|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... Whether you can describe physical principles of operation of the RC-oscillator (capacitance-resistance oscillator) from a point of view of a resonance? Although a capacitor stores energy an RC circuit is not a resonant system. The voltage and current in an RC circuit decay exponentially and have no natural oscillation. The differential equation is first order while resonance requires second order. Then you should explain the physical mechanism of the RC-generator, which one ensures on an output of the RC-generator (RC-oscillator) only sine-wave oscillations. ;-) You mean as I mentioned in the next paragraph? ;-) To make an oscillator using an RC requires a separate non-linear gain stage (a 'relaxation' oscillator) This doesn't give a sine wave but just for completeness: http://www.ee.polyu.edu.hk/staff/een.../ee251lab2.htm or you need multiple RC stages. This is the one you are thinking of and does give a sine wave: http://home.earthlink.net/~doncox/wec/Oscillators.html Note that you need at least three stages. You need to get 180 degrees phase shift from the RC delays to produce an in-phase signal into the inverting amplifier. In theory a single RC stage will produce 90 degrees shift but only when the gain is zero. The oscillator as a whole can have a similar frequency characteristic to a resonant system but the initial energy in the capacitors is lost as heat in the resistors and base of the transistors and has to be continually replaced from the power supply. The individual RC sections only provide phase shift, not useable power storage so it is not resonant in the physical sense. (Some electronics texts may describe it as resonant because of the response, not the mechanism.) As Craig pointed out a simple LCR circuit can be resonant provided the resistance is low enough (series mode) or high enough (parallel mode) to avoid excessive damping. This is a good description of that (9 page PDF): http://faculty.washington.edu/maniso.../resonance.pdf The key difference is that in an LC circuit, energy can be stored in the magnetic field in the inductor and in the electric field in the capacitor. The collapse of the magnetic field induces a voltages that charges the capacitor, the voltage across the capacitor then builds the current in the inductor in the opposite sense to the original and so on. Without resistive losses this could go on indefinitely. With just an RC, the energy in the capacitor is turned into heat in the resistor and that is the end. Perfectly well. You have done large work with a profound knowledge of a subject. But now, just for completeness, you should explain the physical mechanism of the parametric generator, which one ensures on an output of the parametric generator only sine-wave oscillations. ;-) |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"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... Whether you can describe physical principles of operation of the RC-oscillator (capacitance-resistance oscillator) from a point of view of a resonance? Although a capacitor stores energy an RC circuit is not a resonant system. The voltage and current in an RC circuit decay exponentially and have no natural oscillation. The differential equation is first order while resonance requires second order. Then you should explain the physical mechanism of the RC-generator, which one ensures on an output of the RC-generator (RC-oscillator) only sine-wave oscillations. ;-) You mean as I mentioned in the next paragraph? ;-) To make an oscillator using an RC requires a separate non-linear gain stage (a 'relaxation' oscillator) This doesn't give a sine wave but just for completeness: http://www.ee.polyu.edu.hk/staff/een.../ee251lab2.htm or you need multiple RC stages. This is the one you are thinking of and does give a sine wave: http://home.earthlink.net/~doncox/wec/Oscillators.html Note that you need at least three stages. You need to get 180 degrees phase shift from the RC delays to produce an in-phase signal into the inverting amplifier. In theory a single RC stage will produce 90 degrees shift but only when the gain is zero. The oscillator as a whole can have a similar frequency characteristic to a resonant system but the initial energy in the capacitors is lost as heat in the resistors and base of the transistors and has to be continually replaced from the power supply. The individual RC sections only provide phase shift, not useable power storage so it is not resonant in the physical sense. (Some electronics texts may describe it as resonant because of the response, not the mechanism.) As Craig pointed out a simple LCR circuit can be resonant provided the resistance is low enough (series mode) or high enough (parallel mode) to avoid excessive damping. This is a good description of that (9 page PDF): http://faculty.washington.edu/maniso.../resonance.pdf The key difference is that in an LC circuit, energy can be stored in the magnetic field in the inductor and in the electric field in the capacitor. The collapse of the magnetic field induces a voltages that charges the capacitor, the voltage across the capacitor then builds the current in the inductor in the opposite sense to the original and so on. Without resistive losses this could go on indefinitely. With just an RC, the energy in the capacitor is turned into heat in the resistor and that is the end. Perfectly well. You have done large work with a profound knowledge of a subject. Thank you. But now, just for completeness, you should explain the physical mechanism of the parametric generator, which one ensures on an output of the parametric generator only sine-wave oscillations. ;-) My knowledge of such systems is far more limited, but in this example http://members.aol.com/overunity/html/paraintr.htm you can see it is just a means to pump an LCR circuit by varying a circuit parameter, L in this case. For other examples I think you will also find there is a resonant system which is pumped in a similar manner. However, I think we have answered sean's question, resonance is not a wave phenomenon, so I'll leave it at that. best regards George |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Oh, you don't appreciate good attitude, David. I have read attentively
your last post. You said many different things on me, but this is to your account. As I see, you put the question rigidly, requiring from me the photoeffect with wave physics. However, you didn't understand, I can explain it only to one who has a necessary amount of knowledge. Unfortunately, you still don't demonstrate such knowledge. Yes, I can explain photoeffect with the help of resonance phenomena in EM wave interaction with the electrons of substance. In metal they are the electrons of Fermi-gas, in semiconductors and dielectrics - orbital electrons. I briefly said you of it before. If you want to hear more, I'm pleased. But before I would like to make certain that you know resonance systems enough. Aren't you against? You wrote, [David] I took a class in "resonance systems". That is why I know that you have not even looked at what resonance is. I CAN calculate certain limited sets of exact solutions as the need arises. [Sergey] Okay. Since you put the question point-blank and state that you know in resonance systems what I don't, and also [David] There is no difficulty in expressing the formulas for resonance. And the behaviour is well known in lots of different types of systems. [Sergey] I will not bother you with complicated systems. Please go to page 42 of our paper "OSCILLATION PATTERN FEATURES IN MISMATCHED FINITE ELECTRIC LADDER FILTERS" http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...42/load42.html and see formulas (23) - (25). This is the exact analytical solution for a heterogeneous line shown in Fig. 4a in the same page. You can make sure, these solutions are exact. It is sufficient for it to compare the diagrams in Fig. 6, page 44 http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...44/load44.html plotted with these formulas, with the experimental diagrams in Fig. 10, page 46 http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...46/load46.html The calculation of this mechanical elastic line is surely simple, takes several pages and a trifle of time. Please do show me, how I made it. This will make me sure that when I begin telling you, I will not see glassy eyes. ;-) After this we can advance into wave physics with a great speed, and you will soon see, wave physics is not so simple as you used to think outwardly, and photoeffect doesn't limit its scope. Sergey. P.S. I didn't want to touch other issues in this post, but couldn't resist a temptation. ;-) 1. In your post you stated unambiguously that photon has a "zero" size: [David] The size of the photon (as determined by experiment) is "zero", and has nothing to do with the distance it travels before it achieves the same E&B orientation again. At odd moment, could you explain me: if it has such size as you are saying, it must be smaller than a period of wave (at least for radio waves). It moves with the light velocity - it means, with the same velocity as vector E varies in space. Hence, I have natural questions: a) the integral field of photon will be in this case non-zero, and what about uncharged photon? b) no changes in time can occur within photon, as with it the field variation registered by the receiver would be more either less than the light velocity (so-called group velocity which is formed when within some system there exists a subsystem with the time-variable phase shift); then of what changes of E&B are you saying? c) If the wave period consists of multitude photons, how photons do correlate with each other, keeping a strong sequence for many thousands and millions kilometres, especially when there propagates not a monochromatic wave but a packet? 2. As to the beyond-cutoff luminescence of substance you have written the following: [David] Or systems that express temperature, which is relative motion of the individual emitters and absorbers. This is simply saying that quantum mechanics is right. What is not right about what you have said is that it has anything to do with resonant behaviour. Absorption of a photon does *not* occur for electrons in orbitals that are just under a photon energy, and produce a near-zero KE electron, they produce a conduction electron with all the energy. This is NOT resonant behaviour. a) please show me the regularity of energy of secondary quanta in Planck formula with respect to temperature; ;-) b) of which relative motion of individual emitters and absorbers are you saying for a solid state of luminophor which so much distorts the pattern of emission? Only having answered these questions, you may judge, how much right is QM. 3. As to your following claim: [David] There are no behaviours that wave theory describes, that particle theory cannot. I guess, you are speaking here of the photon theory as a part of particle theory. If so, I would like simply to cite Niels Bohr: In the view of quantum theory, the discussed hypothesis cannot be nonetheless considered as a satisfying solution. As is known, just this hypothesis brings insurmountable difficulties in explanation of interference phenomena - the main means in studying the radiation properties [see: H.A. Lorentz. Phys. Zs., 1910, *11*, 349]. In any case we can ascertain that the underlying statement of the hypothesis of light quanta basically excludes the possibility to comprehend the concept of frequency nu playing the main part in this theory. So the hypothesis of light quanta is invalid to give general pattern of processes which might include the entire amount of phenomena considered in quantum theory applications [Niels Bohr. On the quantum theory application to the structure of atom. 1. The main postulates of quantum theory. Chapter 3. On formal nature of quantum theory. Item 1. Hypothesis of light quanta]. This organically supplements what I usually say you and you stubbornly don't hear. We all can take offence, the more when have such necessity to avoid answering inconvenient questions. This, David, is too trivial. ;-) 4. And one premature note on your dear photoeffect and your statement that [David] Wave theory does not describe the photoelectric effect, and particle theory does. [Sergey] Please take any book on photoeffect and open where the spectral characteristics for metals are shown. You will see that the quantum output dependence on frequency is not so much like a direct line as Planck equation predicts. These curves are gently sloping near the 'red' boundary and increasing as the square of difference of frequencies. After it you see an abrupt rise. And this rise relates to the frequency band at which the material stops effectively reflecting EM waves. The further the more. The curve reaches its maximum, then the photoeffect abruptly falls. Began the material again reflecting EM waves? Yes, but not so much abruptly as the quantum output falls. Well, now please answer, David, my very simple question. As a result of what there appears the maximum of absorption of EM waves by the surface of metal? In semiconductors the quantum output has some other pattern. In the area of red boundary you see an abrupt raise and saturation and almost smooth plateau. Here also the surface absorbs in the area of plateau? ;-) Of course, these are far from all questions, but if you can answer specifically at least to these - I will be grateful. ;-) Sergey. \(formerly\)" 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... ... He has made no substantive comment in the post to which I replied. Certainly nothing except his opinions. And he left not one shred of my last post to him, to continue a dialog. David, you know well, this is not so. Which part is not so? You left none of my comments, to which you provide "explanation". Therefore your discussion is of no interest to me. There in my post was not only my above phrase but also 3 items of explanation. You would read them attentively and with wish to understand what I wrote, even if this was inconvenient for you. Inconvenient is not the word I would choose. "Evasive" or "rude" come to mind. I have tried to leave the portions of dialogue of yours that I would then respond to. It at least *feels* like a conversation. In the first item I forwarded a natural for physics stipulation - if we explain some phenomenon on the basis of some phenomenology, this phenomenology has to be non-contradictive. Photon theory hasn't such property, and you sequentially avoided all my questions, having caught on the photoeffect, since relativists used to think that wave theory is unable to explain it. One reproducible case is all that is required to *invalidate* a theory. That means the theory does not describe ALL OF REALITY, and is valid in some domain. Wave theory does not describe the photoelectric effect, and particle theory does. There are no behaviours that wave theory describes, that particle theory cannot. Therefore wave theory has one tiny little area where it does not apply, and has some extremely useful tools with a lot of power that it can bring to bear. But particle theory is superior, if calculation intensive, since it describes all behaviours yet observed. And it didn't get *there* without a lot of really smart people driving it. Particle theory is not relativitistic, but quantum mechanical, so the slander against "relativists" is inappropriate and appears to be intended to inflame and stop communication. If you want to posture, claim you are right, and have no response from me, do not leave "dlzc" in your reply. That way the final words will be yours. In the second item I drew your attention that Planck's quantum theory and Bohr's theory are inadequate to the Einstein's theory. This is the known fact, as well as it is well known that Planck and Bohr were Einstein's opponents. Planck only found that EM energy is emitted and absorbed by portions, but he didn't think out any particles. Bohr has calculated the orbits of electrons in atom, taking into account that they are discrete, and without any indeterminacy. In his theory everything has been determined! If you read attentively his basic work, you will easily understand, discretisation which he postulated is the consequence of resonance excluding the continuous spectrum of levels. Relativity and quantum mechanics are two entirely different beasts. And relativity is closest to your wave model, since they are both applicable ONLY to large statistical populations. If you have a beef it should be with *QM*. If you then read our paper "On the nature of red shift of Metagalaxy" http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/hubbl.../hubble44.html where we analyse the luminescence, you will understand that known Planck's formula E = h*nu is true only when averaging (this is just typical for his formula describing the radiation of absolutely black body). See the experimental curve in Fig. 10 http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/hubbl.../hubble45.html In each specific case Planck's formula is not exactly true, which says that energy ABSORPTION and EMISSION quantization has a limited rigour. This is also typical just for resonance systems. ;-) Or systems that express temperature, which is relative motion of the individual emitters and absorbers. This is simply saying that quantum mechanics is right. What is not right about what you have said is that it has anything to do with resonant behaviour. Absorption of a photon does *not* occur for electrons in orbitals that are just under a photon energy, and produce a near-zero KE electron, they produce a conduction electron with all the energy. This is NOT resonant behaviour. As opposite to Bohr's theory, Einstein's theory is fully absurd. Beginning with the fact that Bose distribution means arithmetic summation of quanta energy which is basically discrepant with the experimental regularities of interference and diffraction of light. Further, orbital electron interacts with the wave in time, but photon absorption must be instantaneous (there were very many questions to Einstein about it, and he couldn't answer). Furthermore, no one of adherents of photon theory can substantiate the contradiction connected with the geometrical size of photon and how this size corresponds to wavelength - where from the postulate of uncharged and non-interacting photon follows contradictive. You also cannot explain it, and even if you try, you can only produce new discrepancies. Your are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. I will leave you to do this. The size of the photon (as determined by experiment) is "zero", and has nothing to do with the distance it travels before it achieves the same E&B orientation again. I don't need to explain it. They are two entirely different things. Any other claim is your own fabrication, and is therfore your problem. In the third item I briefly gave the initials of phenomenology on whose grounds one can easily describe photoeffect with the wave physics. Yes, today, while physicists CANNOT study resonance phenomena theoretically, this description will be based on the Planck's formula of quantization, given Bohr's calculations. There is no difficulty in expressing the formulas for resonance. And the behaviour is well known in lots of different types of systems. The photoelectric effect is contraindicative of resonance. You need a different model ENTIRELY. And nothing wrong in it, as from these works to Einstein's fiction is a large distance. To calculate this effect deeper, we have to learn to calculate resonance systems containing resonance subsystems. Such is the trouble: no one of you all cannot it and doesn't want to know. 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. You think, what was done before you is quite enough. Besides, you colleagues want to see or hear nothing. I cannot speak for my colleagues. I want a single theory that describes all behaviours. You don't have one. You have an EASY theory, and that is all. Just you mechanical engineer are grieving that no one can calculate resonance systems. I took a class in "resonance systems". That is why I know that you have not even looked at what resonance is. I CAN calculate certain limited sets of exact solutions as the need arises. You don't need to talk down to me. It seems I am right in front of you. ... Of course, if you want to understand what occurs in these cases. But if you feel enough good an old wear out formulation that wave physics is unable to explain something - this is your right. Indeed, this theory also has its problems. They are gradually solved. Don't forget, the mathematical tool of quantum theory has been taken from wave physics - Aleksandr just told you of it. If you want to sort out this issue - I'm ready, but not on the worn out dogmas. Then we should be done. Since what you offer is worn out dogma, based on a 19th century conception of light. ... So if you wish to quit your posturing, we can continue *our* discussions. You (and Sergey) wish to continue describing the behaviours of light with the class of equations that describe gestalt behaviours. This is a wonderful and useful idea. It will help you get the job done, perhaps even in your lifetime. Development of wave physics began long before us and we will not finish it. But we can do something and have done - at least we in the laboratory SELF. As I said. It is a useful TOOL. It lacks only endpoints to be complete. Alexsandr started this thread proposing that emission and absoprtion were only boundary conditions. For any sufficiently broad system, this would be a viable APPROXIMATION. Proceed. It is based, however, on ignoring the things that make it INVALID. It does not alter the inescapable fact that the gestalt is made of quantum particles, that conform to producing, among other things, the photoelectric effect. It's a beloved occupation of relativists - to use developments of classical physics, to distort them and to palm off their distorted results as something inachievable in frames of classical physics. ;-) I tire of your posturing as well. Describe the photoelectric effect using a wave model. Don't wave "resonance" in front of me again, until you show how it does not excite those electrons from orbitals that it should for a resonant system. Otherwise, you are doing exaclty what you accuse me of doing. I have heard many people *claim* that waves can describe the photoelectic effect, but they always seem to fall short. They never seem to get past "resonance" in fact. Well, what you relativists know of resonance? In the neighbouring thread, "Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations", some colleagues tried to state that it's very convenient to solve the resonance systems with Lagrangian and Hamiltonian. However they couldn't get past general formulas, never transiting to the description of specific systems. Don't you want to try? Then please prompt me, how have I got solved the problem of a many-body system with the resonance substructure? ;-) You are forgetting for a while, where from the QM has taken its mathematical tool which it distorted up to unrecognizability. Done. There is no discussion possible with you. Believe what you will. If you peddle it as being the truth, be prepared to face humiliation. And it won't be from a mechanical engineer. David A. Smith |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"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... Whether you can describe physical principles of operation of the RC-oscillator (capacitance-resistance oscillator) from a point of view of a resonance? Although a capacitor stores energy an RC circuit is not a resonant system. The voltage and current in an RC circuit decay exponentially and have no natural oscillation. The differential equation is first order while resonance requires second order. Then you should explain the physical mechanism of the RC-generator, which one ensures on an output of the RC-generator (RC-oscillator) only sine-wave oscillations. ;-) You mean as I mentioned in the next paragraph? ;-) To make an oscillator using an RC requires a separate non-linear gain stage (a 'relaxation' oscillator) This doesn't give a sine wave but just for completeness: http://www.ee.polyu.edu.hk/staff/een.../ee251lab2.htm or you need multiple RC stages. This is the one you are thinking of and does give a sine wave: http://home.earthlink.net/~doncox/wec/Oscillators.html Note that you need at least three stages. You need to get 180 degrees phase shift from the RC delays to produce an in-phase signal into the inverting amplifier. In theory a single RC stage will produce 90 degrees shift but only when the gain is zero. The oscillator as a whole can have a similar frequency characteristic to a resonant system but the initial energy in the capacitors is lost as heat in the resistors and base of the transistors and has to be continually replaced from the power supply. The individual RC sections only provide phase shift, not useable power storage so it is not resonant in the physical sense. (Some electronics texts may describe it as resonant because of the response, not the mechanism.) As Craig pointed out a simple LCR circuit can be resonant provided the resistance is low enough (series mode) or high enough (parallel mode) to avoid excessive damping. This is a good description of that (9 page PDF): http://faculty.washington.edu/maniso.../resonance.pdf The key difference is that in an LC circuit, energy can be stored in the magnetic field in the inductor and in the electric field in the capacitor. The collapse of the magnetic field induces a voltages that charges the capacitor, the voltage across the capacitor then builds the current in the inductor in the opposite sense to the original and so on. Without resistive losses this could go on indefinitely. With just an RC, the energy in the capacitor is turned into heat in the resistor and that is the end. Perfectly well. You have done large work with a profound knowledge of a subject. Thank you. But now, just for completeness, you should explain the physical mechanism of the parametric generator, which one ensures on an output of the parametric generator only sine-wave oscillations. ;-) My knowledge of such systems is far more limited, but in this example http://members.aol.com/overunity/html/paraintr.htm you can see it is just a means to pump an LCR circuit by varying a circuit parameter, L in this case. Thank you. For other examples I think you will also find there is a resonant system which is pumped in a similar manner. Earlier, you considered "resonance" in a _passive_ linear system. The physical phenomenon is considered here in _active nonlinear_ system of completely other type. However, I think we have answered sean's question, resonance is not a wave phenomenon, "resonance is not a wave phenomenon" Why? What is a standing wave in a wave guide? What is a standing wave in a segment of a coaxial line? What is a standing wave in a very high frequency the resonator? From a wave point of view there are two classes of systems: - lumped-parameter systems (for example condensers, inductance coils, resistors); - distributed-parameter systems (for example wave guides, coaxial lines, very high frequency resonators). so I'll leave it at that. ??? Best regards Aleksandr |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
Hi George! "George Dishman" writes: "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... Whether you can describe physical principles of operation of the RC-oscillator (capacitance-resistance oscillator) from a point of view of a resonance? Although a capacitor stores energy an RC circuit is not a resonant system. The voltage and current in an RC circuit decay exponentially and have no natural oscillation. The differential equation is first order while resonance requires second order. However, an LC circuit can be a resonant system. [inductor-capacitor] No "waves" are involved in an LC circuit. Whether you can describe physical principles of operation of the parametric generator? By the way. What type of generators is applied on electrical energy stations from a physical point of view? Aleksandr |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Sergey Karavashkin:
a) the integral field of photon will be in this case non-zero, and what about uncharged photon? What about it? Photons have no charge. That's why charge is conserved. b) no changes in time can occur within photon, That's a meaningless statement. as with it the field variation registered by the receiver would be more either less than the light velocity (so-called group velocity which is formed when within some system there exists a subsystem with the time-variable phase shift); The phase of a photon does not advance in time. In fact, it's completely meaningless to discuss the absolute phase of a photon. then of what changes of E&B are you saying? c) If the wave period consists of multitude photons, how photons do correlate with each other, keeping a strong sequence for many thousands and millions kilometres, especially when there propagates not a monochromatic wave but a packet? That's pretty naive. The photons (or any wave packet) emitted are emitted by sources. If the sources are correlated, why wouldn't the radiation carry those correlations to the receiver when the intervening distance between the source and emitter is just the vacuum in space and doesn't affect the radiation in any way? 2. As to the beyond-cutoff luminescence of substance you have written the following: [David] Or systems that express temperature, which is relative motion of the individual emitters and absorbers. This is simply saying that quantum mechanics is right. What is not right about what you have said is that it has anything to do with resonant behaviour. Absorption of a photon does *not* occur for electrons in orbitals that are just under a photon energy, and produce a near-zero KE electron, they produce a conduction electron with all the energy. This is NOT resonant behaviour. a) please show me the regularity of energy of secondary quanta in Planck formula with respect to temperature; ;-) What does "regularity of energy of secondary quanta mean"? Planck's formula refers to the oscillators that produce the quanta. It says nothing about the nature of the quanta other than what the principle of detailed balance tells you. b) of which relative motion of individual emitters and absorbers are you saying for a solid state of luminophor which so much distorts the pattern of emission? Only having answered these questions, you may judge, how much right is QM. First you have to ask a sensible question. [...] I guess, you are speaking here of the photon theory as a part of particle theory. If so, I would like simply to cite Niels Bohr: In the view of quantum theory, the discussed hypothesis cannot be nonetheless considered as a satisfying solution. As is known, just this hypothesis brings insurmountable difficulties in explanation of interference phenomena - the main means in studying the radiation properties [see: H.A. Lorentz. Phys. Zs., 1910, *11*, 349]. Let's see, 1910... That was about 5 years before bohr had a model of the atom, 18 years before quantum mechanics was a theory and about a quarter century before there was a relativistic theory which included photons and about a half-century before quantum field theories came into existence. What's your point? That bohr knew all of those things in 1910? In any case we can ascertain that the underlying statement of the hypothesis of light quanta basically excludes the possibility to comprehend the concept of frequency nu playing the main part in this theory. The frequency plays a role. It just doesn't play the role described by classical theory (which isn't really clear anyway). Instead, the frequency plays a role that is better suited to the word frequency: an interaction probability. So the hypothesis of light quanta is invalid to give general pattern of processes which might include the entire amount of phenomena considered in quantum theory applications [Niels Bohr. On the quantum theory application to the structure of atom. 1. The main postulates of quantum theory. Chapter 3. On formal nature of quantum theory. Item 1. Hypothesis of light quanta]. This organically supplements what I usually say you and you stubbornly don't hear. So, essentially, you are arguing that given the understanding of quantum mechanics in 1910, quanta don't make sense. That is certainly true, since there was no such thing as quantum mechanics in 1910. However, that is not an argument. No one understood E&M in AD 1500, but that isn't an argument against maxwell's equations. [...] [Sergey] Please take any book on photoeffect and open where the spectral characteristics for metals are shown. You will see that the quantum output dependence on frequency is not so much like a direct line as Planck equation predicts. Planck's equation? These curves are gently sloping near the 'red' boundary and increasing as the square of difference of frequencies. After it you see an abrupt rise. And this rise relates to the frequency band at which the material stops effectively reflecting EM waves. The further the more. The curve reaches its maximum, then the photoeffect abruptly falls. Began the material again reflecting EM waves? Yes, but not so much abruptly as the quantum output falls. Well, now please answer, David, my very simple question. As a result of what there appears the maximum of absorption of EM waves by the surface of metal? Apparently, you don't understand the photoelectric effect. The quasi- free electrons in a metal can certainly absorb radiation. Where do you think the energy that corresponds to the work function goes? Light can be scattered in the metal. If you think a detailed answer is simple, then the reason is you're understanding of the photoelectric effect is naive and you missed even the simple results of the basic description. In semiconductors the quantum output has some other pattern. In the area of red boundary you see an abrupt raise and saturation and almost smooth plateau. Here also the surface absorbs in the area of plateau? A photodiode or phototransistor has an "abrupt rise" because there is a fixed gap between te fermi surface and conduction band. In other words, an electron/hole pair has a fixed mass and it takes a fixed amount of momentum to create the pair. The saturation occurs for the same reason that any other semiconductor saturates. The potential difference across the semiconductor will be zero once there are enough charges created to cancel the field. Increase the voltage and you increase the number of charges that can flow before saturation. Increase the ptential too much and you start pulling electrons from the atomic electrons (dielectric breakdown otherwise known as a spark). It damages the crystal structure (which in some cases can even be repaired by annealing). |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... .... However, I think we have answered sean's question, resonance is not a wave phenomenon, "resonance is not a wave phenomenon" Why? Refration, diffraction and interference are wave phenomena in this sense in that they rely on the wave nature of the medium, be it light, water, sound or whatever. Resonance does not rely on a wave-like behaviour. What is a standing wave in a wave guide? What is a standing wave in a segment of a coaxial line? What is a standing wave in a very high frequency the resonator? True they use waves as part of the operation but all of these are examples of cavities in which energy can be stored and the cavity can be treated as a single device. However, that is not the point ... From a wave point of view there are two classes of systems: - lumped-parameter systems (for example condensers, inductance coils, resistors); - distributed-parameter systems (for example wave guides, coaxial lines, very high frequency resonators). so I'll leave it at that. This started in reply to sean's comment on the page about lumped systems: "sean" wrote in message om... Read what I could without going into the details of the equations .It still seems that david is wrong about resonace not being a wave phenomena? as this url also explains resonance in terms of amplitude, frequency, harmonics etc. All wave compatible descriptions Just using terms commonly associated with waves does not mean that it is also a wave phenomenon. Since my aim was to explain to Sean the difference between waves and resonance, I choose a page that emphasised that difference. Using your examples would not have clarified the terminology IMHO and that is what Sean needed to understand so that he could appreciate David's point of view. Once he understands the terminology, he may say that incoming waves excite a resonance in the material or whatever, but I am not commenting on his ideas, only trying to clarify the terminology. George |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... ... However, I think we have answered sean's question, resonance is not a wave phenomenon, "resonance is not a wave phenomenon" Why? Refration, diffraction and interference are wave phenomena in this sense in that they rely on the wave nature of the medium, be it light, water, sound or whatever. Resonance does not rely on a wave-like behaviour. What is a standing wave in a wave guide? What is a standing wave in a segment of a coaxial line? What is a standing wave in a very high frequency the resonator? True they use waves as part of the operation but all of these are examples of cavities in which energy can be stored and the cavity can be treated as a single device. However, that is not the point ... Dear George: Look at Subject: "Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS" With reference to a viewed wave context let's discuss the following part of the Subject: "Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS" Now we narrowly shall see at the term "Electrodynamics". Now we shall centre attention on the term "dynamics" in a context of "BOUNDARY CONDITIONS". Thus we have the terms: "dynamics" & "BOUNDARY CONDITIONS" In an ELECTRODYNAMICS the mathematical statement of "boundary conditions" for concrete physical system depends on a wave band or from a frequency band. The mathematical statement of combined equations for concrete physical system also depends on a wave band or from a frequency band. Thus concrete "geometry" of physical devices of concrete system and "characteristic" length of an electromagnetic wave determines both mathematical statement of "boundary conditions" and mathematical statement of "combined equations" for concrete physical system. Thus for essential of miscellaneous quantities of "characteristic" length of an electromagnetic wave mathematical representation of the same concrete physical system will differ for miscellaneous frequency bands QUALITATIVELY. It means, that the terms " lumped-parameter " and " the distributed parameter " have only conditional character, which one depends from " characteristic " wave lengths " or on a frequency band. Thus your definition " of a resonance " gives in paradoxes in application to the same concrete physical system in miscellaneous frequency bands! ************************************************** ***** From a physical point of view the physical phenomenon of a resonance in an oscillatory circuit consisting from of " lumped-parameters " does not differ from a resonance of standing light waves between two mirrors (distributed-parameter system) by anything. ************************************************** ***** Comments. From a wave point of view there are two classes of systems: - lumped-parameter systems (for example condensers, inductance coils, resistors); - distributed-parameter systems (for example wave guides, coaxial lines, very high frequency resonators). so I'll leave it at that. This started in reply to sean's comment on the page about lumped systems: "sean" wrote in message om... Read what I could without going into the details of the equations .It still seems that david is wrong about resonace not being a wave phenomena? as this url also explains resonance in terms of amplitude, frequency, harmonics etc. All wave compatible descriptions Just using terms commonly associated with waves does not mean that it is also a wave phenomenon. Since my aim was to explain to Sean the difference between waves and resonance, From a physical point of view the physical phenomenon of a resonance in an oscillatory circuit consisting from of " lumped-parameters " does not differ from a resonance of standing light waves between two mirrors (distributed-parameter system) by anything. Please point an odds between "resonance" of standing light waves between two mirrors (distributed-parameter system) and "resonance" in an oscillatory circuit consisting from of " concentrated parameters " from a physical point of view. I choose a page that emphasised that difference. Using your examples would not have clarified the terminology IMHO and that is what Sean needed to understand so that he could appreciate David's point of view. Once he understands the terminology, he may say that incoming waves excite a resonance in the material or whatever, but I am not commenting on his ideas, only trying to clarify the terminology. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message om... I looked through the site on resonance which you have run into on the web. It's good, of course, that there exist many different sites which There are many as you say but this one suited the aim of my post. We in our laboratory have learned how to solve heterogeneous filters under mismatched load. .. Fine, but Sean's comments made it clear that he did not know what the term 'resonance' meant. It is a technical term and we have a wide range of experience in many disciplines in this group so there is no shame in that at all. I specifically choose an introduction level site that would convey the basic concept. IMHO a site dealing with heterogeneous filters and mismatched loads would not have been helpful to Sean. George |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|