|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... You of all people should realise that without the maths to back them up, words carry little substance in scientific circles. The conceptual systems of physical ideas are a main core of physical sciences. The mathematical statement of conceptual system of physical ideas is rather relevant, but minor aspect of physical science. There we differ. IMHO, the mathematical statement is paramount since only that allows quantitative predictions. The accompanying model makes it easier to see how apply the theory is any given situation but that is all. My English is rather far from perfection. :-( Whether you can explain to the participants (David A. Smith) of a controversy general principles of an impedance matching of a "generator" and a "loading"? ["generator"] --- ["loading"] I can do that if he wishes but I don't see a need at the moment. space, parabolic RESISTOR or BLACK BODY or antenna ("generator") --- "loading" A BLACK BODY as the receiver of microwave radiation. ================================================== === - - - parabolic antenna - - \ - \ ---------- - \ [ ] -"loading" - \ [ ] BLACK BODY or - ) )--- ] " microwave receiver " - / [ ] - / [ ] - / ---------- - / - - - - microwave - radiation THE BOLOMETRIC RECEIVER. ================================================== === - - - parabolic antenna - - \ - \ - \ - \ RESISTOR or BLACK BODY or - ) )------| " microwave receiver " - / | - / |-| - / | | -"loading" - / | | RESISTOR - |-| - | - | - microwave | - radiation === Ground return circuit This diagram is easier than the diagram of the elementary detecting radio receiver, here detector is the resistor. PARADOX. Contrary to the conventional judgement the pure RESISTANCE is not a linear device from a physical point of view, since the pure RESISTANCE transmutes energy of currents of any frequencies into heat. You can look at this in a number of ways. The antenna can be modelled as a voltage generator and series source resistance. If the antenna were connected directly to ground a certain current would flow. With the load resistor in circuit, the current is reduced because the voltage produce across the load resistor reduces the voltage across the source resistance. The energy dissipated in the resistor does not directly affect any of the electrical conditions in the circuit so when considering the resistor as an electrical component, it should be described as a linear component because the voltage developed across it is linearly related to the current flowing through it. --------------------------------------------------------- Thus RESISTOR is the nonlinear transformer of electromagnetic energy similar to an ideal BLACK BODY. --------------------------------------------------------- While black body radiation as you say is not a linear relationship, the power being related to the temperature as t^4, in almost all electronics, the heat lost by radiation is negligible compared to conduction and components are characterised by thermal resistance in units of C/W. This is of course linear too ;-) From other ONLY MATHEMATICAL point of view, the pure RESISTANCE enters inside of the equations as a constant, i.e. the pure RESISTANCE is a LINEAR device. --------------------------------------------------------- Thus RESISTOR is the a LINEAR device. ;-) --------------------------------------------------------- Yes, a resistor is a linear device. George |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"sean" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "sean" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "sean" wrote in message m... Craig Markwardt wrote in message ... (sean) writes: [ ... ] The original point was that I responded to Davids claim that resonance was not possible described as a wave phenomena in refernce of course I can't find an example where David says this. Ill look again but he says that resonance can only be exhibited by a particle Waves require a continuous medium and a propagation direction. A pendulum-like swing embodies neither. The fact that the tha language of *oscillations* can be used to describe waves and resonance does not mean that they are identical. Thats a fair point but you say that I say that waves and resonance are identical. Thats misquoting me because my argument is that waves "in a medium" ,contained if neccesary, exhibit resonance. Did I say or do you think I say that waves are identical to resonance? Why would I mean that? Of course I realize that waves on there own arent resonance. "sean" wrote in message om... .. Secondly I thought about it and actually a medium can resonate and standing nodes of maxima CAN occur in our observable world in water or etc in open uncontained systems . This can be done simply by having 2 identical energy sources creating waves and at the point or in the region between the two sources there are standing waves produced | | | A | | | B | | | Above A and B are vibrating sources in an open uncontained medium and the vertical lines denote maxima where overlapping waves create standing waves . This is seen in water tanks etc experiments and shows how classical waves can resonate in an open system and create maxima (in this case bands rather than nodes) So theoretically in a open infinite universe the aethger medium could resonate and nodes of maxima would be possible. ... above I have shown that the medium does not need to be contained to resonate and create maxima. Everyday examples in water and air show how open systems of mediums of homogenous density CAN resonate and can produce nodes of maxima. ... do you agree that a medium can resonate in an open system. as I have shown above? Hi George I think you fell for Craigs trap there too . Notice he says that I say that waves are resonances. Note that my quote has waves ,(from a energy source) IN A MEDIUM can exhibit resonance. Wait here I will say it again .... Waves in a medium can exhibit resonance. In other words I did not say waves are resonance. Those are two seperate words (waves , resonance) and he was trying to make it look like I thought that waves and resonance were essentially the same thing. No, as I read what he said, he was trying to point out that it takes more than just waves in a medium to exhibit resonance. That they meant the same thing. IF on the other hand he meant that quote above then I still stand by it. I have seen in water two sources vibrating that produce standing waves or maxima at a point between the two sources. That to me is resonance. And that is exactly the point. To everyone else that is _not_ resonance, it is only intereference. The best example of resonance for you to consider is the child on a swing. If you want the child to go high in the air, you could just push and hold him there. It is a lot easier to give a small push in time with each swing and gradually build the amplitude. It is the ability to generate a large amplitude from a small force by accumulating the energy in the system that is the phenomenon known as resonance. Whether a particular example makes use of waves or not is entirely beside the point, and whther or not a wave system exhibits nodes or maxima is also completely irrelevant. Furthermore I am sure that if a extra driving force was added at a similar frequency those maxima would increase in amplitude. That fuylfils the textbook definition of resonance. But dont be mistaken , Craig was trying to insinuate that I thought that the words waves and resonance both meant the same thing. I dont and I have never said that. I know they are different meanings but I also know that waves in a medium can exhibit resonance. I don't think he was suggesting you were saying they were the same though I can see how you would get that impression. I think he was saying that although waves and maxima are involved in some examples of resonance, they are not enough on their own to constitute resonance. However, the reason I juxtaposed your quotes is that in the first you say: "my argument is that waves 'in a medium' ,contained if neccesary, exhibit resonance." and "Of course I realize that waves on there own arent resonance." yet you had previously said: "This ... shows how classical waves can resonate in an open system and create maxima (in this case bands rather than nodes)" "in a open infinite universe the aethger medium could resonate and nodes of maxima would be possible." "above I have shown that the medium does not need to be contained to resonate and create maxima." "do you agree that a medium can resonate in an open system. as I have shown above?" Clearly you had been arguing that waves on their own could exhibit resonance, and as far as I can see you are still doing so. As I have said before, the problem is not your grasp of the physics, just your understanding of the terminology. Adopting the same meaning for the word as everyone else will simply help you communicate. George Hi George I`m glad you understand how I interpret his quote that he thinks that waves are resonance. Especially considering I juxtaposed that with the second part of the line that says that I think that waves in a medium can exhibit resonace. Initially I thought that if I could get David to agree that a contained system could resonate with a medium etc however you want to word it then I could then put forth an argument that shows how then a node in a contained resonating system could in a sense be comparable to a wave only atom mechanically speaking. 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. You present an argument that says that the medium has to be contained to exhibit resonance whereas yes iniitially I was hoping to argue that an infinite homogenous universe could aLSO do the same . OK I wont push that open homogenous idea right as you in a sense provided an answer in that your post a few back said that a sun could exhibit resonance and even interstellar space with gas clouds could also be interpereted as `contained ` systems`. Thats your quote not mine and I `ll take that as the implication that an infinite universe is NOT homogenous and therefore is not uncontained at any one point. You need to be careful about what you think the 'medium' is in this context, that is, what is it that is homogenous or otherwise. Hence my infinite universe can at any point have a `contained` prerequisite` But initially though YES I assumed that Craig was trying to suggest that I didnt know the grammatical or dictionary difference between the two words. Otherwise if he had said a medium can exhibit resonance I would have said yes and argued it using the above argument. So what do you think ?You suggest ear;ier all interstellar space is not homogenous Yes, but note that we were talking specifically of the interstellar medium which is very rarified gas, mostly hydrogen. and you admit a medium contained can exhibit resonance like the sun. Yes, it does. Whats wrong with me then saying OK At any point in the universe be it in a star or solid or interstellar gas resonace can be exhibited 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. 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. 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. as it cannot explain before less than a fraction of a second the big bang as conditions are not understood. Som if QT cant explain parts then wave theory gets that same `out`so to speak. 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. George |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:pKN8b.55909$Qy4.42357@fed1read05... [snip] See yourself: Handsome devil. ... [snip] Note, Alexsandr claims that beginnign and end of light's life are boundary conditions to a wave equation. And that this is fact. I expect either you or him to come up with something other than arm waving and accusing me of being audacious. Burke B.F., Quantum Interference Paradox, Nature, 223, 389-390, 1969. Ah, so you don't disagree that a photon is a quantum particle. How nice. The beginning or ending of life for a photon is a change in momentum of a particle with charge. Bring the host in if you must, but you again hide this discrete endpoint. Your model is useful, but it is still a model, and not any closer to the complete story. The quantum jumps in matter are subject to the Planck's postulate. Thus process of DETECTION of electromagnetic radiation is nonlinear quantum process, which one is subject to the Planck's postulate. Since the quantum jumps in matter are subject to the Planck's postulate, ================================================== ============== the hypothesis about "particle - photon" is exuberant and WANTON ================================================== ============== from a theoretical point of view. Besides the photoeffect is a special case of nonlinear quantum process of DETECTION of electromagnetic radiation in matter, which one is accompanied by an ejection of electrons. ;-) And an affect you have not yet described with a wave model and "resonance". I think we have pretty much gone around this circle about four times. I remind you how powerful the wave model is. I remind you that it only doesn't describe the instant of death (and perhaps birth), and that I feel you could just treat it as a boundary condition. I remind you that treating it so, doesn't make it so. And then you start describing antennas, and dragging in quantum theory (which is based on a particle model, for all of its eigenfunctions, etc.). I think we could stop. David A. Smith |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:3o6ab.57651$Qy4.15737@fed1read05...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev: "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:pKN8b.55909$Qy4.42357@fed1read05... [snip] See yourself: Handsome devil. ... [snip] Note, Alexsandr claims that beginnign and end of light's life are boundary conditions to a wave equation. And that this is fact. I expect either you or him to come up with something other than arm waving and accusing me of being audacious. Burke B.F., Quantum Interference Paradox, Nature, 223, 389-390, 1969. Ah, so you don't disagree that a photon is a quantum particle. How nice. The beginning or ending of life for a photon is a change in momentum of a particle with charge. Bring the host in if you must, but you again hide this discrete endpoint. Your model is useful, but it is still a model, and not any closer to the complete story. The quantum jumps in matter are subject to the Planck's postulate. Thus process of DETECTION of electromagnetic radiation is nonlinear quantum process, which one is subject to the Planck's postulate. Since the quantum jumps in matter are subject to the Planck's postulate, ================================================== ============== the hypothesis about "particle - photon" is exuberant and WANTON ================================================== ============== from a theoretical point of view. Besides the photoeffect is a special case of nonlinear quantum process of DETECTION of electromagnetic radiation in matter, which one is accompanied by an ejection of electrons. ;-) And an affect you have not yet described with a wave model and "resonance". I think we have pretty much gone around this circle about four times. I remind you how powerful the wave model is. I remind you that it only doesn't describe the instant of death (and perhaps birth), and that I feel you could just treat it as a boundary condition. I remind you that treating it so, doesn't make it so. And then you start describing antennas, and dragging in quantum theory (which is based on a particle model, for all of its eigenfunctions, etc.). "Handsome devil" always is displayed focuses making stUnt semantic substitution by applying the term "particle - photon" to nonlinear processes of radiation and absorption of electromagnetic energy by matter, for physical interpretation which one is indispensable and .........^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is sufficient only of the Planck's principle: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Eric _Prebys wrote: "you could not fit the experimental data ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ without quantizing the interaction." (Planck's principle ;-) ) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ in message: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com "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!" sci.physics.research John Baez http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...pravda.ucr.edu PHOTONS DO NOT EXIST IN A NATURE ================================================== On my sight the photon is simply other title for mechanisms of a radiation and absorption of an electromagnetic field. For this reason the PHOTONS DO NOT EXIST IN A NATURE or, if it is pleasant more to you, in a medium of an electromagnetic field the photons will be generated as virtual particles, i.e. the photons are ONLY auxiliary mathematical abstraction or ONLY " auxiliary mathematical trick ". From this point of view, we shall come to a conclusion: ================================================== ====================== The photons are particles - ghosts, the photons are auxiliary mathematical abstraction, which allow us to calculate probability of interaction of an electromagnetic field and substance. ================================================== ====================== Please David give an example of interaction of "absolutely free" "photon" and "absolutely free" "electron". Once again I have in a view an example of interaction of isolated system consisting from free "photons" and free "electrons". http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com I think we could stop. Once again, "I think we could stop", if David A. Smith give an example of interaction of "absolutely free" "photon" and "absolutely free" "electron". ;o) --- Aleksandr |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"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). " http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com --- Aleksandr PS Now I have restricted access to Internet. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... You of all people should realise that without the maths to back them up, words carry little substance in scientific circles. The conceptual systems of physical ideas are a main core of physical sciences. The mathematical statement of conceptual system of physical ideas is rather relevant, but minor aspect of physical science. There we differ. IMHO, the mathematical statement is paramount since only that allows quantitative predictions. The accompanying model makes it easier to see how apply the theory is any given situation but that is all. It is naturally, that the engineers like calculations, but the physical sciences are PROCESS of making of the new approaches to natural phenomena. The physical sciences are PROCESSES, the engineering sciences are the finished or "dead" prescriptions of the solutions of problems already of DIED physical science of former generations of physicists. The conceptual systems of physical ideas are a main core of physical sciences. "The Physical Theories are Daughters of the Past, Mothers of the Future and always Bondmaids of the Present." Gustave Le Bon "A person is not religious solely when he worships a divinity," wrote Gustave Le Bon in The Crowd, "but when he puts all the resources of his mind, the complete submission of his will, and the whole-souled ardor of his fanaticism at the service of a cause or an individual who becomes the goal and guide of his thoughts and actions." All scientific theories represent the special specific religious systems, among the competing scientific theories win most effective, with flow of time... ------------------------------------------------------------------- Have great fun: Alby E. warned: "Most mistakes in philosophy and logic occur because the human mind is apt to take the symbol (mathematical evaluations) for reality". Not every horny devil is a Maxwell's Demon. Here we consider a Alby's Demon - "Particle - Photon". Unhappy, but the imaginary Demons do not exist in the Nature. Unfortunate joke for this Sacred place: The chimeras are prohibited to the laws of the Nature. Nothing is sacred to them. *** " The Nature's Children seek out regularities and rules in acquiring Nature's Language. " Aleksandr Timofeev *** "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. --Friedrich Nietzsche *** Again, this is your idea, you can't expect others to create it for you. It is my innermost desire. Do not discourage me... ;-) I wouldn't do that, but there is nothing for me to add at this stage. Good luck with your quest. George |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:3o6ab.57651$Qy4.15737@fed1read05... .... I think we could stop. Once again, "I think we could stop", if David A. Smith give an example of interaction of "absolutely free" "photon" and "absolutely free" "electron". ;o) I already have. And here is another: 1.2 Gev photon + electron - electron + electron + positron Please, since we are trampling the same ground here, and since we have already agreed on anything significant, can we move on to another topic in another thread? David A. Smith |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"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? George |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:myJ6b.47123$Qy4.9078@fed1read05...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev: "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... \(formerly\)" 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? What can you report us of a role a feedback in generators of auto-oscillations? There is no parallel. 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. By the way, should you attentively study QM, you would see, the solution of Schroedinger equation for potential well is just standing wave. ;-) 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. 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, ?????????????? unless it has been freed of the surface, and it is then no longer feeding back. There is no parallel. Are you absolutely sure? ;-) David A. Smith Sergey. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|