A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #271  
Old December 18th 03, 04:08 PM
Aleksandr Timofeev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message

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

[snip]

Note the title of the thread. Alexsandr wishes
to treat the interesting absorption and emission phenomenon as
"boundary conditions".


You has missed from attention the very relevant detail.
"Enslaving" of electromagnetic waves by SUBSTANCE is
possible only in quantum nonlinear processes of transformation
of electromagnetic energy of electromagnetic waves.


This is well and good, as wave mathematics allows one to do
some very powerful things that descibe the behaviour of large
populations of particles.

Next, in typical bar room fashion, he claims that light is *not*
comprised
of particles, and photons are mere illusions. That light is truly
not
comprised of particles, but is completely wave only for its entire
existance. And that this is the sum total of truth.

He has been challenged to provide a wave-only observable
phenomenon, and
has failed. Self-interference is displayed by all particles, so
that is a failing of particle-only models (more correctly
particle-as-billiard-ball models).

Thanks for the update. Ye gods, he was blethering about this a year
ago when I decided to cease posting here.


In that case we shall be delighted to read your interpretation of an
interference in a VLBI interferometer from a "photon" point of view.


Has he really made no attempt to
learn something in the intervening time?

Freedom of religious conscience is a private affair of the believer.

So now I ask you...
What is it about "wave only" and "particle with radial extents"
that you find similar, Franz?

David, I genuinely don't understand your question.

However, I am totally comfortable with the following collection of
thoughts:

The photon is a particle.
Its evolution in space and time is governed, as are the evolutions
of all
other particles, by wave functions which obey the rules of quantum
mechanics.
Newton's laws are only approximations which are as near as dammit
true
in the macroscopic world. (I am not taking into account general
relativistic effects in this)
The statistical behaviour of vast assemblies of photons all sharing
the same state is determined by Maxwell's theory of EM.

Freedom of religious conscience is a private affair of the believer.

In that case we shall be delighted to read your interpretation of an
interference in a VLBI interferometer from a "photon" point of view.

Have you ever heard of the correspondence principle?
Well, apply it to the VLBI, since that instrument operates in the
classical domain.
Result:
The behaviour of the VLBI may be analysed by the use of the classical
equations, i.e.Maxwell's Equations.
That is eminently more sensible than trying to model the simultaneous
behaviour of unbelievably vast numbers of photons


I suppose, that in this place you,
Franz Heymann, contradict yourselves:


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...dial.pipex.com

================================================== ==============
From: "franz heymann"
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Photon Wave-Particle Duality
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 19:19:17 +0100

Aleksandr Timofeev wrote in message
om...
"franz heymann" wrote in message

m...
[snip]

1.
The structure factor of photons has been determined by more
than one group of experimenters. It is consistent with zero
radius.

[snip]

2.
But you froget that a whole century has passed in the mean
time and that no prediction made by quantum mechanics has
ever been proved wrong in any experimental test.

Franz Heymann

You can play with a virtual radio interferometer.



Main ideas of the VLBI radio interferometer a


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



If you will manage to explain a principle of operation of this
type of interferometer from the photon point of view, then:

I shall believe in existence of photons, and
I shall eat my tie or hat.
---------------------------------------


[Snip]

You used too many words in a very repetitve way, so I snipped all
of them
I hope you have either a hat or a tie to eat, because here is the
explanation to your problem :-

Firstly, the wave has nothing to do with the size of a photon.
The wave function allows one to calculate various probabilities
associated with the detection of a photon.

Secondly, it is an observable fact that the wave function of
radio frequency photons emitted by an astronomical object can
have a non zero amplitude at any of the detectors of a large
baseline interferometer. In fact, it expands radially outwards
from the source as a spherical wave.

Thirdly, photons are bosons, which means that any number of them
can share the same wavefunction.

Fourthly, a macroscopic radio wave is the wavefunction of an
extremely large assembly of photons, all coherently sharing the
same wave function. Detecting one photon at one of the antennae
simultaneously with the detection of another (coherent) photon at
another antenna is then possible.

Fifthly, in the classical limit, the behaviour of such a coherent
assembly of photons has been proven to tend to just the behaviour
one would expect from an application of Maxwell's equations.

Now get the frying pan ready and prepare your tie or hat for
eating.

Bon appetit.

Franz Heymann
================================================== ==============

Now Franz Heymann, I want to listen to yours FAIRY TALES
of connection between:

1.
a WAVE FUNCTION ("of an extremely large assembly of photons")

2.
and ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES (an application of Maxwell's equations).


They are essentially the same thing.


"
Fourthly, a macroscopic radio wave is the wavefunction of an
extremely large assembly of photons, all coherently sharing the
same wave function. Detecting one photon at one of the antennae
simultaneously with the detection of another (coherent) photon at
another antenna is then possible.

"

Yours idea Franz about equivalence of a shared WAVE FUNCTION
for "photons" and electromagnetic wave physically IS ABSURD.


The wave of probability (WAVE FUNCTION) spread in space
similarly to electromagnetic waves does not exist in the Nature.
This extremely CRASY speculative chimera could be born
in Franz Heymann head only. ;^)


" Anyone who can prove that "the wave of probability (WAVE
FUNCTION) spread in space similarly to electromagnetic waves "
has a sure fire ticket to Stockholm to collect his Nobel Prize."
Bob Kolker


I will say no more on this topic for now, so you are welcome to a field
day slating me if you wish.



I "wish."


You did not succeed


I "wish." again. ;^)


I have no further interest in bantering with you at present, since I have
made myself clear as long ago as the time I produced those snippets which
you quoted without understanding their content

Franz Heymann


Now get the frying pan ready and prepare your tie or hat for
eating.

Bon appetit.

Aleksandr Timofeev
  #272  
Old December 19th 03, 12:26 AM
dlzc.aol@com \(formerly\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message

news:9O1Db.10727$gN.6084@fed1read05...
....
He has been challenged to provide a wave-only observable phenomenon,

and
has failed.


Sorry, You "has failed", not me.


And you fail again to sustantiate what amounts to a claim that you have
supplied a workable wave-only explanation of the photoelectric effect.
I've seen hand waving, but no qualitative stuff.

Self-interference is displayed by all particles,


Please David prove this for VLBI.


Show that the Earth provides a diffraction pattern? You have some film on
the Moon of which I am not aware? You ask the silliest questions.

" So now I ask you...
What is it about " only Alby's Demon "photon" " for VLBI phenomenon?


I am not interested in a further distraction.

You wish to consider the emission and absorption of photons as a "boundary
condition". Proceed to do so. Do not claim that it is the whole truth, as
this is not so.

David A. Smith


  #273  
Old December 20th 03, 04:01 PM
Aleksandr Timofeev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

(Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message . com...
Dear Aleksandr,

It is a very complicated task for me to follow your mind after
citations that you post me last time without any your comments. In
this case, if only I understood you, you would like to draw my
attention to this selected phrase:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
" Titius-Bode laws arise from a same symmetry hidden in the equations,
and not from physical phenomena they tend to modelize."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

However this is not the thought, neither proper trend to follow. This
is an everyday doctrine of relativism that allows to dream theories
up, paying no attention, how much do they relate to the regularities
of nature. Just because the supporters of QM, QED etc. profess such
approach, they are so helpless when encounter reality. With all their
high-flown phraseology, their world is limited by a very narrow set of
gedanken experiments in which a step leftward either rightward is
tantamount to a full failure. This is the source of their malice and
suppressing their opponents, flying away from discussions and
preventing the distribution of information.

I already wrote you, one cannot think the nature out. If one in his
research based not on sought physical regularities but on a simple
selection of numerical sequences, this is the beforehand doomed way.
Just so in celestial mechanics. You perfectly know, the regularity of
body's motion around the centre of system essentially changes with the
energy of body. At definite conditions this will be a circular orbit,
at others - elliptic, at some conditions this can be parabolic or even
hyperbolic motion as to the centre. And this is only in simplest
studied cases. As long ago as Bohr said of precession of atomic
orbits, but couldn't calculate correctly. Even now this problem is
incalculable exactly. If you don't know these physical regularities,
it is impossible and useless to fit this spectrum of motions. Even
having occasionally determined particular regularities by way of
observation experience of Solar planets, you cannot guarantee what
will occur if the conditions of "experiment" change, as your numbers
are rigidly tied to this present case which you, additionally, have
averaged. And this average contains millions tons of substance!

Just so I'm saying you again and again, we have to solve the problems
and to seek PHYSICAL REGULARITIES. There the real solution of problem
is. In time when we already know Kepler's and Newton's laws, search of
numerical relationship can give you no real information.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...bc5a87f7027269

Title: Titius-Bode laws in the solar system.
1: Scale invariance explains everything

Authors: Graner, F.; Dubrulle, B.

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

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...bc5a87f7003392

Title: Titius-Bode laws in the solar system.
2: Build your own law from disk models
Authors: Dubrulle, B.; Graner, F.
Publication Date: 02/1994

Abstract

Simply respecting both scale and rotational invariance,

================================================== ==================
it is easy to construct an endless collection of theoretical models
predicting a Titius-Bode law, irrespective to their physical content.
================================================== ==================
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Due to the
numerous ways to get the law and its intrinsic arbitrariness, it is
not a useful constraint on theories of solar system formation.
To illustrate the simple elegance of scale-invariant methods, we
explicitly cook up one of the simplest examples, an infinitely thin
cold gaseous disk rotating around a central object. In that academic
case, the Titius-Bode law holds during the linear stage of the
gravitational instability. The time scale of the instability is of the
order of a self-gravitating time scale, (G rhod)-1/2, where rhod is
the disk density. This model links the separation between different
density maxima with the ratio MD/MC of the masses of the disk and the
central object; for instance, MD/MC of the order of 0.18 roughly leads
to the observed separation between the planets. We discuss the
boundary
conditions and the limit of the Wentzel-Kramer-Brillouin (WKB)
approximation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

You can get article (PDF) from: Full Refereed Journal Article

You should
seek regularities which other scientists didn't take into account in
their conceptions. There your solutions are.

While you are seeking, what can corroborate the algebraic approach
prevailing upon natural sciences. This will bring no use first of all
for you, as just you will remain in the captivity of these illusions.
Please do think and don't take offence but try to comprehend. ;-)

Kind regards,

Sergey.


(Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message . com...
(Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message . com...
(Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message . com...
(Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message . com...


[snip]

We in our studies try to adhere to the classical principle of
consistence of phenomenology, calculation and experiment. Attempts to
guess some magic numbers I simply don't understand, as I have a great
distrust to substantiation of such researches in frames of
phenomenology. Or rather, since the process occurs, we naturally can
express it in some numbers. If the process has its regularity, its
numbers also have their regularity. But it is more convenient to seek
the phenomenology of the very phenomenon than to tell fortunes by
numbers, the more that understanding the phenomenology of process, we
can extrapolate it, which is practically impossible to do on the
grounds of numbers. In this case with the change of exterior
conditions the found regularity will also change. But if you like your
approach, no problem. Only it would be desirable, your forecasted four
planets to have some effect on the known planets of the Sun system.
For it, you have to know the regularities of phenomenon. So you came
to our trend too.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...bc5a87f7027269

Title: Titius-Bode laws in the solar system.
1: Scale invariance explains everything

Authors: Graner, F.; Dubrulle, B.

" Abstract
According to the Titius-Bode law, the planetary distances
to the sun follow a geometric progression. We review the
major interpretations and explanations of the law. We show
that most derivations of Titius-Bode law are implicitely
based on the assumption of both rotational and scale
invariance. In absence of any radial length scale, linear
instabilities cause periodic perturbations in the variable
x = ln(r/r0). Since maxima equidistant in x obey a
geometric progression in the variable r, Titius-Bode type
of laws are natural outcome of the linear regime of systems
in which both symmetries are present; we discuss possible
nonlinear corrections to the law. Thus, if Titius-Bode law
is real, it is probably only a consequence of the scale
invariance of the disk which gave rise to the planets. "

Load Article (PDF) from: Full Refereed Journal Article

Extractions from the F.Graner and B.Dubrulle paper:
================================================== ===

" 2. Theories of Titius-Bode laws

2.1. Dynamical vs kinematical theories

Explanations to the Titius-Bode law can be divided in two cat-
egories. We refer as "dynamical" to the theories of the first
type, which assume that the present law traces back to a period
anterior or contemporary to planet formation; most of them de-
scribe instabilities occurring in the primordial protoplanetary
disk, thus set constraints on its physical characteristics. Theo-
ries of the second category, called "kinematical", assume that
the law physically originates from orbital interactions posterior
to planet formation.
The pros and cons of each category have been discussed by
Nieto (1972). He argues that observed deviations from the exact
geometric law could be interpreted as the natural outcome of
orbital evolution after planet formation. Those deviations have
been quantified by Blagg (1913) and Richardson (1945) via the
introduction of а periodic function in the original exponential
law:"

"Kinematical" theories sometimes contradict each other; for
example, Molchanov (1968) explains the Titius-Bode law by
resonances between the frequencies of the nine planets, while
Souriau (1989) argues that the law is a consequence of the
planets being as far of resonances as possible, to avoid
catastrophic ejection events. Note however that kinematical
theories based on resonances are probably all ruled out by
the work of Henon(1969), who showed that for any set of
revolution periods, provided they are randomly selected
using an "excluded volume" procedure, one can find
resonances relations as good as those observed in the
Solar System.
We are interested in explaining explanations of the Titius-
Bode law, rather than the law itself. As it turns out, our
discussion mainly applies to dynamical theories; we therefore
focus on them, and do not comment further the relevance of
one category or the other.

2.2. Brief overviev of dynamical theories

A complete review of dynamical theories for the Titius-Bode
law is given in Nieto (1972). They mainly assume one of four
physical mechanisms to take place in the protoplanetary disk:
planetesimal accretion; competition between gravity and
electromagnetic forces; self-gravitational instability; and
hydrodynamic or turbulent instabilities in the protoplanetary
disk. Accretion produces a Titius-Bode law via the feeding
zone "

" The gravitational instability mechanism, explicitly tak-
ing into account the cylindrical (rotational) symmetry of the
disk, has been especially fashionable among Titius-Bode law
builders. Prentice (1977) found a Titius-Bode law for the
distribution of density maxima provided the collapse is
homologous, i.e. self-similar; he was especially interested
in the influence of turbulent convection.
In contrast, Polyachenko & Fridman (1972) showed that
even in a cold disk, the instability leads to a Titius-Bode
law "

" Other theories were based on disk structure under fully
developed turbulence, rather than linear instability. For
instance, von Weisacker (1948), then Kuiper (1951) showed
that turbulence in the disk would lead to the creation of
large vortices, organized in concentric circles. If the
scale of the turbulence (the scale of the vortices) varyes
linearly with the radial distance, the frontier between
the concentric vortex rings follows a Titius-Bode law.

2.3. Comments

Within such a tremendous diversity, these models share a
common methodology. Each of them assumes a physical
phenomenon to be the origin of planet formation. Then,
coming to quantitative predictions, each model needs an
hypothesis on the of course unknown physical properties
of the primordial system.
The most natural assumption, as long as we are totally
ignorant, avoids introducing unnecessary parameters.
Thus the first reflex is to propose a model with no
supplementary length scale, other than the radial length
scale r itself. Only Prentice seems to explicitly mention
his hypothesis, and apparently no author points out its
relevance. Such hypotheses include: homologous
collapse, constant eccentricity, disk height H or vortex
size ..."

" This method seems reasonable; it is very popular, but
simultaneously not innocent, for a very precise reason.
Indeed, it never fails to produce a geometric progression
in orbit sizes, even if not desired, and whatever the
underlying physical model.
For a "faithful" physicist, this prediction of a
Titius-Bode evidences the validity of the model and
even offers quantitative constraints. We show in the next
section why we believe that, in all the models we review,
Titius-Bode laws arise from a same symmetry hidden in the
equations, and not from physical phenomena they tend to
modelize."

================================================== ======
" Titius-Bode laws arise from a same

symmetry hidden in the equations,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and not from physical phenomena
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

they tend to modelize."
================================================== ======




--
Kind regards,

Aleksandr
  #274  
Old December 28th 03, 11:42 PM
Sergey Karavashkin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Dear Aleksandr,

This is just what is fine in physics that everyone can go his own way
he wishes. The experience shows, many go, few come - just who dig into
the deep essence of phenomena. Why I persuade you! ;-)

Happy New year to you! May I wish you great success, much happiness,
and Putin and Co to tighten your belts not so much. ;-) In the New
year night I will drink our matchless vodka with traditional mushrooms
to you and all colleagues in the newsgroups. Kindly remark, this is
second time when I'm clinking my glass at computer with you. Though
small, but already date. ;-)

Sergey.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.