Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

George


Dear George,

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree entirely.

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

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

Of course, it can, and not always this effect is small. Simply
compound resistant systems are unsolvable by conventional techniques,
and even in simple systems the existing solutions "don't see" even a
half of problem. ;-) To make sure, please visit two pages of our paper
"Some features of vibrations in homogeneous 1D resistant elastic line
with lumped parameters"

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft.../resist21.html

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft.../resist22.html

and see Fig. 1 and 2 where we showed the amplitude-frequency and
phase-frequency characteristics of infinite elastic resistant line.
One cannot yield these characteristics with conventional techniques,
as well as group velocity characteristic shown in Fig. 4, page 25

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft.../resist25.html

This is why colleagues think that group velocity is senseless under
overcritical frequency. But it exists and is finite. ;-) For finite
resistant lines the amplitude-frequency characteristics will be other,
one can build them also only being aware of our methodology. I'll
write below about it.



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

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

This all is correct. Stonehenge swung by a child. ;-) Under resonance,
the resistance of vibration system will only decrease the amplitude.


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

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

This is just what we may not do. We may not separate the system from
processes occurring in it, or processes lose their physical causation
and with it - the solution of problem and understanding of process.
Supporters of Lagrangian approach did so and lost important solutions.
They don't understand it, the same as photon theory supporters don't
understand that they defend an absurd, but this is so.


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

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

Here I didn't understand you. It is second time now when you are
attributing to me what I didn't say, and first time you already
agreed, waves don't create water, a boat, a child neither. Another
matter, when we consider a child in a boat as some resonance subsystem
and wave frequency coincides with the resonance frequency of this
subsystem, the pattern of interaction "waves - subsystem" will not
sufficiently change.

The same in atom. If the exciting EM field comes to resonance with the
period of electron's rotation in orbit, the total pattern will
essentially change. (To the point, you yourself identified resonance
as the in-phase addition of vibrations coming from boundaries and
external excitation; but here it appears, there is no resonance? ;-)
But here they are added, too. If the electron during its rotation
comes not in phase with external field, its orbit will not grow.)
Dependently on frequencies ratio, we will identify this pattern with
re-emission, reflection either with absorption of the energy. You
hardly could say it to Sean, as you yourself understand and know this
pattern not to the end point. I'm sorry to say, but this is so. ;-)



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

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

If so, this is really so. And the cause is the nonlinearity of
resonance system of atoms (however much we idealise the black body, it
consists of some atoms ;-) ). However this has no concern to the fact
that to excite oscillations, we need some nonlinear transformer. I
think, only Aleksandr can make more clear, what he meant.


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

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

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

More importantly, you have to take into account that it
seems that the parameters can only have discrete values.

We have no necessity in it. Just this reveals your affection for QM
dogmata which permanently comes to light and confuses your logic. ;-)
I showed you phenomenologically, how an external field excites an
orbital electron. This field, by the way, can be stationary. On the
account of nonlinear atomic bonding the electron will also be excited,
up to emission from atom (or from the surface of metal, dielectric or
semi-conductor). ;-) To understand it, you need only the amount of
information from the course of field theory - to calculate it, of
course, is more complex task. ;-)

For a violin string, the wavelength is related to the
length between bridge and fret but the amplitude can take
any value. That is not the case for the atom, there seems
to be no continuously variable parameter that could be
gradually increased.

Why, there in atom is the permanently varying parameter - this is the
electron's orbit transforming under affection of external field.

This is where I think the idea of
resonance as a means to explain the photoelectric effect
in the way that Sean seems to be suggesting will prove to
be most difficult.

No, simply Sean's analogies of process are very far and incomplete.
There is another complication to prove it - QM supporters don't want
to hear any arguments. Look at David. To prove that just he is right,
he already came to deleting the opponent's arguments. Further we will
see him furious. ;-)


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

That depends. If it is resonance, the orbit should be able
to gradually change from one energy level to another as it
absorbs energy over many cycles.

Here again 'hoofs' are seen. ;-) In this case you are proceeding not
from the process but from Planck's postulate which supporters of QM
have dogmatised. If we proceeded from the process as I described it,
this is really resonance interaction and electron 'absorbs' the energy
of many cycles. There is a nuance which even the experts in wave
theory don't notice, as they 'have not been taught' to work with
analytical solutions. When the system superimposing many vibrations
absorbs the energy, each new reflection changes the input impedance,
and further the system absorbs energy not so much. The resonance
amplitude is formed on two processes that meet each other. On one
hand, this is the absorption of energy coming into synphasely, and on
the other - decrease of absorption with growing resonance amplitude.
Just from this point there appears the exponential regularity of which
you are speaking below.

This is very simple to understand, if we return to a child on the
swing. We often see how kids helplessly wallow on the swing, until
they learn to change their momentum of inertia in time. They spend lot
of energy, and the swing absorbs it without any vibration. But when
they learn, even small energy will increase the amplitude, but kids
have no power enough to achieve maximal amplitude, even if they move
properly. What's the cause? Friction? This also, but the main, the
conditions of vibration change with the amplitude, and to achieve a
full rotation, a child would have to develop enough speed. The same in
atom.

If it is driven from one
stable orbit to another immediately, or if the composite is
simply a combination of the orbit plus the applied field,
then is is not resonance but forced oscillation.

First, "if ...", it would be possible, but in case "if ...". ;-)
Second, if there occurred such transfer which is very convenient for
photon theory supporters (you of course are not among them? ;-) ),
there appears a very long turn of questions from which the supporters
of photon theory flit very fast. Among them:

1. What it means - "electron absorbs photon"? Is this collision
inelastic? Then let us calculate the direction of total momentum. ;-)
Let us take into account that according to EM field theory, transverse
E-field displaces the electron ACROSS its propagation. How will it
correlate with an inelastic collision? ;-)
2. What it means - "instant absorption"? Quantum is just the energy
necessary for complete transition. Instant absorption implies the
point size of photon; with it a new series of questions comes to
light:
2.1. Is the wave monochromatic;
2.2. Relation between the photon's period and wavelength;
2.3. Is the photon uncharged,

and so on, so on. I don't think you would be happy to run the same
rings as David does - too wearisome and hopeless business. ;-)

Third, the concept "forced vibrations" belongs to another
classification than "resonance". Resonance takes place at free, forced
and auto-vibrations. Each case has its features, but none the less,
these are different classifications. ;-)



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

You are correct in all you say there, but I think the greater
problem is that we cannot detect any intemediate energy states.

Why at all should we determine these intermediate states of energy?
Electron quite quickly transits from one energetic level to another.
The levels of super-thin fission are also observed. The fact that
so-called quantum not so much strongly corresponds to Planck formula
as it is postulated is long ago known experimentally, it is sufficient
to see the red boundary of luminescence - for example, in Fig. 10 of
our paper "On the nature of red shift of Metagalaxy"

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/hubbl.../hubble45.html

to have no illusions as to such postulates.


You cannot gradually and smoothly increse the energy in the
orbit from one level to another, it appears to jump instantly
between the levels.

How you colleagues have got accustomed it to jump! And what's the time
duration of its jump? Does it correspond to the EM wave period or not?
;-) Or "instantaneously" means "at once"? And what about inertia of
electron? Can it jump not from the nucleus but vice versa? And how is
the quantum added with inclined motion of electron at the instant of
jumping? If the electron has been blurred, what absorbs what, at all,
and how?! To the point, if the photon absorption occurred by way of
its collision with electron, photon interacts with the nucleus, too!
And what concern has the value h*nu to the nucleus? ;-) And the
nucleus has much more cross-section of scattering - it means, it has
to absorb much more photons. It means, light more excites the nucleus
than the orbits of electrons. Ooh, are you still controlling this
inexhaustible flow of questions? ;-)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merely forced oscillations also can be resonant. ;-)



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

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

Simulator is a very good thing, indeed, but no one simulator is able
to match the phase-dependent boundary. You can yield it only having
the problem solved. And in the vibration theory you never know
finally, which condition at the boundary is actually the most
important for you. Vibrations like much to 'punish' us by summing the
phases and multiple reflections from interior heterogeneities. ;-)

and I stated at the beginning this could not be included.

George, I cannot catch the meaning of this your phrase, sorry. ;-)


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

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

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

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

Undoubtedly, and perhaps we would finely complement each other in
research. And there is nothing unsolvable in language, as it said
Carlson that lives on the roof. I think, if you knew more of technique
on which I base my analysis, you would less entrust to dogmas that
appeared just because the scientists of that time have run into a
strong difficulty. They constructed a temporary building of
postulates; now today scientists are guided just as the tourists along
this "Great Chinese Wall". ;-)


best regards
George

Best to you,

Sergey.

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:_W3fb.38127$gv5.17852@fed1read05...
Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

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

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

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

What a diagram? Where? You said me nothing of it. And if you already
provided the diagram, why don't you know, 3 or 4 steps will give a
correct analogy?


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

You have an incorrect model. You are hiding.

See my posting with George Dishman in this thread. When I see one able
to perceive, I write at the level one is able to perceive, and so much
as one is able to perceive. While from you I still see only your
unwilling to hear and to see whatever inconvenient for you. So you may
not take offence. ;-)


...
Thus, I repeat my question:

PLEASE DO SHOW ME, HOW I MADE IT.

You made it based on a circuit that does show resonance,

No, David, in the circuit theory they also cannot solve such problems.
We have solved the mechanical problem whose solution you hopefully
saw, applied our original dynamical electromechanical analogy DEMA
which is described in that paper, and converted these solutions into
the problem of oscillations in electric circuit. So the solutions you
cannot yield we yielded just for mechanical model.

but does not agree
with any known *physical* model of bonding in metals. Find how your model
describes reality.

It has no relation to bonding in metals. Should you really be
interested in the matter, not in "struggle against the different mind
in physics", you would read both that paper on electric filters and
another paper on mechanical resonance subsystems that I suggested you
before. And as the mechanical engineer that bumped into conventional
approaches you would naturally be curious in opportunities that new
approach offers. Furthermore, you would not make an appearance that
you don't read my posts to George. True, then you couldn't blame me
that I give no model. With George, we already advanced into
interaction of atom with EM wave. You would understand much... You
only make worse for yourself trying to mix up the topics and tracks.
;-) You would better answer physical questions, not confuse yourself
with sophistry. By the way, you are not the best of sophists, as you
were taught not sophistry but childish nihilism: "What I don't like, I
don't see, hear, neither recognise". These are your relativists
problems without solutions. Well, launch your photon aeroplanes. And
we SELF will step by step deepen. Now our technology which you don't
know was selected in European Union as the technology of the week -
while you still cannot replicate even our initial results. The longer
the farther. Well, build your barricades, maybe Hollywood will become
interesting in them for some next thriller - for example, "Russian
handsome devil rips open the brain of audacious American David". ;-)


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

I'm not interesting, what have they accepted to support their
crumbling-away theory. I'm interesting only in facts, how it occurs
factually in the nature. Some time ago being in sophistic extase you
wrote me a phrase from formal logic of physics, something like "Even
one experiment discrepant with the theory is enough to destroy its
validity". You answered no one my question on the photon theory, and
even in photoeffect you snatch the air, as a fish. Not you will tell
what really occurs in microgauge of the nature. You would better want
and be able to know, not to rage your heart out.


Since you are now evading the facts,

What?????? ;-)

I must assume you no longer wish to
discuss anything with me.

Absolutely so, and I already wrote you twice. It's so boresome,
time-expensive and fully fruitless way to spend time - trying to
explain something to a person concentrated on one thing - to do not
hear your words and to pervert them.

Good luck in your future endeavors.

Thank you very much, I will not fail with it. Follow our journal, you
will soon see our new success.


plonk

None the less, you haven't answers.


David A. Smith

P.S. As to standard characteristic of photoelectric emission from
metal, I will put it on my web site, as promised, and then inform you.

Sergey.

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:_W3fb.38127$gv5.17852@fed1read05...
Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

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

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

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

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

You have an incorrect model. You are hiding.

...
Thus, I repeat my question:

PLEASE DO SHOW ME, HOW I MADE IT.

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

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

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

plonk

David A. Smith

David,

As you appeared unable to see yourself what I asked you concerning the
photoelectric effect from metals, I show you here

http://www.angelfire.com/la3/selftrans/david/david.html

the well-known diagrams with the brief description, you to make sure
that the spectral characteristic of photoeffect has the maximum and
the range of very fast-growing quantum output. Please pay your
attention, emission of electrons from metal requires much more
photons. Most of them are reflected. Where from? To the point, when
the particle was reflected, it transmits twice more energy than when
absorbed. So the maximum of reflection would correspond to the maximum
of quantum output. While in reality this occurs on the contrary.

NOW I'M REPEATING MY OLD QUESTION:

WHAT CAUSES THE MAXIMUM OF PHOTOEFFECT?

Furthermore, it has been multiply corroborated that EM field and light
are the same. It is also doubtless that the EM field MUST interact
with an electron. The nonsense which your comrades-in-arms in photon
theory dream up when suppose EM field interacting with photon
selectively only corroborates you colleagues feeble, unprincipled and
militantly ignorant. You have a good opportunity to defend the
"honour" of your colleagues and to describe thoroughly the cause, why
EM field is so selective.

And the third and final for now question. Thinking out the causes of
small quantum output near the red boundary, your colleagues try to
substantiate this by the skin-effect. But it is so trivial true that
the EM wave reflection from metal is caused by the appeared effective
counter-field on the surface of metal. Without it there would be no
reflection! The calculation of such fields was the PhD thesis by Henry
Hertz. And how it relates to reflection of photons? ;-)

Regards,

Sergey.

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

[snip]

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

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

If the system changes a frequency spectrum of absorbed
electromagnetic radiation, on definition such system is
nonlinear in relation to absorbed electromagnetic radiation.

That may be the case in your line of work but not in
mine. A "Simple Harmonic Oscillator" is one in which
the restoring force is linearly related to the
displacement and that relation is what is being
described as "linear".

The generator electromagnetic oscillations always is nonlinear
system, since this one converses one sort of energy in other.
For example - resistor.

The voltage is what tries to restore the quiescent
conditions and is linearly related to the current
hence in normal terminology it is linear.

Even the amplifier electromagnetic oscillations almost always
is nonlinear system, since this one imports nonlinear
distortions to a signal. ;o)

I know that only too well :-(

Now problem for you:

how the REVERSIBILITY of the generator in the amplifier
and on the contrary is interlinked to NONLINEARITY of SYSTEM?

Sorry Aleksandr, I am not taking any more exams this
week, I think I have established my credentials
adequately.

best regards
George

Bravo, George!

You parried excellently. Though it seems, Aleksandr hadn't in mind to
examine you. You are not David Smith either Bilge, aren't you? ;-)

Aleksandr's question quite fits his assertions and is really crafty.
On one hand, you are absolutely right when thinking the system linear
because of its linear constraints. On the other hand, you, as I see,
are trying to tie the model of electronic oscillator to the model of
atom? But the model of atom is nonlinear, as I recently showed you. On
the third, you never will be able to build the oscillator if you have
merely linear feedback. This is just what I illustrated you with
resonance subsystems, when the input impedance of quite linear, though
reactive elements varies nonlinearly in the frequency range,
wherethrough we yield the selective feedback. This was Aleksandr's
question.

As to nonlinear constraint of orbital electron in atom, I would like
to draw again your attention, when the orbit of electron increased,
the connection becomes weaker, and vice versa. In linear systems the
returning force ALWAYS provides the stable equilibrium and increases
with ANY deviation. Here we have it not. This is just the complicacy
of the problem, why Niels Bohr succeeded to estimate only the
energetic part of model, and even it - incompletely. Here is some
outward analogy with the simplest RC-oscillator. RC-circuit doesn't
create new resonance lines but only rotates the phase of signal
dependently on frequency. At the frequency where the total phase will
be equal to 180 degrees, vibrations begin to add and to amplify, don't
they? The same as a child on the swing: the amplitude will grow only
with multiple addition. This is the feature of problem of photoeffect.

Have a nice week,

Sergey.

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
The generator electromagnetic oscillations always is nonlinear
system, since this one converses one sort of energy in other.
For example - resistor.

The voltage is what tries to restore the quiescent
conditions and is linearly related to the current
hence in normal terminology it is linear.

But in "exact" terminology it is nonlinear. ;-)

The accurate terminology in English is "linear", the
conventions may be different in your first language
but it seems unlikely.

I'll snip the rest, sorry to disappoint you but
I have too many other demands on my time. I am
already spending more effort than I intended on
the discussion with Jim Greenfield but cosmology
is my primary interest and a considerably more
relevant topic for sci.astro.

" But cosmology is my primary interest " also.

Dear George,

Please, give destructive criticism or disapproval of my astrophysical
article from point of view of a scientific methodology:

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

1. Here SPACE and TIME are eliminated from the given EMPIRICAL THEORY.

2. THE GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE is ALONE physical VARIABLE in the given
EMPIRICAL THEORY.

3. The given EMPIRICAL THEORY demonstrates EXPERIMENTALLY QUANTIZATION
of a GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE.


Sincerely yours,

Aleksandr

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:a2zhb.52523$gv5.22053@fed1read05...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:t4Vgb.47852$gv5.39735@fed1read05...
...
There absent "The electron avalanches".
There are only electromagnetic oscillations.
The signal, which one is gripped by the antenna,
amplifies by a quantum solid-state parametric amplifier.

I will do research on this detector. I had only seen you refer to a
PMT
before.
...
Now David I have one concrete problem to you:

==================================================
1. What concrete telescope seizes " a PHOTON "?
==================================================

Each does. A cloud of photons is released from the source.





Please David describe your model of absorption of "photon"
simultaneously by two VLBI radio telescopes.

SourceA)---- (multiple photons)

Detector1) ---- (photon)---- (SourceA
Most of Earth
Detector2) ---- (photon)---- (SourceA

Rotate one of the polarizers, and show me it is the same photon following
two simultaneous paths. With three antenna-systems online, I'm guessing
only the antenna-system on which you rotate the polarizer "drops out".

Dear David,

I do not perceive your model rather well...

The truth as I perceive it...

Let three radio telescopes are on the Earth.
Let very remote source emits one "photon" in a direction of the Earth.

1. What concrete radio telescope will
swallow up; devour; absorb; take up; or immerse this "photon"?

2. Other optional versions of your model...

Sincerely yours,

Aleksandr


David A. Smith

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
m...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:a2zhb.52523$gv5.22053@fed1read05...
....
Please David describe your model of absorption of "photon"
simultaneously by two VLBI radio telescopes.

SourceA)---- (multiple photons)

Detector1) ---- (photon)---- (SourceA
Most of Earth
Detector2) ---- (photon)---- (SourceA

Rotate one of the polarizers, and show me it is the same photon
following
two simultaneous paths. With three antenna-systems online, I'm
guessing
only the antenna-system on which you rotate the polarizer "drops out".

Dear David,

I do not perceive your model rather well...

The truth as I perceive it...

Let three radio telescopes are on the Earth.
Let very remote source emits one "photon" in a direction of the Earth.

1. What concrete radio telescope will
swallow up; devour; absorb; take up; or immerse this "photon"?

2. Other optional versions of your model...

Since one telescope *does* absorb all of a photon (based on total absorbed
energy), then signals detected at multiple telescopes must be multiple
photons emitted in a "data packet". How many recorded incidents do you
have where roughly half a photon (based on energy levels and/or
polarization) is absorbed simultaneously at two antennae?

Mach knew the Universe intrudes in the *here*. Einstein said the inverse,
that any body was extended, even through the Universe. The diffraction
formula says as much. This is why the wave model works so well for
propagation.

The fact that the antennae are separated by Earth is just geography. Good
for driving the cost of flights up.

David A. Smith

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

[snip]

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

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

If the system changes a frequency spectrum of absorbed
electromagnetic radiation, on definition such system is
nonlinear in relation to absorbed electromagnetic radiation.

That may be the case in your line of work but not in
mine. A "Simple Harmonic Oscillator" is one in which
the restoring force is linearly related to the
displacement and that relation is what is being
described as "linear".

The generator electromagnetic oscillations always is nonlinear
system, since this one converses one sort of energy in other.
For example - resistor.

The voltage is what tries to restore the quiescent
conditions and is linearly related to the current
hence in normal terminology it is linear.

Even the amplifier electromagnetic oscillations almost always
is nonlinear system, since this one imports nonlinear
distortions to a signal. ;o)

I know that only too well :-(

Now problem for you:

how the REVERSIBILITY of the generator in the amplifier
and on the contrary is interlinked to NONLINEARITY of SYSTEM?

Sorry Aleksandr, I am not taking any more exams this
week, I think I have established my credentials
adequately.

best regards
George

Bravo, George!

You parried excellently. Though it seems, Aleksandr hadn't in mind to
examine you. You are not David Smith either Bilge, aren't you? ;-)

Aleksandr's question quite fits his assertions and is really crafty.
On one hand, you are absolutely right when thinking the system linear
because of its linear constraints. On the other hand, you, as I see,
are trying to tie the model of electronic oscillator to the model of
atom? But the model of atom is nonlinear, as I recently showed you. On
the third, you never will be able to build the oscillator if you have
merely linear feedback. This is just what I illustrated you with
resonance subsystems, when the input impedance of quite linear, though
reactive elements varies nonlinearly in the frequency range,
wherethrough we yield the selective feedback. This was Aleksandr's
question.

As to nonlinear constraint of orbital electron in atom, I would like
to draw again your attention, when the orbit of electron increased,
the connection becomes weaker, and vice versa. In linear systems the
returning force ALWAYS provides the stable equilibrium and increases
with ANY deviation. Here we have it not. This is just the complicacy
of the problem, why Niels Bohr succeeded to estimate only the
energetic part of model, and even it - incompletely. Here is some
outward analogy with the simplest RC-oscillator. RC-circuit doesn't
create new resonance lines but only rotates the phase of signal
dependently on frequency. At the frequency where the total phase will
be equal to 180 degrees, vibrations begin to add and to amplify, don't
they? The same as a child on the swing: the amplitude will grow only
with multiple addition. This is the feature of problem of photoeffect.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...f66d75cc209043

Title: Orbital resonances in the solar system
Authors: Peale, S. J.
Publication Date: 00/1976

" Abstract
Orbital resonances are defined as any system of two or more
satellites (including planets) orbiting the same primary and
whose orbital mean motions are in a ratio of small whole numbers. ..."

Full Refereed Journal Article PDF



Have a nice week,

Sergey.

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
The generator electromagnetic oscillations always is nonlinear
system, since this one converses one sort of energy in other.
For example - resistor.

The voltage is what tries to restore the quiescent
conditions and is linearly related to the current
hence in normal terminology it is linear.

But in "exact" terminology it is nonlinear. ;-)

The accurate terminology in English is "linear", the
conventions may be different in your first language
but it seems unlikely.

I'll snip the rest, sorry to disappoint you but
I have too many other demands on my time. I am
already spending more effort than I intended on
the discussion with Jim Greenfield but cosmology
is my primary interest and a considerably more
relevant topic for sci.astro.

" But cosmology is my primary interest " also.

Dear George,

Please, give destructive criticism or disapproval of my astrophysical
article from point of view of a scientific methodology:


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

As an article, you note empirical relatinships which could be
taken as evidence for interactions between the orbiting bodies
producing locked periods. However, it is always possible to
express any value as a ratio of integers given sufficiently
wide bounds.

To show that these ratios are meaningful, you need to show
that they will be stable for a significantly longer period
than would occur if the had these values at the moment by
chance if you want it to be considered scientific. As it
stands, it is only numerology.

1. Here SPACE and TIME are eliminated from the given EMPIRICAL THEORY.

2. THE GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE is ALONE physical VARIABLE in the given
EMPIRICAL THEORY.

3. The given EMPIRICAL THEORY demonstrates EXPERIMENTALLY QUANTIZATION
of a GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE.

I couldn't see any theory, just specific examples. Perhaps
you could express the method you use indepently of the
results so that it could be applied to extrasolar planets.
You need state the rules governing the relationships now
when there are few systems with multiple planets known so
that the predictions can be checked as results come in. That
would qualify as an empirical law, basically a refinement of
Bodes Law.

However, what you posted is not a theory. You do not give a
model for gravitation or show how your empirical law could
be derived from it. If you could give the equations for your
"quantised gravtitational charge" and how to apply then and
show how to derive say an equivalent for the inverse square
law then you would have at least a start on a theory.

George

Sergey, sorry for not responding sooner. I'm going to trim
a lot since I agree with most and I have too little time to
get involved in this. I only intended to send one post and
that was weeks ago :-(

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

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

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

Here I didn't understand you. It is second time now when you are
attributing to me what I didn't say,

I think that has been the key to this for some time. I
have explained what I meant in my reply several times but
you keep misunderstanding me, and I think I misunderstood
you in the first place. I'll leave it at that.

More importantly, you have to take into account that it
seems that the parameters can only have discrete values.

We have no necessity in it. Just this reveals your affection for QM
dogmata which permanently comes to light and confuses your logic. ;-)

No, I was careful to say "it seems that". It may well be that
they can take other values but they always exhibit discrete
levels in our experiments. Using that to simplify our analysis
is pragmatic and can always be revised if it fails in any
conditions not yet tested. So far I don't see a need for that.

... Thus, E and H components affect so that
if the period of pulses coincides with the period of external field,
these pulses will increase. Is this resonance or not?

That depends. If it is resonance, the orbit should be able
to gradually change from one energy level to another as it
absorbs energy over many cycles.

Here again 'hoofs' are seen. ;-) In this case you are proceeding not
from the process but from Planck's postulate which supporters of QM
have dogmatised.

No i start with conclusions I drew from experiments I did many
years ago in the physics lab. I have never seen anything to
cause me to doubt those results or conclusions but if someone
comes up with an experiment that shows them to be wrong, I will
take hard evidence before dogma every time. The results have to
be reproducible though ;-)

Simulator is a very good thing, indeed, but no one simulator is able
to match the phase-dependent boundary. You can yield it only having
the problem solved. And in the vibration theory you never know
finally, which condition at the boundary is actually the most
important for you. Vibrations like much to 'punish' us by summing the
phases and multiple reflections from interior heterogeneities. ;-)

My biggest problem is that the stuff was built over forty years ago
and the springs are air-filled rubber tyres with lots of patches!
Nobody knows how they behave now.

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

Undoubtedly, and perhaps we would finely complement each other in
research. And there is nothing unsolvable in language, as it said
Carlson that lives on the roof. I think, if you knew more of technique
on which I base my analysis, you would less entrust to dogmas that
appeared just because the scientists of that time have run into a
strong difficulty. They constructed a temporary building of
postulates; now today scientists are guided just as the tourists along
this "Great Chinese Wall". ;-)

As long as the results work, it will do for now. Show you get
better results or can analyse something beyond our present
abilities and your methods will be added to the body of
knowledge.

best regards
George