Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

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

For a resonance is indispensable:
.....
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.

In all these cases you are absolutely right. In such calculations
there actually appear quadratic, cubic etc. terms which require to
consider higher harmonics. True, in these cases there exists one "but"
from higher level of solutions than is used now. I'll try to explain.
Let us consider an usual homogeneous finite lumped line, only the
constraints between its elements are massive (in distinct from usual
models where we take the constraints massless). What will occur there?
In this case the constraints itself make a lumped line having its own
resonance frequencies. Under definite conditions these frequencies
will be LOWER than resonance frequencies of the main line (or between
them). Wherethrough, if we consider such line as an usual model with
massless constraints (and conventional mathematical tool allows us no
other possibility), this line will be for us nonlinear, as the elastic
line appears dependent on frequency. We will expand it into series,
yield some harmonics, while factually this line is quite linear.

Are you saying that, after any initial transient has
decayed, a pure sine wave applied to such a line will
create harmonics even if every element is linear? I
would not expect that but I could be wrong.

This is, of course, only one example, and there are very many
questions. Far from all cases can be reduced to this example, but such
example exists, can be calculated mathematically and modelled
experimentally. ;-)

I think you miss the point though:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...

For a resonance is indispensable:
- nonlinear transformer of energy;

A RLC circuit is linear and resonant.

Certainly systems can be non-linear but Aleksandr's
statement was that a "nonlinear transformer of energy"
was "indispensable" for resonance. I say that it is
not "indispensable" and that resonance commonly occurs
in systems where the power is absorbed by a linear
element such as a resistor.

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.

In the light of models having resonance subsystems, I would like to
recall you an air wave transformer that matches antenna with feeder.
This transformer is fully "aside" the main trunk and is connected to
it by only one end. None the less, it essentially changes the input
impedance of antenna. And if we take many such transformers (or more
complex circuits) and arrange them with a definite interval along the
cable ... ? ;-)

.... they are still linear by my understanding.

[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.

Okay, let us take an usual infinite channel and direct to both its
sides a plane surface wave. This is a wave process, isn't it? The
source works and sends the wave to both sides of its place. Now we
take a screen and cut off the channel from one side. Is it still wave
process? Now it is created by direct and reflected WAVES. But we have
in the channel now not a progressive but a standing wave! We don't
stop and cut off the channel from another side. Now we have all
conditions for resonance, and judging by your reasoning, this is
already not a wave process, but the effect is created by way of
multiple reflection of waves from boundaries...

Of course that is a wave process. What has that to do with
the child on the swing?

The same with a child on the wave. A child is an obstacle for the wave
with which the wave interacts. The wave itself is a process on the
water surface; the properties of water, as well as properties of all
obstacles on the water, form the features of wave processes on this
water. Don't they? ;-)

Yes, they are aspects of the system that is creating the
phenomenon but they are not the phenomenon itself.

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.

Of course, this is correct.

The child is
not created by the waves.

And water as well! ;-)

Exactly. Sergey, I agree what you have said and you agree
what I said so how do we differ?

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?

In this case, there will change not some parameter of elastic system
of a child (or a child on a pneumatic toy, or on a boat) - i.e., the
reaction of subsystem of a child to the external affection. Due to it,
the interaction of wave with a child as an obstacle will also change.

I don't see why you think this is parametric excitation, it seems
to me that the waves are simply altering the water level and thus
applying a varying upward force to the boat and child. If they
subsystem of boat and child has its own resonances, the excitation
is still by variation of the force and not by variation of any
parameter of that subsystem.

By the way, this has a great similarity with the dynamic EM field
interaction with the resonance system of atom, as well as with one of
the main causes, why long-sized ships are broken in storms. It was
A.N. Krylov who studied ship strength against wave affection in the
measure possible for mathematics of that time (first half of 20th
century). He also tried to yield solutions close to analytical and
applied matrixes. He made very much and with his name a great
breakthrough in vibration theory has been connected, but he hadn't our
solutions and our methodology.




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).


I wouldn't argue, such approach to parametric resonance is also
justified. Simply, as I showed above, there can change not some
parameter of the system elements but reaction of the very subsystem at
definite frequencies.

If the subsystem can resonate over a range of frequencies
depending on amplitude so that it can respond to a harmonic
of the primary source, then perhaps that system is exhibiting
parametric resonance, but if the coupling is direct rather
than via modulation of a parameter then I would not call it
parametric excitation.

The input impedance of resonance subsystem also
is a parameter, isn't it? ;-)

It is though it is of lesser importance in setting
the operating frequency. However, I suppose it would
be possible in theory to drive a system by variation
of the input impedance.

Perhaps I wouldn't touch this feature of
vibration process, should we consider just the parametric
RLC-oscillator. But, as I understand, you consider EM wave interaction
with atom, and parametric oscillator is only some approach to grasp
the processes occurring in atom. In this meaning, it seems to me
important to account the change of input impedance of vibration
system. ;-)

In an atom it seems simple to me, any change in
the energy of an orbiting electron in such a
model would be likely to affect the radius of the
orbit. That would clearly be a key parameter in
determining the natural frequency.

George

Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

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

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

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

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

1) We all know, we receive EM waves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They cannot be wrong based on my testimony.

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

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

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

This is your fabrication. You fix the apparent problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not "us all", Sergey.

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

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

To which
papers are you referring?

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

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

Your assertions, so far unsupported.

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

Good so far...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your analog is invalid.

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

Still more bridge stuff...

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

Mechanical?

Good to the end, as always Sergey.

David A. Smith

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...


You still have a need to show that the energy loss in
your "vibrating system" is less than the value needed
to allow resonance. You cannot lose more than about
half the energy per cycle or you cannot get resonance.

Yes I suppose in certain systems resonance wont occur. but does that
neccesarily mean that a resonating system of nodes in a medium cannot
be compared to a wave only atom? I am not sure of your point there.

Perhaps you should explain what you mean by "capacitor-like"
because you certainly have me confused. I understand you
don't mean it electrically. For example in a mass-spring
system, the spring plays the part of a capacitor while the
mass is the inductor but that has nothing to do with
quantisation.

I think its true I may assign the term tcapacitor like incorrectly. By
`capacitor like` I assume a electrical capacitor takes a current lets
say dc for now and re-outputs it in pulses of lets say 20 pulses per
second. THats why I compare it to a bucket fillig and emptying
literally. I assume a capacitor takes a steady flow of water and
`quantizes` it into discreet packages. As if the steady water flow
were diverted to a bucket which filled and then tipped over , released
a pulse of water and then proceeded fill again. So on one side of the
water bucket `capacitor` the flow is a steady flow whilst after the
water bucket `capacitor` the flow comes in pulses of water
interspersed with no water.
However your analogy of the capacitor seems to imply that the
capacitor in an electrical circuit doesnt take an electrical current
and re output it at a different frequency but rather it just
increases the voltage more like a water tank on a apartment roof gives
the tenants a higher water pressure than if they were to get their
water directly from the mains. But that only works if the water use is
intermittent.
In which case a capacitor could only work if either the usage demanded
of it were intermitent or if the capacitor itself released the flow in
pulses?


A capacitor is like an infinitely high bucket of constant
cross-section. The height of the water (and hence the
pressure at the bottom) is proportional to the volume of
water in the bucket and inversely proportional to the
cross-sectional area, just as the voltage across a
capacitor is proportional to the charge and inversely
proportional to the capacitance.

Fill the bucket too full and the sides rupture so you
don't have a bucket any more. Apply too much voltage to a
capacitor and you get a loud bang with a puff of smoke,
you don't have a capacitor any more.

Thanks for a simpler description in analogy there George. But could
you add to it a bit and say how in that above analogy the pulsing
occurs that supposedly a capacitor gives. Or at least what happens in
the above analogy while the `water` flows. The analogy still doesnt
make complete sense to me . For instance you say the height of the
water is proportional to the volume of the water but you also say the
height is infinite which suggests that in analogy the volume is
infinite? I think theres a bit missing in your analogy as I dont quite
understand. Is it that the height isnt infinite but when the bucket
fills to a certain height it begins to drain at a constant rate sort
of like a water reservoir on a building roof?
What is the analogy mechanism that ties in the bucket above with the
rest of the circuit. How does it drain ? And does it do so in pulses
ie it releases all the water at once (thats what I assumed an analogy
of an electrical capacitor does) or does it have an outflow pipe at
the bottom releasing a constant flow of water?

I don't follow that at all, in what way is there any
similarity to a capacitor in that?

Hopefully I have answered you above but just in case.. What I was
trying to acheive was to allow a resonant system to be used as an
analogy for a wave atom. In my overlapping of waves of different
wavelengths I notice that a composite wave length of much longer than
any of the 3 input wavelengths is acheived. The composite wave pulses
at peak amplitude once every 4 seconds which is much greater than the
extra input wavelength of 1 3/4 seconds frequency and the amplitude of
the new composite peak is greater then the amplitude of the additional
`driving` wavelength of 1 3/4 beats a second . What has happened is
that a wavelength input into a vibrating system of two superposed
wavelengths 1/2 and 1 beats a second is re-output at a new wavelength
of greater amplitude but less than 1/2 the wavelength of the input
frequency of 1 3/4 beats a second. My understanding of `capacitor`
until now at least has been that a capacitor can take an input flow of
one frequency and output it at a much lower frequency of greater
amplitude. Hence my comparison of the resonating system described
above as capacitor like.
However it may be that an electrical capacitor is operating
differently from what I thought as my earlier part of this post covers
and your earlier description shows me.
I also admit on thinking about it that a PMT outputs the input light
energy in a series of pulses sometimes called photons. If the
intensity of input light increases then the result is not an increase
in pulse(photon QT calls them)amp-litude but an increase in pulse
frequency.
Therefore my above analogy does not help me as I only show how an
increase in wavelength can result in a decreased output wavelength.
What I need to do is see how a resonating system when given an
additional driving force reacts. For instance in a resonating jar of
water. The nodes are lets say 1/2 inch high and 1/2 inch diameter .
What happens when the additional driving force is exerted? Does the
node height respond by becoming lets say 1 inch in height with the
same old diameter? And if so what happens when the amplitude of the
additional driving force increases even more ? Does the node continue
rising in height without altering its diameter so it theoretically can
become under enough `additional driving force` a column of lets say 3
feet tall and 1/2 inch diameter of water? Somehow I doubt it . My
guess is that at a certain point the node height reaches critical and
releases its energy back to the system and falls back to 1/2 inch
height . THen under the additional force it has to go back up and then
fallss again . the result may be possibly that the node under
additional driving force pulses at a overlapping frequency of one
amplitude but a variable frequency proportional to the amplitude of
the input driving force. In other words if this does occur in a
resonant system then it can duplicate the neccesary analogy of what is
seen in an atom in a PMT under input light conditions?
What do you think?
More importantly do you know if what happens to a resonant system is
as I have described above? Because if it is I may have the answer to
my big problem of describing how a wave only atom can quantize
incoming radiation into similar amplitude pulses with the frequency
proportional to the input intensity as seen in PMT`s.
Sean

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message ...


How do you account for the efficacy of quantum electrodynamics which
rests squarely on the theory of special relativity? Classical
electrodynamics cannot account for the existence of atoms, the Compton
effect or the photoelectric effect. To say nothing about the Lamb
effect. Quantum theory has been supported in every experiment challange.
It has yet to fail. Whereas classical physics cannot account for black
body radiation, nor can it correctly predict the specific heat of many
substances. So why does quantum theory work?


I have yet to look at black body radiation but will try to answer
that.
But I disagree that QT answers it all. It cannot explain the missing
90 per cent of the mass in the universe and the other 10 per cent
actually cant be acounted for either as QT and the standard model
cannot explain the existence of matter and what causes gravity /mass.
So really QT cant explaining anything at all. QT doesnt work,
otherwise you would be able to tell me how QT explains the Unexplained
speed of rotation of galaxies


I dont know where you read me saying I support photon concept?
Everything I have posted on these newsgroups is meant to show that I
beleive that photons are non existent and imaginary.

See the experiment of Grangier, Roger and Aspect which proves that
photons exist and that the semi-classical theory of light and matter is
not adequate.

You havent read all my posts. I have actually shown mathematically
that if a wave only atom can act as a capacitor it can predict the
results of Grangiers experiment MORE accurately than QT. In fact QT
cannot predict Grangiers results as it predicts a=0 wheras grangier
got a=0.018. To get QT to work Grangier had to fiddle his results and
add a unexplainable `Accidental rate` to get QT`s predictions to match
observation.
On the other hand classical does predict 0.018 and also predicts the
decline in alpha proportionate to the decrease in input light per
event. QT always predicts a=0 which is incorrect.
Grangiers results are a vindication of classical theory and a good
example of how QT does not work.
Classical physics is deficient in explaining and predicting phenomena in
the small and even in the large. Classical thermodynamics and
statistical mechanics cannot account for black body radiation correctly.

Classical theory also predicts and explains the high energy gamma ray
observations made in GRB`s as I have done so at my website at
www.gammarayburst.com for years. M M Gonzalez`s paper this august in
Nature shows how QT and the standard model CANNOT EXPLAIN grb`S and
the observed high energy gamma rays of GRB`s
Sean

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

You still have a need to show that the energy loss in
your "vibrating system" is less than the value needed
to allow resonance. You cannot lose more than about
half the energy per cycle or you cannot get resonance.

Yes I suppose in certain systems resonance wont occur. but does that
neccesarily mean that a resonating system of nodes in a medium cannot
be compared to a wave only atom? I am not sure of your point there.

The tone of your post suggested you need not consider
'containment' further. In fact you always have to deal
with it since you must ensure the energy isn't lost and
usually the size of the container sets the wavelength
hence the frequency of oscillation. I am using "container"
very loosely here.

Perhaps you should explain what you mean by "capacitor-like"
because you certainly have me confused. I understand you
don't mean it electrically. For example in a mass-spring
system, the spring plays the part of a capacitor while the
mass is the inductor but that has nothing to do with
quantisation.

I think its true I may assign the term tcapacitor like incorrectly. By
`capacitor like` I assume a electrical capacitor takes a current lets
say dc for now and re-outputs it in pulses of lets say 20 pulses per
second.

No, it is exactly the opposite, a capacitor is like a
battery. You can put in pulses of current to charge it
but the voltage remains substantially constant so it
turns pulses into DC. Capacitors are often described
by the function they perform, "reservoir capacitors"
store power in a power supply to provide between the
pulses it gets from the AC supply, "smoothing capacitors"
iron out bumps caused by variation of current on a DC
supply and "decoupling capacitors" eliminate voltage
spikes that might otherwise cause interference to
other devices.

THats why I compare it to a bucket fillig and emptying
literally. I assume a capacitor takes a steady flow of water and
`quantizes` it into discreet packages. As if the steady water flow
were diverted to a bucket which filled and then tipped over , released
a pulse of water and then proceeded fill again. So on one side of the
water bucket `capacitor` the flow is a steady flow whilst after the
water bucket `capacitor` the flow comes in pulses of water
interspersed with no water.
However your analogy of the capacitor seems to imply that the
capacitor in an electrical circuit doesnt take an electrical current
and re output it at a different frequency but rather it just
increases the voltage more like a water tank on a apartment roof gives
the tenants a higher water pressure than if they were to get their
water directly from the mains.

That is very close. A large tank on the roof fed via a
narrow pipe is like a battery. A small amount of water
gives you the full head of pressure after which adding
any further volume of water gives only a slight change.

A capacitor is like pushing the water into the bottom
of a vertical drainpipe. The head of water is proportional
to the volume of water in the pipe.

But that only works if the water use is
intermittent.
In which case a capacitor could only work if either the usage demanded
of it were intermitent or if the capacitor itself released the flow in
pulses?

The capacitor produces a steady head of water and
releases it at whatever rate is taken by the thing
that is regulating the flow. That is it gives a
substantially steady voltage and the load determines
the current.

It can accept charge in pulses and release it smoothly
or you can charge it with a low constant current and
take it out in pulses. The capacitor doesn't care.

A capacitor is like an infinitely high bucket of constant
cross-section. The height of the water (and hence the
pressure at the bottom) is proportional to the volume of
water in the bucket and inversely proportional to the
cross-sectional area, just as the voltage across a
capacitor is proportional to the charge and inversely
proportional to the capacitance.

Fill the bucket too full and the sides rupture so you
don't have a bucket any more. Apply too much voltage to a
capacitor and you get a loud bang with a puff of smoke,
you don't have a capacitor any more.

Thanks for a simpler description in analogy there George. But could
you add to it a bit and say how in that above analogy the pulsing
occurs that supposedly a capacitor gives.

Capacitors don't produce pulses, they soak them up and eliminate
them. that's why I couldn't follow your analogy.

Or at least what happens in
the above analogy while the `water` flows. The analogy still doesnt
make complete sense to me . For instance you say the height of the
water is proportional to the volume of the water but you also say the
height is infinite which suggests that in analogy the volume is
infinite?

Finite volume of water in an infinitely high _bucket_.

I think theres a bit missing in your analogy as I dont quite
understand. Is it that the height isnt infinite but when the bucket
fills to a certain height it begins to drain at a constant rate sort
of like a water reservoir on a building roof?

No, no matter how much water you add, the pressure at the
bottom just keeps increasing (until something breaks!).

What is the analogy mechanism that ties in the bucket above with the
rest of the circuit.

Pressure at the bottom = voltage

Flow rate in/out of bucket = current

How does it drain ?


A pipe attached to the bottom of the bucket
would act like a wire connected to the capacitor.

And does it do so in pulses
ie it releases all the water at once (thats what I assumed an analogy
of an electrical capacitor does) or does it have an outflow pipe at
the bottom releasing a constant flow of water?

The latter but the rate of flow (current) is controlled
entirely by the tap at the other end of the outflow pipe.

Incidentally, stuffing a rag into the pipe would be
the equivalent of a resistor (flow rate proportional
to pressure difference). A bucket with a hole in the
bottom stuffed with a rag does not produce a "vibrating
system" in the sense of the head of water going up
and down regularly. That's why an RC circuit cannot
be resonant on its own.

I don't follow that at all, in what way is there any
similarity to a capacitor in that?

Hopefully I have answered you above but just in case.

Yes, I now see what you meant. A capacitor is not a good
analogy. You could construct a model more like your idea
by using something like a spark-gap connected to a
capacitor. A spark-gap is a glass or ceramic container
filled with gas. It is a good insulator until the voltage
reaches a certain level when strength of the electric field
ionises the gas. It then conducts until the current falls
below some low value. This would be like having a pressure
relief valve at the bottom of the bucket that opens at some
high but safe pressure and then doesn't close until the
water is just trickling out.

What I was
trying to acheive was to allow a resonant system to be used as an
analogy for a wave atom. In my overlapping of waves of different
wavelengths I notice that a composite wave length of much longer than
any of the 3 input wavelengths is acheived. The composite wave pulses
at peak amplitude once every 4 seconds which is much greater than the
extra input wavelength of 1 3/4 seconds frequency and the amplitude of
the new composite peak is greater then the amplitude of the additional
`driving` wavelength of 1 3/4 beats a second . What has happened is
that a wavelength input into a vibrating system of two superposed
wavelengths 1/2 and 1 beats a second is re-output at a new wavelength
of greater amplitude but less than 1/2 the wavelength of the input
frequency of 1 3/4 beats a second.

The amplitude will show beats but it remains the sum of two
sine waves, they don't mix unless you have a non-linear
element.

My understanding of `capacitor`
until now at least has been that a capacitor can take an input flow of
one frequency and output it at a much lower frequency of greater
amplitude. Hence my comparison of the resonating system described
above as capacitor like.
However it may be that an electrical capacitor is operating
differently from what I thought as my earlier part of this post covers
and your earlier description shows me.

Yes, that is the case. It takes in pulses and gives out DC.

I also admit on thinking about it that a PMT outputs the input light
energy in a series of pulses sometimes called photons.

One part takes in light and gives out electrons. They are
accelerated and hit a screen that gives out photons when hit
by electrons. The combination gives more photons out than went
in.

If the
intensity of input light increases then the result is not an increase
in pulse(photon QT calls them)amp-litude but an increase in pulse
frequency.

When one photon hits some part of the first screen, the electron
released is focussed onto a corresponding part of the second
screen so you get a burst of lots of photons from a single
point on the second screen. The PMT only forms an image because
there is a fixed relationship between the location where the first
photon hit and the location where the final photons are released.
Think of night-vision goggles.

Therefore my above analogy does not help me as I only show how an
increase in wavelength can result in a decreased output wavelength.

Don't confuse the frequency of the photon with the rate at which
the photons are produced.

What I need to do is see how a resonating system when given an
additional driving force reacts. For instance in a resonating jar of
water. The nodes are lets say 1/2 inch high and 1/2 inch diameter .

That "1/2 inch diameter" is fixed by the diameter of the jar.

What happens when the additional driving force is exerted? Does the
node height respond by becoming lets say 1 inch in height with the
same old diameter? And if so what happens when the amplitude of the
additional driving force increases even more ? Does the node continue
rising in height without altering its diameter so it theoretically can
become under enough `additional driving force` a column of lets say 3
feet tall and 1/2 inch diameter of water? Somehow I doubt it .

Be careful again, the water is limited because it has a finite
volume. Think of bowing a violin string harder. If you take a
photograph, you will always see a sine wave. The amplitude
increases with increasing input but the wavelength is defined
by the distance between the bridge and fret. Going back
to the start of your post, that is why I emphasised that you
cannot ignore the need to define clearly what is contaning
the energy. For an electron in orbit round a proton, it is the
length of the orbit (DeBroglie again).

My
guess is that at a certain point the node height reaches critical and
releases its energy back to the system and falls back to 1/2 inch
height .

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

If the height is sin(wt), the speed is cos(wt) and the
THen under the additional force it has to go back up and then
fallss again . the result may be possibly that the node under
additional driving force pulses at a overlapping frequency of one
amplitude but a variable frequency proportional to the amplitude of
the input driving force. In other words if this does occur in a
resonant system then it can duplicate the neccesary analogy of what is
seen in an atom in a PMT under input light conditions?
What do you think?

Waves superimpose. If you mix two sine waves, you can separate
them just by filtering. That's why you can 'tune in' a radio
signal without knowing what other signals are present.

If you put them into a non-linear system, for example where
the restoring force is proportional to the square of the
displacement, then you get the sum and difference of the
pair of input frequencies. That can be done with certain
crystals and shining high-intensity (infra)red laser light
on such material can produce blue light

More importantly do you know if what happens to a resonant system is
as I have described above?

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

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

Because if it is I may have the answer to
my big problem of describing how a wave only atom can quantize
incoming radiation into similar amplitude pulses with the frequency
proportional to the input intensity as seen in PMT`s.

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

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

E = hv - W

so there is no hint of a unique frequency at which it
works as you should have if resonance were involved.

George

Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
....
No, it is exactly the opposite, a capacitor is like a
battery. You can put in pulses of current to charge it
but the voltage remains substantially constant so it
turns pulses into DC. Capacitors are often described
by the function they perform, "reservoir capacitors"
store power in a power supply to provide between the
pulses it gets from the AC supply, "smoothing capacitors"
iron out bumps caused by variation of current on a DC
supply and "decoupling capacitors" eliminate voltage
spikes that might otherwise cause interference to
other devices.

Just in addition, there are 0.8 farad capacitors (for limited applied
voltage) that are quite small, and are in *fact* batteries.

Blew me away, because I had heard of building-sized capacitors for igniting
various reactions...

David A. Smith

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:wVobb.5654$gv5.4178@fed1read05...
Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:myJ6b.47123$Qy4.9078@fed1read05...
...
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.

This was Alexsandr's question, the role of feedback. And an electron in an
orbital surely *is* a standing wave, at least in "host" it is. Now
conduction electrons are something else again.


By the way, should you attentively study QM, you would see, the
solution of Schroedinger equation for potential well is just standing
wave. ;-)

True.

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.

Fine, but this is a different type of emission. Discrete absoprtion and
emission of characterisitc frequencies of light. It is how stellar spectra
are identified, for example.

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,

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

"Standing wave" remember? If the electron had a discernable macroscopic
motion, it would produce a magnetic field.

And it produces. These are you relativists who postulate everything
because of lack of comprehension. And you postulate just because you
don't grasp what there occurs. But arrogance...


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

There is no parallel.

Are you absolutely sure? ;-)

I am.

David A. Smith

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:yVqbb.5719$gv5.1519@fed1read05...
Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

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

There is no parallel.

Regrettably, you began confusing some things. First, where have you
seen in my text that RC-circuit has any relation to the frequency
threshold in photoeffect? This is Sean's model, and before stopping
me, it would be nice of you to read my respond to Sean. ;-)

Sorry. If that is not the model being discussed, then I need have no part
in it. See the title of the thread.

Second, Aleksandr's and Sean's models differ much. Factually,
Aleksandr uses the terminology of RC-circuit as an analogy, in order
to get a simpler approach to mathematics, since vibration processes
have been better studied in theory of electric circuits than in
mechanics. Though he very soon will run there into a barrier connected
with the fact that you all don't know our methodology. ;-)

Third, the analogy between dynamical mechanical systems and electric
circuits exists, we have it developed. Should you really want to know
something, you wouldn't be lazy to look through the paper which I
referred you to.

Then I'll ask you for the second time... provide the link please.

Maybe, then you would have less questions - though,
as I see, you all weren't told at the universities about vibration
systems more than pendulums. On one hand, your teachers don't know
more, and on the other, lest to overload your self-confidence - and
for sex you needn't more! (Perhaps this is why such professors as
Stephen Speicher so much like Russian girls which know some more about
vibration systems). ;-)

Fourth, you are asking Aleksandr of the feedback in parametric
oscillator. First answer you yourself (not me - I know): what's the
difference between the active filter and auto-oscillator? ;-) And
where from appear vibrations in auto-oscillator when it's switched on
and due to what one or several fixed frequencies are selected from the
spectrum of noise? ;-) When you understand these issues, you will be
able to answer yourself all your questions. ;-)

Like "when will Sergey get to the point"? The title is boundary
conditions.

To the point, you
still didn't answer me intelligibly, why the maximum of quantum output
coincides with the maximum of EM wave absorption. ;-)

It doesn't in the photoelectric effect. The quantum output is either
proportional to intensity, or the difference between threshold and photon
energy, depending on how you want to define your nebulous term.

If this has no
relation to resonance, then to what it relates? Only I would ask you,
please David, without your surrealism. ;-)

My surrealism is not in question. Your reality is what we are discussing.

Thus, should you don't cram but study in your red-stone universities,
you would have less difficulties with understanding, less absurdly
virtual ideas and ambitiously dogmatic statements. ;-)

Right. Provide the link to your "mechanical" model, please.


David, it's now several times as I answered all these questions and
linked you to my references. No reason to repeat. You "don't see" them
- well, behave as you want. But I will not deepen into substantiation
of wave nature of photoeffect until you confirm your readiness to
perceive complex material. Still I see your very insufficient level of
knowledge and no willing to discuss seriously serious things. Your
statement

[David]
It doesn't in the photoelectric effect. The quantum output is either
proportional to intensity, or the difference between threshold and
photon
energy, depending on how you want to define your nebulous term.

[Sergey]
says only that even in QM your knowledge is limited with popular
slogans. If you make principle of it, I'll put on my web site
CONVENTIONAL diagrams of quantum output of electrons from metal
superimposed with the plot of reflection factor. I suggested you to
have an independent consultation in literature, saying, such effects
have been experimentally revealed very long ago. But you don't need
knowledge, neither understanding of physical processes. This is your
right and difficulties of universities and foundations that fund you.

I'm not a waiter, please don't behave with me capriciously. Let us
suspend this issue until you demonstrate the necessary level of
knowledge and responsible attitude to our discussion.

Sergey.



David A. Smith

Dear Sean,

I wonder, why do you take improper what I write you in simple and
clear phrases that exclude other interpretation. I know, you do
support wave theory, and have no intention to reckon you relativist
(though, on the other hand, I'm surprised that you are inattentive to
analyse relativistic works - having not understood, what's wrong with
them, it's quite hard to find proper way on your own). I wrote about
general atmosphere of not exacting attitude to oneself and one's
developments and that we wave physicists shouldn't make these rough
mistakes that have led a whole century of physics to a deadlock. If
not, what for came we to say some other _our_ word? In my previous
posts I showed you how this gap has led you to the fact that you copy
the mistakes of extremely wrong and at the same time self-confident
relativistic approach to the problems, while you are not the
relativist in your mind. But you are copying them psychologically, as
one of the first typical peculiarities of relativists is - to take the
offended pose and to accuse everyone in ignorance - and at the same
time to avoid the solution and even frank discussion of the problem.
;-)

If saying of professional mistakes, please see examples from your
latter post. Aren't you too self-confident when say,

[Sean]
So I now stress that I consider resonance in infinite open universe
to
alway be able to have boundary conditions and your main criticism
about my model are answered.

[Sergey]
The worst is, it was enough for you to receive "some of Georges
points" to stop substantiation of issue that is basically important
for your theory. ;-) At the same time, your representation of
boundaries is too incomplete and inexact to be the grounds of any
conclusions.

First, resonance cannot arise in open medium. Resonance and
interference are some different processes. Interference is produced
due a simple superposition of two or few convergent beams. Resonance
needs multiple reflection of the same vibrations from boundaries. Not
in vain resonance vibrations are often considered as amplifying
process.

Second, if the medium was heterogeneous (in this case we are speaking
of interstellar space), this heterogeneity arises from some
accumulating masses that are present in it and consisting of atoms
which you try to substantiate with the help of this heterogeneity. The
causation is clearly violated. ;-)

Third, if atoms were the nodes of resonance, you would have to
substantiate the conditions under which these nodes are travelling in
space and how this travelling obeys the Newton laws. Believe me, it is
impossible to substantiate it. The resonance node to travel in space,
it is necessary, at least one of sources to move with some velocity,
but this source can be at any distance from your node. Another thing,
if the particles were formed as wave toruses. But this is another kind
of wave process. It has its features different from those which you
suppose, and I can say, this version at well higher level has been
developed by V.A. Atsukovsky in his monograph "General
etherodynamics". I don't straight support this conception, as it
doesn't lift some basically important questions. But it would be
helpful for you to know it, lest to double what has been already done.
The more that you have even more problems in your phenomenology. In
particular, where from will you take the central forces of
interactions if the particles are nodes? Resonance nodes NEVER
interact with each other. They are the CONSEQUENCE, not the cause of
definite specific character of vibration process! Further, what's the
difference between the node of electron and node of proton, muon and
so on? What corresponds to the spin of particle in a node, or it also
spins in your model? ;-)

Fourth, standing waves that are produced at the heterogeneities of
medium structure are formed ONLY between the source and region of
heterogeneity. In 3D space it's quite difficult to form such region,
and it always will be artificial. Waves in such region will exist only
until the source exists. And so on, so on.

You are accusing me that I think you to be relativist? No, Sean, I
don't, and I never said so. But relativism reveals not only in
adherence to Einstein's SR and GR. These theories only result of
definite irresponsible approach in science. AGAIN AND AGAIN, ONE
CANNOT THIINK THE PHYSICS OUT. Will you offend or not, but it's good
to think out "convenient" phenomena, to charm young ladies either from
laziness, but not in professional physics. And when you are claiming,

[Sean]
I have always avoided learning any physics that
explains itself in GR or QT terms

[Sergey]
I can say responsibly, in no one textbook on classical physics (now
these are, as a rule, very old textbooks), neither in our (laboratory
SELF) developments on wave physics, you cannot find any substantiation
for your "resonance hypothesis". To generate the new, one has to
substantiate very attentively, comprehensively and responsibly one's
statements and to thoroughly analyse the known conceptions and
treatments, to understand their bottlenecks and shortcomings. Without
it all the following mathematics has no sense and value for physics. I
multiply said it to Henri Wilson, and now I have to say it you.
Phenomenology of physical phenomena is not the subject of negotiations
or friendly agreement. Virtual spaces and processes can be of interest
only for abstract mathematics, and only until it doesn't ponder of
practical application of its abstractions. I very pity having to write
you so, but the cause is yours.

Best,

Sergey.


(sean) wrote in message . com...
(Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message . com...
Sean, you are so childishly boiling! Better think. I basically cannot
be prejudged in this case, simply because I'm, just as you, an ardent
supporter of classical wave theory. And it's of my interest - you to
defend it before David and other relativists. However you are too
carried away by the beautiful idea of atom-capacitor; you don't want
to see the discrepancies of this merely outward analogy - neither when
others drew your attention to them nor when I wrote you. I understand,
you pity much your great work and great hopes. But don't be in hurry
to leave your theory, nor to take offence at all us. Better see, why
it happened so. If you want, I can prompt you from my side. This is
because you, just as all other colleagues, have been educated on
relativistic approach - inaccurate, not self-requiring approach
drawing no attention to the discrepancies with experiment - just the
things because of which all relativistic theories appeared built on
the sand. You all do not note this, you all simply from force of
inertia transfer these drawbacks to your seemingly independent models.
See, how confidently have you transferred into your classical theory
such absurd thing as photon. And you made it divisible which
contradicts both to the definition of photon and to the postulates of
photon theory. This is only one example, but there are many in your
theory. Why are you surprising that your construction doesn't stand a
minimal criticism? See, you take offence at Craig and Steve that they
showed you some errors. But think, if you have improved your
calculations after their criticism, it means, you saw some inaccurate
places in your work. Well, why are you saying as to you - about
occasional oversight, but as to them you are saying, they are
prejudged? It seems to be not the best kind of discussion when one
transfers professional debates to personal relations. Do you think
otherwise? ;-)

Another case. You are suggesting, Craig and me to replicate your
simulations. I cannot tell instead Craig of course, but for me
mathematics is only a tool helping to describe more precisely the
phenomenology, nothing more. I perfectly know, you can obtain
mathematically rigorous result with whatever statement of problem. But
we have to state the problem correctly, as mathematical rigour never
will be able to overlap the wrong phenomenology. And we have to check
our results on the experimental model, not in computer. Computer is a
soldier - you ordered, it calculated. I will not check your
simulations - I'm sure, your computer calculates excellently. But you
should think about the phenomenology which you took as the basis.
Understand, Sean, the nature will not adapt itself to your or my
opinion, the questions will remain questions until you answer
correctly.

The same in your discussion with George Dishman. I don't discuss his
position: he is supporter of photon theory, so his task is to negate
the wave physics anyway. The question is, how do you formulate the
phenomenology of vibration process. Opposing your seeing to George's
opinion on dominating role of boundary for resonance, in your post to
him of 2003-09-03 you are writing so:

[Sean]
The medium in which
these nodes appear is not one object but can consist of air, gas,
water sand etc.
It isnt then the cavity that resonates but the medium within the
cavity that resonates

[Sergey]
And though below you are saying right that when changing the physical
properties of medium, parameters of resonance change also, but being
the supporter of wave physics, you should know, resonance phenomena in
discussed systems arise only and exceptionally in medium IN PRESENCE
OF BOUNDARIES. Only MEDIUM+BOUNDARY TOGETHER create the conditions for
resonance. Rather, in general case, only the limitedness of area of
vibration process propagation creates the conditions for resonance. So
it is the more incorrect to try substantiating the resonance pattern
of vibrations in the medium without boundaries (and in case of atom
there is no necessity in such attempts):

[Sean's post of 2003-09-05]
If we can agree that in a closed system a medium can resonate and that
medium can have maxima nodes that can be compared to atoms in a wave
only classical model then I would just have to show how a node in a
resonating medium could occur in an open system.
there are two points to support this. First of all one prerequisite of
the closed system is that like a gas in a chamber the medium has to be
of homogenous density or pressure and you would argue taht an open
universe would in a sense because it would not be `contained` it
wouyld lose pressure etc. My argument would be that in an infinite
universe as long as the density is homogenous in all parts of this
infinite universe the density at any one point is constant or average.
Therefore one important prerequisite for a resonating infinite medium
is met.

[Sergey]
If you observed such great influence of medium changing in cavity, you
can remember what a great importance the musical instruments designers
attached and attach to the varnish and shape of frame. You may want to
see

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...45/load45.html

There in Fig. 8 we present the amplitude-frequency and phase-frequency
characteristics of electric ladder filter when the reactance of load
changed. In these figures you can see how the resonance peaks shift in
the band 0 - 3 kHz when the capacitance of load decreases.

This is just to what I wished to draw your attention concerning your
model. In open vibrating homogeneous systems the resonance phenomena
are absent. They are possible only in closed systems. This differs
your model from the real model of atom. Atom model is a closed system.
Stability of electron orbits is caused by the balance of forces and
energy. If you increase the kinetic energy of electron, the diameter
of orbit will increase. If you decrease - it will decrease, too. When
you superimpose on this balance some external alternating field, this
changes the orbit, and as the external field is dynamical, the maximum
of energy absorption of this external field is observed only in case
when, as a result of cycle of external affection, the electron's orbit
also becomes cyclic. With it the absorption is not some integration of
two particles - electron and photon. Simply the total field consisting
of external field and field of electron will be difference. Such is
real model which continues Rutherford - Bohr model and fully doesn't
correlate with your model of atom-capacitor.

Of course, it's always very unpleasant to hear negative opinion about
your work. However I advised you just what you need. This is merely
moral barrier which most colleagues cannot surmount. So on threads
they write many silly things for the sake to defend their 'rightness'
to the detriment of physics.

I want much you to find your moral power and your self-requirement for
the new great work. I believe, you can do it.

Kind regards,

Sergey.

Hi Sergey
I think you are wrong about me being a relativist who applies that
to new theories. I have always avoided learning any physics that
explains itself in GR or QT terms as I consider Einstein, Bohr et al
to be completely wrong about everything. Everything I learn I do so
only if the textbook information can be described in wave only or
mechanical classical terms .

I dont know where you read me saying I support photon concept?
Everything I have posted on these newsgroups is meant to show that I
beleive that photons are non existent and imaginary.

Regarding resonance. Yes in a couple of early posts on this thread I
did suggest one alternative to explaining how a wave only atom could
be explained is as a node in an uncontained medium.
I still believe actually still that one can argue that an infinite
homogenous medium CAN actually duplicate the conditions needed to
appear to be CONTAINED but thats not necessary now as I realize now
after some of Georges points that the universe even if considered
infinite is definitely not homogenous but consists of an infinity of
overlapping or adjoining `contained` systems and therefore I have no
need to argue for resonance in an apparent uncontained medium as any
point anywhere in an infinite universe is always in a contained
situation.
So I now stress that I consider resonance in infinite open universe to
alway be able to have boundary conditions and your main criticism
about my model are answered. Will you now accept the results of my
mathematical experiment?. Incidentally I did not do it on computer but
on paper with pencils and calculator and many days of work
Regarding atom field by Rutherford -Bohr. First of all Rutherford made
the mistake of thinking that those `paths` he saw in cloud cylinder
had to be particles. They were not. Paths like those and also those
found in accelerators can be DUPLICATED exactly by following the path
left where two or more overlapping wavefronts move through space. How
do I know this ? Not read in a book but simply using brain and looking
at moire patterns where overlapping concentric circles can create
spiral paths where the two overlapping waves reinforce. Where those
overlapping wavefronts move through space is larger amplitude and this
extra energy excites the gas medium and creates illusion of particle
path.
Next Bohr went on to make his mistakes about atoms by using
Rutherfords mistake as a building block for his own incorrect atomic
theories.
I must stress that atoms are not particles nor do they consist of
particles like electrons. And as I have pointed out to you that I
know state that wave atoms occur in *closed* or contained
resonating systems then the extra driving energy into the system as
resonance states will increase the amplitude of the node or maxima
which I call wave atom. And it is this increased amplitude of node
that can be measured and mistaken as increase in `energy of electron
orbit`.Maximum Limit to your electron orbit can also be seen
classically in resonant systems .So there is no need to explain atoms
as electron proton etc.. but easier and more correct to explain as
nodes of overlapping standing waves in contained resonating medium.

And regarding Craigs point that my `calculations ` are wrong and that
therefor my results and theory is wrong. Notice that Craig has not
actually supplied my line of calculations where the supposed mistake
occured. Notice also how he has not been able to supply the working
calculations he used supposedly duplicating my experiment to arrive at
his supposed "correct" results. All he supplies are the final reults
and expects us all to believe they are made from correct calculations
using my methods. The reason why he is unable to supply the original
working calculations I asked for so I can verify if his calculations
are correct is because he actually did not do the experiment as I had
set it out to be done . I specified from the very begining that if one
uses probabilities for calculating Classical wave only results one
will always get INCORRECT results. I then proposed an experiment where
the calculations are made ,not using probabilities, and the results
match Grangiers better than QT. So when Craig says my calculations are
wrong what he is really saying is that I was not using probabilities
and therefore my results could not be correct.

One more point I would like to make and that is thatwhen I say I have
a wave only atom acting as a `capacitor` it is not in a electrical
sense but just simply that I give the wave atom the property or
ability to quantize incoming wave radiation either into larger packets
or just simply a different frequency of re-emmision. So to argue that
certain phenomena seen in electric capacitors are not seen in atoms is
being too literal with my analogy. I still am trying theoretically to
explain how this capacitor like ability of a wave atom can be
explained and maybe observations on resonating systems will give me a
better way to answer why and how this capacitor like ability of a wave
only atom occurs. But please it is not me literally saying that the
electrical properties of electric circuit capacitors is what is
occuring in an atom.
I point out that I use the term `capacitor effect`more generally where
it is seen in other systems like traffic lights changing the traffic
flow , or a bucket filling with water and tipping over when full.

One example of how maybe a resonating sytem could mechanically act as
a capacitor is I tried an experiment in graph form with 3 overlapping
wave forms. One is 2 beats(A) a second one is 1 beat a second(B) and
one is 1 beat every 1 3/4 second(C). I found that without the C
pattern the composite wave is still vibrating at 1 beat a second but
when the C beat is added a new composite beat occurs that is larger
than all 3 and results in a new composite beat frequency of one beat
almost every 4 seconds! Maybe this an example that could be applied to
a resonating system where a vibrating system of 1 beat a second with
a extra driving force added of one beat every 1/3/4 seconds now beats
at 1 beat every 4 seconds. If it could be shown to occur in a
resonating system then it can be said that the system above quantized
incoming radiation from almost 1 beat every 2 seconds and doubles the
re emission to one every 4 seconds. This is what I would call a
mechanical example of how a resonating system can act like a
capacitor.
Regards
Sean

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message ...
sean wrote:

Hi Sergey
I think you are wrong about me being a relativist who applies that
to new theories. I have always avoided learning any physics that
explains itself in GR or QT terms as I consider Einstein, Bohr et al
to be completely wrong about everything. Everything I learn I do so
only if the textbook information can be described in wave only or
mechanical classical terms .

How do you account for the efficacy of quantum electrodynamics which
rests squarely on the theory of special relativity? Classical
electrodynamics cannot account for the existence of atoms, the Compton
effect or the photoelectric effect. To say nothing about the Lamb
effect. Quantum theory has been supported in every experiment challange.
It has yet to fail. Whereas classical physics cannot account for black
body radiation, nor can it correctly predict the specific heat of many
substances. So why does quantum theory work?




I dont know where you read me saying I support photon concept?
Everything I have posted on these newsgroups is meant to show that I
beleive that photons are non existent and imaginary.

See the experiment of Grangier, Roger and Aspect which proves that
photons exist and that the semi-classical theory of light and matter is
not adequate.

Classical physics is deficient in explaining and predicting phenomena in
the small and even in the large. Classical thermodynamics and
statistical mechanics cannot account for black body radiation correctly.

Bob Kolker


Bob, this is a prayer. Don't forget, when Planck only yielded his
famous formula, grounding on not enough substantiated premise that
portions of energy in quantization are equal, he supposed just this
process of quantized emission. However in most cases it is justified
only in average study. If we take the process without an average, the
hypothesis of quantization loses its grounds. Though you will not
understand. Should you actually want to understand, you wouldn't
mention again Aspect's experiments whom only one lazy yet didn't
smash. One may not tell physics through set teeth standing in haughty
pose. Such appearance is not very good. But to rely on some
experiments, you have to be sure, they are well grounded. Many times
on different threads I raised the same questions - you either
responded slogans or didn't respond at all. This is your matter and
your right. However you are not the Bob who discussed a year ago. Not
that Bob.

Sergey.