Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
From: Eugene Stefanovich (eugenev_at_synopsys.com)
Date: 09/24/04
- Next message: tj Frazir: "Re: USA GOV FAILS ATOMIC ATACK"
- Previous message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: Space, time, the works."
- In reply to: RP: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Next in thread: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:11:50 -0700
RP wrote:
>
>
> Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> FrediFizzx wrote:
>>
>>> "Eugene Stefanovich" <eugenev@synopsys.com> wrote in message
>>> news:415471A2.1070308@synopsys.com...
>>> |
>>> |
>>> | Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> |
>>> | >>>
>>> | >>>You're attempting to *disintegrate* Maxwell's equations into
>>> | >>>"(Coulomb and magnetic)" as separate entities. However Einstein's
>>> | >>>1905 SR paper explained why that shouldn't be done. I think you're
>>> | >>>taking a mechanistic and reductionist view of physics that
>>> pre-dated
>>> | >>>Maxwell, relativity and QT. My interpretation of your statement
>>> | >>>suggest you're questioning basic Maxwell's Equations.
>>> | >>
>>> | >>1. I don't give much credence to Maxwell's theory. Because it
>>> does not
>>> | >>take into account quantum effects. It represents light as continuos
>>> | >>wave, while in fact light consists of particles - photons as was
>>> | >>demonstrated in another Einstein's 1905 paper. Maxwells theory has
>>> | >>troubles with describing the "radiation reaction" effects which
>>> can be
>>> | >>traced to quantum-mechanical origin. I have much higher respect for
>>> | >>QED.
>>> | >
>>> | >
>>> | > In Planck's quantum formula E = hf, what would the
>>> | > frequency "f" represent if not an EM wave?
>>> |
>>> | In my view f represents the frequency of the wavefunction of one
>>> | photon. Maxwell's theory cannot represent one photon at all.
>>> | It would be wrong to represent one photon by an electromagnetic plane
>>> wave.
>>> | Such a representation would mean that one photon can blacken entire
>>> | surface of a photographic plate, when in reality it makes one small
>>> | blackened dot.
>>>
>>> Maxwell's theory can represent one photon by the simple introduction
>>> of hbar
>>> and 4pi. I have done it. See,
>>>
>>> http://vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
>>>
>>> But yes, it is not going to be a plane wave. The Maxwell wave equations
>>> admit to solutions other than just plane waves. Photographic plate
>>> implies
>>> visible light or close to it. What would happen if you tried to
>>> detect a
>>> radio wave photon by similar methods? Would it still be a small
>>> dot? Or
>>> would it be ring-like with not much intensity in the center?
>>> According to
>>> helix antenna design, they seem to be the latter case.
>>>
>>> FrediFizzx
>>
>>
>>
>> We cannot make a photographic plate for radiowaves because there is no
>> such sensitive material. The sensitivity must be a fraction of eV.
>> In the case of visible light photography, there are AgBr crystals which
>> experience an irreversible transformation (separation of Ag clusters)
>> after absorption of photons with energies of few eV.
>> If we can find a material which can similarly experience irreversible
>> transformation after absorbing 0.01 eV photons, we can make a
>> photographic plate for radiowaves. I would predict that even in this
>> case each photon will produce just a small dot.
>>
>> The impotence of Maxwell's theory was demonstrated by Einstein's
>> explanation of photoeffect. This is easy to see on the example with
>> the photographic plate too. If light were an electromagnetic wave,
>> then we could make a photographic image of radiowave with existing
>> materials: just make a wave
>> of sufficiently high intensity. It never happens, because light
>> and radiowaves propagate as particles - photons. See discussion in
>> subsection 3.1.3 of my book.
>>
>> Eugene.
>
>
> Suppose that the radio source is moving toward the emulsion at
> relativistic speeds, i.e., so that the frequency is blue shifted into
> the visible spectrum wrt the emulsion. You are supposing that little
> dots appear on the emulsion, and I don't disagree. OTOH, wrt the source
> it is the emulsion that is in motion, and wrt the source the wave can be
> measured in the space surrounding the emulsion, and thus the wave energy
> is indeed smeared out over a spherical plane. How do you suppose that
> these two results follow simultaneously? The only logical conclusions
> that can be derived are:
> 1) the emulsion is frequency sensitive
> 2) the molecules of the emulsion are independently sensitive to incident
> waves, i.e. some mechanism is coupling certain of the molecules to the
> incident wave.
> 3) the dots are the result of chance interactions between the wave and
> the phases of the electron orbits in the molecules.
I don't quite understand your point here. Of course, the relative energy
of motion of emulsion atoms and the photon is relevant to the formation
of the image. If you shoot at a target with a bullet you make a hole.
If you place the bullet at rest and hit it with supersonic target you
get the same hole.
>
> IOW, the population is pumped by thermal energy, and constructive nodes
> result in the absorption of energy from the wave. Simultaneously other
> molecules are losing energy in their interaction with the wave. This is
> simple radio theory, the difference is only in the fact that you are
> viewing molecular electrons as objectively different particles than free
> electrons (such as those oscillating within a dipole antenna).
>
> It's all crap, force fit to the data.
> However, yours seems to be an improved version of the crap simply
> because you've concluded correctly that the electromagnetic force is
> instantaneous. I derive the same necessary result in the paper linked
> below.
> Though screening is nothing new to plasma physicists, and though it is
> sufficient to account for observed delays, it is somehow supposed as
> nonexistent and/or impertinent to the the remainder of the interactions
> in the universe, or so the texts would lead you to believe. The most
> fundamental flaw in all of modern physics is redundancy ad infinitum.
>
> The further down one goes, the simpler the laws and behaviors should
> become. This seems a logical necessity to me, that is, taking the whole
> as the sum of its parts. Excessive theories are the symptom of
> misguided attempts to formulate general laws, and of lack of
> communication and cooperation between the various fields of study. Just
> as two sets of laws aren't required to govern the emission/absorption of
> em energy by antennae and molecules respectively, neither are two
> theories of em delays required to explain plasma waves and em waves.
>
> Richard Perry
> http://www.cswnet.com/~rper/Electromagnetism.html
> Invariant wrt all transformation theories, the latter becoming a matter
> of adjustments to the "measured" values of the system parameters rather
> than laws pertaining to the invariant parameters of the system per se.
>
Sorry, I hardly understand what you are saying.
Eugene.
- Next message: tj Frazir: "Re: USA GOV FAILS ATOMIC ATACK"
- Previous message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: Space, time, the works."
- In reply to: RP: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Next in thread: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
