon is a quantum particle. How nice.

The beginning or ending of life for a photon is a change in momentum of
a
particle with charge. Bring the host in if you must, but you again
hide
this discrete endpoint. Your model is useful, but it is still a model,
and
not any closer to the complete story.

The quantum jumps in matter are subject to the Planck's postulate.
Thus process of DETECTION of electromagnetic radiation is nonlinear
quantum process, which one is subject to the Planck's postulate.

Since the quantum jumps in matter are subject to the Planck's postulate,
================================================== ==============
the hypothesis about "particle - photon" is exuberant and WANTON
================================================== ==============
from a theoretical point of view.

Besides the photoeffect is a special case of nonlinear quantum
process of DETECTION of electromagnetic radiation in matter,
which one is accompanied by an ejection of electrons. ;-)

And an affect you have not yet described with a wave model and "resonance".

I think we have pretty much gone around this circle about four times. I
remind you how powerful the wave model is. I remind you that it only
doesn't describe the instant of death (and perhaps birth), and that I feel
you could just treat it as a boundary condition. I remind you that
treating it so, doesn't make it so. And then you start describing
antennas, and dragging in quantum theory (which is based on a particle
model, for all of its eigenfunctions, etc.).

"Handsome devil" always is displayed focuses making stUnt semantic
substitution by applying the term "particle - photon" to nonlinear
processes of radiation and absorption of electromagnetic energy by
matter, for physical interpretation which one is indispensable and
.........^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
is sufficient only of the Planck's principle:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Eric _Prebys wrote:
"you could not fit the experimental data
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
without quantizing the interaction." (Planck's principle ;-) )
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in message:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

"Education is a process of telling a carefully chosen
sequence of lies in which the amount of deliberate
deception gradually tends towards zero. There is a limit
to how much truth someone can absorb all at once without
their brain turning to jelly!"
sci.physics.research John Baez

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...pravda.ucr.edu


PHOTONS DO NOT EXIST IN A NATURE
==================================================
On my sight the photon is simply other title for
mechanisms of a radiation and absorption of an electromagnetic
field.
For this reason the PHOTONS DO NOT EXIST IN A NATURE or,
if it is pleasant more to you, in a medium of an electromagnetic
field the photons will be generated as virtual particles,
i.e. the photons are ONLY auxiliary mathematical abstraction
or ONLY " auxiliary mathematical trick ".

From this point of view, we shall come to a conclusion:
================================================== ======================
The photons are particles - ghosts, the photons are auxiliary
mathematical abstraction, which allow us to calculate probability
of interaction of an electromagnetic field and substance.
================================================== ======================


Please David give an example of interaction of "absolutely free"
"photon"
and "absolutely free" "electron".

Once again I have in a view an example of interaction
of isolated system consisting from free "photons" and free
"electrons".

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


I think we could stop.

Once again, "I think we could stop", if David A. Smith give an example
of interaction of "absolutely free" "photon" and "absolutely free"
"electron". ;o)

---
Aleksandr

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...

[snip]

Sure, nobody expects you to cover it all, but your ideas should
deal with the basic evidence for particles. I know you are looking
at the photoelectric effect and that is certainly a good place to
start. The behaviour is well documented and simple to understand,
yet very difficult to explain with a wave-only model so makes an
ideal choice.

" The fact is, you can solve all the problems involving
photons using classical waves with quantized interaction.
This is done, for example, in the textbook
"Atoms and light" by John N. Dodd (Plenum Press, New York,
1991). "

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

---
Aleksandr

PS Now I have restricted access to Internet.

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

You
of all people should realise that without the maths to back
them up, words carry little substance in scientific circles.

The conceptual systems of physical ideas are a main core
of physical sciences. The mathematical statement of
conceptual system of physical ideas is rather relevant,
but minor aspect of physical science.

There we differ. IMHO, the mathematical statement
is paramount since only that allows quantitative
predictions. The accompanying model makes it easier
to see how apply the theory is any given situation
but that is all.


It is naturally, that the engineers like calculations,
but the physical sciences are PROCESS of making of the
new approaches to natural phenomena.
The physical sciences are PROCESSES, the engineering
sciences are the finished or "dead" prescriptions of the
solutions of problems already of DIED physical science
of former generations of physicists.

The conceptual systems of physical ideas are a main core
of physical sciences.

"The Physical Theories are Daughters of the Past,
Mothers of the Future
and always Bondmaids of the Present."

Gustave Le Bon


"A person is not religious solely when he worships a divinity,"
wrote Gustave Le Bon in The Crowd, "but when he puts all the
resources of his mind, the complete submission of his will, and
the whole-souled ardor of his fanaticism at the service of a cause
or an individual who becomes the goal and guide of his thoughts
and actions."

All scientific theories represent the special specific religious
systems, among the competing scientific theories win most effective,
with flow of time...


-------------------------------------------------------------------


Have great fun:

Alby E. warned:
"Most mistakes in philosophy and logic occur because
the human mind is apt to take the symbol (mathematical evaluations)
for reality".

Not every horny devil is a Maxwell's Demon.
Here we consider a Alby's Demon - "Particle - Photon".
Unhappy, but the imaginary Demons do not exist in the Nature.


Unfortunate joke for this Sacred place:

The chimeras are prohibited to the laws of the Nature.

Nothing is sacred to them.


***
" The Nature's Children seek out regularities and rules in
acquiring Nature's Language. " Aleksandr Timofeev

***
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to
hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those
who think differently.
--Friedrich Nietzsche
***

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

It is my innermost desire. Do not discourage me... ;-)

I wouldn't do that, but there is nothing for me
to add at this stage. Good luck with your quest.

George

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(sean) writes:
How about we stick to this short definition: Resonance is `when a
vibrating system responds in amplitude with an alternate driving force
where the two frequencies are similar. `

There is a nice definition of resonance can be found here by
Dr. Vincenz [ref. 1], which I primarily agree with:

* Resonance is the process in which oscillations in a system are
produced, maintained or enhanced by means of a periodic transfer
of energy from another oscillating system, whose frequency is
identical to that of the first system.

It is important to recognize that there must be some form of forcing
or other energy transfer; a vibrating string by itself does not
resonate. Also there is a critical or resonant frequency where that
energy transfer is at a maximum.

Examples of resonances which are not waves:
1. An RLC circuit driven its natural frequency;
2. A playground swing pushed at the natural pendulum frequency;
3. Certain well known orbital configurations. Bodies with orbital
radii that have integer ratios, which would normally not exert a
large gravitational force on each other, become coupled because
of repeated interactions.

Whether you can explain this type (3.) of a resonance more detailed?

[snip]

References
1. http://www.physics.georgetown.edu/~v...sm-Lect11.html

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:3o6ab.57651$Qy4.15737@fed1read05...
....
I think we could stop.

Once again, "I think we could stop", if David A. Smith give an example
of interaction of "absolutely free" "photon" and "absolutely free"
"electron". ;o)

I already have. And here is another:
1.2 Gev photon + electron - electron + electron + positron

Please, since we are trampling the same ground here, and since we have
already agreed on anything significant, can we move on to another topic in
another thread?

David A. Smith

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

[snip]

Sure, nobody expects you to cover it all, but your ideas should
deal with the basic evidence for particles. I know you are looking
at the photoelectric effect and that is certainly a good place to
start. The behaviour is well documented and simple to understand,
yet very difficult to explain with a wave-only model so makes an
ideal choice.

" The fact is, you can solve all the problems involving
photons using classical waves with quantized interaction.
This is done, for example, in the textbook
"Atoms and light" by John N. Dodd (Plenum Press, New York,
1991). "

Is he able to derive the linear relationship and
threshold of the kinetic energy of the emitted
electrons to the incident frequency in the
photoelectric effect?

George

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:myJ6b.47123$Qy4.9078@fed1read05...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:z1t6b.46391$Qy4.38651@fed1read05...
Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
TO ALL COLLEAGUES:

Dear Colleagues,

I always wonder, how do you confuse yourself by substituting the
statement of problem by the desirable model. What concern
RC-oscillator has here? The wave model of photoeffect is based on

Stop there.

RC circuit has what for a frequency threshold? As frequency is
increased,
what does the amplitude in an RC circuit do? What is the resonant
frequency of an RC circuit?

What can you report us of a role a feedback in generators
of auto-oscillations?

There is no parallel.

Once again, what can you report us of a role a feedback in generators
of auto-oscillations?

One photon, one electron. What feedback is required? In the photoelectric
effect, none is required.

Well, do you need something at all? ;-)

It isn't some form of standing wave.

By the way, should you attentively study QM, you would see, the
solution of Schroedinger equation for potential well is just standing
wave. ;-) Should you also ponder what you read in the books and work
with original literature, you would note that in solutions of
Schroedinger equations the energy of electron is proportional to the
level of energy quantization. And in Bohr's solutions the principle of
quantization relates to the TRANSITION of electrons between levels.
This is the matter of principle.


Resonance requires in-phase displacement and acceleration. The inductor
acts as one (di/dt), and the capacitance as the other (integral[i.dt]) in
phase space. Offloading the inductance to "the Universe" is well and good,
but leaves you with no adequate momentum storage term. The electron in the
photoelectric effect isn't really moving,

??????????????

unless it has been freed of the
surface, and it is then no longer feeding back.

There is no parallel.

Are you absolutely sure? ;-)


David A. Smith

Sergey.