Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:rbWZa.9683$2g.438@fed1read05...
....
" What, then, is a photon's wave-function?

I'm taking it to be a solution of Maxwell's equations,
either described using the vector potential in some fixed
gauge, or perhaps even better for the present purposes,
using the electric and magnetic fields. "
sci.physics.research John Baez

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...pravda.ucr.edu
================================================== ===============
From: john baez )
Subject: photon wave-functions?
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
Date: 1999/01/27


In article ,
(Greg Weeks) wrote:
In the discussion single-photon wavetrains, it seems to be
generally assumed that the photon has a wave-function.
Even in free field theory, I don't believe this is true.

Education is a process of telling a carefully chosen
sequence of lies in which the amount of deliberate
deception gradually tends towards zero. There is a limit
to how much truth someone can absorb all at once without
their brain turning to jelly!
....
First and foremost, it seems to me, you have to disabuse
of them of the assumption that the wavefunction of
a particle has some fixed "wavetrain with finitely many
wiggles" shape that depends solely on the energy of the
particle. When one starts out learning physics, one tends
to think of a particle as a little tennis ball or something,
perhaps with some wiggly waves thrown in for good measure.
The idea that it's just a "field mode" doesn't come easily!
Usually one absorbs this slowly and painfully by solving
Schrodinger's equation with all sorts of different boundary
conditions and potentials, learning all sorts of different
orthonormal bases for the space of states, and eventually
realizing that the choice of basis is just a matter of
convenience. The idea that a particle is just a solution of
a partial differential equation and that there are *lots*
of solutions having the same expectation value of energy,
or even the same eigenvalue - that doesn't come easily!
So, somehow you have to broach these issues.

Thus I'm reluctant to talk about the issues you're raising
now. They're too fancy for this conversation. I'll just
whisper to you the approach I'm implicitly taking towards
this question:

What, then, is a photon's wave-function?

I'm taking it to be a solution of Maxwell's equations,
either described using the vector potential in some fixed
gauge, or perhaps even better for the present purposes,
using the electric and magnetic fields. I bet people who
do quantum optics do something like this when they talk about
the wavefunction of a photon, and I don't think it's so bad,
despite the objections you note.
================================================== ===============


I don't think I am the one peddling religion, Aleksandr. Bullsh*t
seems to
be produced on all continents.


Comments.

I agree with John that your answer needs to be tailored to the audience.

I understand what he says about solutions to PDEs and the characterisitcs
of any given particle. What he has not said is that such solution involves
infinite division mathematics, something that breaks down quite easily in
the vicinity of a single particle. So what he has proposed works well for
a host of particles in similar situations, but applies only vaguely to any
single particle of the host. The piper must be paid.

Now as John's comment about the photon's wavefunction, this does in fact
make it a particle in every sense of the word. Just like electrons,
protons, neutrons, and the like. What is done is done for expedience.
What was sadi was said to the audience (with the caveat he provided).

Now you and Sergey have to describe the photoelectric effect using a wave
model. Either use resonance, or come up with some other mechanism. But it
needs to describe what is observed by experiment.

We are talking about generating particle behaviour from waves. Such that
one "field mode" excites only one other charged "field mode", leaving other
resonant charged "field modes" undisturbed.

You could really use your own words too, instead of quoting distantly
related stuff from others, without really reading it first.

Comments?

David A. Smith

[note to John Baez] don't know if you are seeing this or not. If I have
misunderstood you, please correct me. Your shoes have trod this ground
more than mine...

Now you and Sergey have to describe the photoelectric effect using a wave
model. Either use resonance, or come up with some other mechanism. But it
needs to describe what is observed by experiment.

We are talking about generating particle behaviour from waves. Such that
one "field mode" excites only one other charged "field mode", leaving other
resonant charged "field modes" undisturbed.

You could really use your own words too, instead of quoting distantly
related stuff from others, without really reading it first.

Comments?

David A. Smith

[note to John Baez] don't know if you are seeing this or not. If I have
misunderstood you, please correct me. Your shoes have trod this ground
more than mine...

Hi
I have already given a mathematiucal description of how waves can
produce the photoelectric effect but I am puzzled why you dont believe
resonace cant. Isnt resonance always described as a wave function or
as a overlapping of waves ?
Sean

Now you and Sergey have to describe the photoelectric effect using a wave
model. Either use resonance, or come up with some other mechanism. But it
needs to describe what is observed by experiment.

We are talking about generating particle behaviour from waves. Such that
one "field mode" excites only one other charged "field mode", leaving other
resonant charged "field modes" undisturbed.

You could really use your own words too, instead of quoting distantly
related stuff from others, without really reading it first.

Comments?

David A. Smith

[note to John Baez] don't know if you are seeing this or not. If I have
misunderstood you, please correct me. Your shoes have trod this ground
more than mine...

Hi
I have already given a mathematiucal description of how waves can
produce the photoelectric effect but I am puzzled why you dont believe
resonace cant. Isnt resonance always described as a wave function or
as a overlapping of waves ?
Sean

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:rSz0b.5442$Qy4.4087@fed1read05...
Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:rbWZa.9683$2g.438@fed1read05...
...
[snip]

I am not a "you". I know that the wave model of light is incorrect. I
have asked you to tell me how I am wrong, and yet you come back with
resonance to describe the photoelectric effect. So you come back with a
broken explanation. Knowing it is broken. And claim it is because science
does not want to (or cannot) fix it.


Dear David please point even alone experiment of "interaction" really
of free electron with "photon". I am absolutely sure, that you can not
make it for a real _free_ electron.

I do not like tricks with feeblly bound electrons.


You think, what was
done before you is quite enough. Besides, you colleagues want to see
or hear nothing.

[snip]

(Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message . com...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:rbWZa.9683$2g.438@fed1read05...
[snip]
while in our papers you might find exact calculations of very
different complex resonance systems which are fully consistent with
the experiment. To make certain, come anew and see our paper

ON COMPLEX RESONANCE VIBRATION SYSTEMS CALCULATION

Sergey, can be, it will be of interest for you:

http://www.shaping.ru/mku/butusov.asp


RESONANCE OF WAVES OF BEATS
and Johannes TITIUS LAW OF PLANETARY DISTANCES
Butusov Kyrill P.


Abstract. In the work it is demonstrated, that in a field of
acoustic waves, that are aroused at the ac-count of the tidal
action of planets, there may exist a special resonance, which
we have called «beating waves resonance». This resonance arises
wherever there exists equality between beating period and
the sum or difference of the circulation periods of the two
neighbouring planets (Beating period - being a quantity inverse
of the difference between planets circulation frequences). In
case of the sum, the periods ratio is equal to F - the Phidias
Number, (F = 1,6180339), while in case of the difference the
periods ratio is equal to F^2, (F^2 = 2,6180339). On this basis
law was formulated named a Planet Periods Law, which says, that
planets circulation periods form number sequences of Fibonacci
and the one of Lucas. In second case the orbit radii form
a geometrical progression with denominator F^4/3 (F^4/3 =1,899546).
According to the Planet Distances Law of Johannes Titius,
the orbit radii form a geometrical progression with the
denominator 2, even though observational data give a value
of 1,9. So we think that the Planet Distances Law is a sequel
of the beating waves resonance and, accordingly,
of the Planet Periods Law.

LOGARITHMIC DISTURBANCE WAVES IN GRAVITATIONAL SYSTEMS
AND STRUCTURAL DIAGRAM
Butusov Kyrill P.

Abstract. The idea of existence in gravitational systems
of peculiar«logarithmic waves», the length of which – expressed
in logarithmic scale of distances - remains constant, was stated
by author in 1972. In present paper it is demonstrated that in
gaseous-powdered matter the length of the disturbance wave
which moves along the radius on to Sun from infinity is
proportional to the distance to Sun, the increment of its fase
being proportional to the increment of natural logarithm of that
distance. The fase increment equal to 360 degrees corresponds to
the increment of distance of the disturbance wave to Sun equal
to 535,4914 times. For the second harmonic the distance
increment should be 23,14068 times. In the movement of the Sun
wind analogous processes should also take place. Therefore, in
gaseous - powdered matter, which moves the oscillating in radial
direction should develop standing «logarithmic waves» of
disturbances. In the knots of these waves as in the «nutrition
zones» there will occur accumulation of matter and more rapid
growth of planets and satellites. The real picture of the orbits’
radii logarithms distribution actually has a descrete nature
which is very clearly seen from the «Structural Diagram» of the
Solar System.

[snip]

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:miL0b.5777$Qy4.2607@fed1read05...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:rSz0b.5442$Qy4.4087@fed1read05...
...
Dear David please point even alone experiment of "interaction" really
of free electron with "photon". I am absolutely sure, that you can not
make it for a real _free_ electron.

Photons are Compton scattered off of charges, to provide a gamma boost. I
do not know if they have been done off of electrons.

Your example is irrelevant.
The Compton scattering always has a place for bound charges.

I asked you to give an example of interaction
of free "photon" and free "electron".

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

I do not like tricks with feeblly bound electrons.

Then resonance cannot apply if there is no "real" binding force to provide
the "spring". Because there are lots of other orbitals that the light
*would* be in resonance with.

The composite bound system always reacts as a unit to any
external action.

The composite bound system always has set of general-system resonances.
For this reason the state transition of a system component is
a general-system state transition of system as a whole.


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

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

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:miL0b.5777$Qy4.2607@fed1read05...
....
Photons are Compton scattered off of charges, to provide a gamma boost.
I
do not know if they have been done off of electrons.

Your example is irrelevant.
The Compton scattering always has a place for bound charges.

Unbound electrons, Alexsandr. It might be like stopping a bus with a fly,
but it should be able to be done.

I asked you to give an example of interaction
of free "photon" and free "electron".

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

Done. Misunderstood, I suppose.

I do not like tricks with feeblly bound electrons.

Then resonance cannot apply if there is no "real" binding force to
provide
the "spring". Because there are lots of other orbitals that the light
*would* be in resonance with.

The composite bound system always reacts as a unit to any
external action.

The composite bound system always has set of general-system resonances.
For this reason the state transition of a system component is
a general-system state transition of system as a whole.


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

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

Done. Laser into an electron beam. Don't know if its been done, don't
know if a measureable result has been looked for. But an example.

David A. Smith

(sean) wrote in message . com...

Now you and Sergey have to describe the photoelectric effect using a wave
model. Either use resonance, or come up with some other mechanism. But it
needs to describe what is observed by experiment.

We are talking about generating particle behaviour from waves. Such that
one "field mode" excites only one other charged "field mode", leaving other
resonant charged "field modes" undisturbed.

You could really use your own words too, instead of quoting distantly
related stuff from others, without really reading it first.

Comments?

David A. Smith

[note to John Baez] don't know if you are seeing this or not. If I have
misunderstood you, please correct me. Your shoes have trod this ground
more than mine...

Hi
I have already given a mathematiucal description of how waves can
produce the photoelectric effect but I am puzzled why you dont believe
resonace cant. Isnt resonance always described as a wave function or
as a overlapping of waves ?
Sean

Sean, maybe in this amount I missed your information. Can I see your
work? Please refer me to your web site, either send me your material.

Thank you kindly,

Sergey.

"sean" wrote in message om...

....
Refarding the resonance point I just did a google search on
`resonance` and the few things I found were all describing resonace as
a function of waves overlapping. thats why I couldnt understand dlzs
claim that resonance couldnt be described as waves

Hi Sean,
I happened to come across this recently, it might help:

http://colos1.fri.uni-lj.si/~colos/C...resonance.html

It's a long URL so you will probably have to cut&paste
onto a single line.

HTH
George

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:xoy1b.8759$Qy4.7694@fed1read05...
....
Unbound electrons, Alexsandr. It might be like stopping a bus with a
fly,
but it should be able to be done.

Dear David, I have difficulties with physical interpretation
of your thoughts.

You and me both.

Please explain your thoughts more detail.

---electrons--- ---photons---
And the interesting and possibly detectable interactions would be with an
angle between the two beams.
I do NOT know if this has been done.
I do NOT know if this has EVER resulted in a detectable interaction.

....
Done. Laser into an electron beam. Don't know if its been done, don't
know if a measureable result has been looked for. But an example.

The laser beam has too much individually of indistinguishable photons...
???

Ever look at the spoons in a drawer? They all tend to nest together.

Photons are not like this. If they were, lasers would be easier. And they
would not dissipate (as they do for LLR measurements).

Lasers are like traffic lights (or better still, like traffic circles),
that release a batch of photons with the "noses" of the little "cars" all
lined up (within reason).

To quote Uncle Al, you don't know if you don't look. (And we may have
looked and found nothing.)

David A. Smith