|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#101
September 21st 03, 10:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:z1t6b.46391$Qy4.38651@fed1read05...
Dear Sergey Karavashkin: "Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message om... TO ALL COLLEAGUES: Dear Colleagues, I always wonder, how do you confuse yourself by substituting the statement of problem by the desirable model. What concern RC-oscillator has here? The wave model of photoeffect is based on Stop there. RC circuit has what for a frequency threshold? As frequency is increased, what does the amplitude in an RC circuit do? What is the resonant frequency of an RC circuit? There is no parallel. David A. Smith Hi David, 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. ;-) 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. 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. ;-) To the point, you still didn't answer me intelligibly, why the maximum of quantum output coincides with the maximum of EM wave absorption. ;-) If this has no relation to resonance, then to what it relates? Only I would ask you, please David, without your surrealism. ;-) 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. ;-) Sergey. 
|
|
#103
September 21st 03, 10:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(sean) writes: How about we stick to this short definition: Resonance is `when a vibrating system responds in amplitude with an alternate driving force where the two frequencies are similar. ` There is a nice definition of resonance can be found here by Dr. Vincenz [ref. 1], which I primarily agree with: * Resonance is the process in which oscillations in a system are produced, maintained or enhanced by means of a periodic transfer of energy from another oscillating system, whose frequency is identical to that of the first system. Dear Craig, I would mark, this definition is quite inexact. First, the resonance is not the cause of vibrations. And resonance is not the process per se. Vibrations are the process, and they at different conditions (frequency, shape of system, amplitude) have some features that are united by definite concepts. There exist periodic regime of vibrations, and aperiodic regime at which the elements of system also vibrate. In that amount of concepts there exists the concept of resonance, when the system reaction abruptly changes. Not only maximum of energy absorption is typical for resonance, there we can observe also maximum of energy reflection from the system. In electric circuits the resonance of currents and voltage are known to be related to this last definition. It means, resonance is a kind of vibration process which is characterised by abrupt change of system reaction to the external affection at selected frequencies. Second, to excite resonance vibrations, the periodic transfer of energy of external source is not necessary. In particular, in your brightly discussed string, the vibration energy is introduced once; after it the string long time vibrates in the regime of free vibrations. Should resistance in your elastic system be absent, vibrations would take place very long time and the energy would be gradually spent only to excite acoustic vibrations travelling into environment. The case of orbital electron is simpler and at the same time more complicated. Electron radiates at its stationary orbit, and no postulate prohibiting the radiation exists in nature. Simply there work collective processes which we cannot and never will be able eliminate in our experiments, even working in vacuum of interstellar space. It is important to recognize that there must be some form of forcing or other energy transfer; a vibrating string by itself does not resonate. Correct. String itself doesn't resonate. But the energy can be transferred once (then there in the string will excite free vibrations) either periodically (then there will excite forced vibrations or autovibrations - dependently on the pattern of external force). Free and forced vibrations make very different pattern of vibrations. First of all, with free vibrations the frequencies of possible vibrations are discrete, and with those forced the spectrum of vibrations is continuous and limited by critical frequency. At the frequency higher than critical, conventionally, vibrations are absent in the system, but factually this is applicable only to distributed systems. In the lumped systems there take place the antiphase vibrations damping along the line. Thus, lumped line at frequencies higher than critical is an effective damper. Also there is a critical or resonant frequency where that energy transfer is at a maximum. This your phrase is some inexact. First, critical and resonance frequencies are different concepts. The system can have many resonance frequencies - and only one critical. The system can have few critical frequencies (conventionally) only in case if it contains resonance subsystems. And second, as I wrote above, far from always the energy transfer is maximal at the resonance. It can also be minimal. ;-) Examples of resonances which are not waves: Let us stop here for a while and draw our attention to the fact that, separating the idea of resonance from wave physics, colleagues make a rough mistake. Wave processes are inalienable part of vibration processes in systems of the very different physical nature. In their turn, we should call 'vibrations' all periodically repeating processes without exception. Even if the period is inconstant and the system returns only to a small vicinity, these processes can be studied with the vibration theory. A body evenly orbiting - it's also vibration process. It can seem strange, but let us consider the following model. Take several flywheels aligned along the line. Let the points on each flywheel at equal distances from axes be sequentially connected by springs with similar points of the neighbouring flywheels. Now let us push one flywheel, it to begin stable rotating. How other flywheels will behave? They also will rotate (though some of them will only swing). And rotation of each rotating flywheel will be even. The same, motion of particle within water when waves pass through that area also can have a circular orbit. So it is incorrect to divide the processes into vibration and wave processes. They all are vibration and in all them at definite conditions the resonance phenomena are inherent. As the subject is here not vibration or wave processes but resonance phenomena, in this meaning it is incorrect to divide processes into those vibration and wave. And when I said David Smith that it is possible to explain photoeffect with the wave theory, I said of resonance phenomena. And I would like the colleagues to be not embarrassed that vibration theory has another name - wave physics. Vibration theory is more applied science, and wave physics is more basic. Above it the difference is over. 1. An RLC circuit driven its natural frequency; The fact that we consider the circuit as the lumped system yet doesn't mean that we can oppose it to wave processes. If you take an usual air transformer (without the core) and measure its frequency characteristic, you will find at high frequencies clearly resonance processes excited by the inductance of TURNS and BETWEEN-TURNS capacitance. Is it a ladder filter or not? ;-) This all is described by one and the same system of equations, only at definite conditions some terms become infinitesimal. 2. A playground swing pushed at the natural pendulum frequency; Fine. Let us push a pendulum. ;-) Only not one but an infinite number of pendulums connected with springs. Or this is alrready not a vibration system? ;-) 3. Certain well known orbital configurations. Bodies with orbital radii that have integer ratios, which would normally not exert a large gravitational force on each other, become coupled because of repeated interactions. Do you want to discuss orbital shapes? Fine, let us. In my last post to Aleksandr I referred him to one place of our paper, "Bend in elastic lumped line and its effect on vibration pattern" http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...3/bend093.html In this paper we considered vibrations of cyclically closed-loop system of n bodies. Please pay your attention, such system of bodies has not reflection boundaries, and resonance phenomena that arise in such systems are formed by way of multiple superposition of progressive waves, so the modes essentially differ from linear systems. ;-) Would you like an example 'from life' of atoms? It's my pleasure. In hydrogen, an electron is orbiting in its stationary orbit. It is affected by alternating E-field positioned in the orbital plane. In this case it's of no importance, is this field longitudinal either transverse. ;-) Will this field change the trajectory of electron motion? Perhaps it will, will not it? ;-) With it, if whereupon such affection the electron after few turns repeats its cycle, then the total field (external field plus field of electron) will have a definite period, and field strength of electron will be subtracted from that of external field. Usually in such case we speak of the energy absorption. But if the electron's orbit is not cyclic, the electron's oscillations in the orbit will be chaotic, and the average field created by the electron will inessentially change the external field. It means, the absorption is small. Now I'm citing the textbook which you perhaps can take in your library: Citation: When omega coincides with the resonance frequency of electron in atom, atom absorbs a large amount of energy of electromagnetic wave and the curve (see it in the book - S.K.) has a shape of typical curve of absorption [H.J. Pain. The physics of vibrations and waves. John Wiley and sons, 1976. Chapter 2 "Forced vibrations of oscillator"; item "Physical meaning of two components of shift". (In my reverse translation)]. Uncitation And you are saying, in cyclic shapes the resonance phenomena are absent. ;-) So obviously not all resonances involve wave phenomena. On the other hand, it is also true that resonance *can* involve waves. I suppose that the original question was whether photoelectric absorption can be modeled as a resonant process. This is essentially the quantum model of the atom, where the probability of absorption is enhanced for certain frequencies of light, so it's not clear to me what the issue is. Guy, have you understood what you said? As the result of what the probability of absorption increases for definite frequencies? And why for other frequencies it doesn't increase? You can find the answer in the first pages of paper by Niels Bohr "On the constitution of atoms and molecules" [Phil. Mag., 1913], as well as in the book by Enrico Fermi "Notes on quantum mechanics", The University of Chicago Press, lecture 26th "Electron in central field". So please don't powder our brains with 'very clever' phrases developed by supporters of quantum mechanical conceptions especially for such cases. ;-) There are in QM very serious basic discrepancies; they arose due to the circumstance that QM took at due time the mathematical tool of wave physics and essentially perverted its phenomenology. While the mathematical tool of old wave physics was the top achievement of wave physics, the phenomenology of QM so-so patched its holes with postulating, as the wave physics couldn't provide deeper understanding of vibration processes. Now the mathematical tool of wave physics began its fast development, so the contradictions between the QM phenomenology and strange for it math. tool reveal especially sharply. I multiply wrote of it on other threads. If you have a wish, I will repeat for you by items. ;-) --- As to your statement a few weeks ago about the "atom capacitor" model performing better than quantum mechanics and the Grangier experiment: I heartily disagree. In our private correspondence I showed that you made a number of identifiable mistakes (which leaves open the question of as-yet unidentified mistakes); you disgregarded statistical uncertainties (even though I should they were large); and you appeared to ignore even fundamental mathematics. In numerous simulations of thousands of runs I showed that the (simple) "atom capacitor" model does *not* reproduce Grangier's results as you claim. And finally, the "atom capacitor" model disregards the fact that light also has a detectably different wavelengths/frequencies/energies, and instead lumps all radiation into a single "bucket." CM I expressed to Sean my opinion concerning this and will say again, so here I'm not commenting. Hopefully, if you understand what I wrote above as to vibration processes, and if Sean doesn't take an offended pose but grasps that his beautiful analogy is imperfect, the ground of your controversy will soon vanish. In reality the processes are other, modelling equations other, problems other and phenomenology other. And these issues need to be discussed and utterly studied. Regards, Sergey. References 1. http://www.physics.georgetown.edu/~v...sm-Lect11.html
|
|
#104
September 21st 03, 10:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
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.
|
|
#105
September 21st 03, 10:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
(Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message . com...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message . com... Excepting me, all participants of a controversy avoid arguing properties of a PARAMETRIC RESONANCE. They reduce all kinds of a resonance in an electricity only to a Helmholtz resonance, i.e. to the theory of a resonance of the nineteenth century. (XIX century!!!). This problem is interlinked to psychology of thinking by physical stereotypes. The reason I started with simple resonance was that it was clear that Sean was not familiar with even that. When someone is learning a subject, it is logical to start with the simplest form and once that is mastered move on to more complex variations. George, this is not true. Sean shows himself well aware of resonance, and not only simple. Anyway, to develop the model of quantum-discharged capacitors is not a simple task. Another matter that the phenomena in atom are more versatile than in an atom-capacitor. But not everything at once. Sergey. [snip]
|
|
#106
September 21st 03, 10:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
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. 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
|
|
#107
September 22nd 03, 12:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
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 A. Smith
|
|
#108
September 22nd 03, 10:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
\(formerly\)" 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. " The title is boundary conditions. " Any nonlinear processes are intimately interlinked to BOUNDARY CONDITIONS and concepts of NATURAL or IMPROPER SPACES. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com "PROPER" or "NATURAL" SPACE ================================================== =========== The electrodynamics figures phenomena in " ANOTHER'S SPACES " Look at natural oscillations of a string with anchored ends . The shape of natural standing oscillations of a string does not depend on the velocity rate of propagation of waves of elasticity in the material of a string, for any string the shape of standing waves is same. You instantaneously will claim that you can calculate the velocity of waves of elasticity utillizing the oscillation frequency of the string or elastic plate. I propose the opposite; we have considered waves in "another's" spaces, and these waves do not have energy sufficient for fracture of "another's" space. Any electromagnetic waves are always spread in "another's" spaces, i.e. in "spaces" which are generated by nonelectromagnetic interaction of substance. Maxwell's electrodynamics are not applicable for the description of physical processes inside master cells, which pluralities create "another's" space in which Maxwell electrodynamics already becomes applicable. Fundamental physical principle is that the Maxwell electrodynamics is applicable only in "another's" spaces, since the Maxwell electrodynamics demands the assignment of boundary CONDITIONS. THE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are a latent electrodynamic postulate about physical existence " of ANOTHER'S SPACE " in which the electromagnetic phenomena are carried out. The concept of boundary CONDITIONS cannot be eliminated from electrodynamics. ================================================== =========== Maxwell's electrodynamics is a theory about dynamic processes in " ANOTHER'S SPACES ". ================================================== =========== "PROPER" or "NATURAL" SPACE of gravitational systems ================================================== =========== The physical gravitational analog of the electrodynamic concept of boundary CONDITIONS does not exist for Solar system. From my point of view just this physical fact ruins any theoretical attempts at proof of the steadiness and stability of the Solar system undertaken by physicists until now. On the other hand, there are phenomenological proofs of steadiness and stability of the Solar system. This fact yields the basis for the assumption, that the terms of the Solar system are a collective source of self-consistent dynamic INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS for themselves as single unit. In electrodynamics, the EXTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are applied. In the gravitational dynamic theory of planetary systems in latent shape the INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are applied, therefore the Solar system creates a " PROPER (NATURAL) GRAVITATIONAL SPACE " and the volume " of gravitational space " is determined by the gravitational interaction of bodies of the Solar system. The character of "standing" gravitational oscillations is defined by the proper system properties of a concrete gravitational system and does not depend on the metaphysical concept of the "velocity of gravitational interaction ". Who can now calculate the " velocity of gravitational interaction "on measurings positions of planets if he can not point out INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS in an explicit way for solar or any other concrete gravitational system? INTERIOR (implicit) BOUNDARY CONDITIONS in a Quantum MECHANICS ================================================== ============ The quantum mechanics is the theory about stationary dynamic electrical processes in " PROPER (NATURAL) electrical SPACES ". By dynamics of " electrical planetary systems " (QM) in a latent form applies INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS, therefore " the electrical planetary system " creates " NATURAL ELECTRICAL SPACE ". Volume of " NATURAL ELECTRICAL SPACE " is determined by electrical interaction of bodies of concrete of " electrical planetary system ". The character of " standing " electrical oscillations is determined by natural general-system properties of concrete of " electrical planetary system ", thus character of " standing " electrical oscillations does not depend on metaphysical concept " velocities of electrical interaction ". The Planck's constant determines INTERIOR (implicit) BOUNDARY CONDITIONS in a quantum MECHANICS, which one is the theory of stationary states " of NATURAL electrical SPACES ". ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++ These circumstances explain the reasons of crash of a RELATIVITY in QM. " INTERIOR (latent) BOUNDARY CONDITIONS, NATURAL ELECTRICAL SPACE " ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++ 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 A. Smith
|
|
#109
September 22nd 03, 11:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... [snip] Sure, nobody expects you to cover it all, but your ideas should deal with the basic evidence for particles. I know you are looking at the photoelectric effect and that is certainly a good place to start. The behaviour is well documented and simple to understand, yet very difficult to explain with a wave-only model so makes an ideal choice. " The fact is, you can solve all the problems involving photons using classical waves with quantized interaction. This is done, for example, in the textbook "Atoms and light" by John N. Dodd (Plenum Press, New York, 1991). " Is he able to derive the linear relationship and threshold of the kinetic energy of the emitted electrons to the incident frequency in the photoelectric effect? In message: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...a.brynmawr.edu Fabio Di Teodoro wrote: " That was very educational for me. I confess i did not know about this. In Ch.12, p.144 the author also presents a critical treatment of the photoelectric effect. Again, he does not only address the issue of the "photonless" interpretation of the experiment, but also adds that some subtle question which, at first sight, *could* lead to a photon interpretation, actually does not. "
|
|
#110
September 22nd 03, 11:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
I think you need to read up on basic QM before you go too far down this road. Look at the calculation of the frequencies of the spectral lines of hydrogen, DeBroglie waves and Schroedinger's wave equation. Regarding de Broglie. I read that he states that sets of waves under certain conditions behave like particles ie diffraction by crystal lattice. Looking up simple wave mechanics I have diagrams or photos that show water waves undergoing diffraction at gratings . Why then does de broglie need to explain diffraction of a particle as a `particle behaviour` when waves also can undergo diffraction at a grating or lattice? And de broglie states that a partickle of mass with a velocity v will exhibit wave characteristics. I think I answered this earlier to David when I suggested that if a atom was considered a superposition of waves like a node in resonance then it does not have a specific edge but rather a decrease of amplitude proportionate to distance from theoretical center of atom. And if that atom is shot through a hole dead center in the middle it will continue straight on but if it is closer to each edge the atom being a wave only `object` will experience diffraction and have its path bent moreso closer to the edge of the hole. THis then eliminates the need to explain that a particle exhibits wave like behaviour in these circumstances simply because in wave only theory the atom is already explained as a wave. It is when the wave or wave atom behaves like a particle that I need to find the answers and thats why I have shown how mathematically wave radiation does not have to be considered as particles earlier . If Craig or yourself were to redo my experiment following THE ESSENTIAL proviso that probabilities are NOT used then you will find out that this is indeed posssible. What is wrong is that you are ignoring the other requirements for resonance. Resonance is the name we give to a phenomenon where a system, be it the sun, a bell, a child on a swing, an electrical circuit or anything else that can "ring like a bell" on its own can be driven to high amplitudes of vibration by small driving forces. The main thing is that if you give it some energy in the form of oscillation, it must not lose it too fast. Take a pendulum as an example. If you removed the main spring in a grandfather clock and let the pendulum go from a stationary start at one side, it would swing for a while but the amplitude would gradually decay. If tap it in the right direction as it passes the bottom, a small force, just enough to replace what is lost to air resistance and friction in the pivot, will keep it swinging. That phenomenon, a large amplitude for a small force when applied at the natural frequency of the swing, is called resonance. Now suppose you filled the clock with thick oil. You again pull the pendulum to one side and release it. If the oil is thick enough, the pendulum will slowly drift to the vertical position. It will never quite reach it and will approach vertical exponentially. The system is "overdamped". You cannot see resonance now because it loses too much energy per swing (all of it in this case!). If you tap the pendulum, each tap would displace it slightly and it then creeps back towards vertical. In terms of your textbook definition, this is no longer a "vibrating system". Now if you look at a region of space where sound in the interstellar gas meets abrupt boundaries and they are close enough together for that sound to bounce between the boundaries with some natural frequency, then exciting it at that frequency will produce resonance. If the medium is too lossy and ripples die out before they cross between the boundaries, or the boundaries are gentle and dont reflect enough of the energy, then you don't get resonance. Yes I can understand that. First the pendulum in oil point makes sense but to me does not prove how a wave only atom cant be compared to a node in a medium. All you say here is that if the system is damped at a certain point it doesnt resonate. In other words resonace can only occur in certain situations. And regarding the gas boundaries yes an interesting additional point to note but once again isnt all you really are saying that there are some `boundaries ` that are not strong enough to create the conditions for resonance and some are? It still allows for some boundary conditions to exist and more importantly it doesnt seem to me to be a point that when presented in argument(although of note) illustrates an example where wave only atoms cant be explained and therefore that could be said to be how a wave only atom is explained. That is a different problem. For example, you could not explain that water molecules were an antinode of a wave pattern in water waves, becasue the waves themselves consist of large numbers of water molecules regardless of any consideration of resonance. Yes but I could say that the water molecules are the nodes, antinodes of waves resonating in aether. The `containment` needed is provided by the other molecules or atoms present in that system just as the suns containement isnt provided by a visible container but rather by the sun itself. The sun is there. It resonates because its exists and its density and size gives it the prerequisite parameters that resonance needs.Its atoms are nodes set up by the wave energy bouncing back and forth in the aether and contained by,.. all the other atoms in the sun. In the same way you cannot explain hydrogen atoms as waves in the interstellar gas because the gas is (mostly) hydrogen. And thats why more complex atoms can only be created in denser mediums like stars. And how did the initial hydrogen building blocks get created . I cant explain that but neither can QT Baryogenesis is fairly well understood and is observed in high energy labs. I would highly recommend you read Steven Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes". It is just a small book but nicely written. A google check gives me some insight now insight into the terms I have read like eotvos charge parity etc. Before these terms meant nothing to me but now I can see that baryogenesis basically refers to the understanding that QT cant explain the existence of the universe or why matter exists!? Seems that these are the same problems you highlite facing wave only theory. Sean
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
