Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?

From: bz (bz+sp_at_ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu)
Date: 03/09/05 

Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 05:57:06 +0000 (UTC)

RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3978fvF5tpqt1U1@individual.net:

>
>
> bz wrote:
>> RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in news:395n1fF5u9iduU1
>> @individual.net:
>>
>>
....
>>
>> The images do not prove that waves must have been used, only that
>> 'something' bounces.
>
> One can use point particles,

I don't claim 'point' particles. I claim the size is of the same order as the
wavelength.

> but then how do you explain the
> absorption of low frequency em radiation before even the first quarter
> cycle has been emitted?

First, I would want to see the evidence for this. Second, what frequency and
how is it being radiated, how is it being absorbed? Are you SURE it happens
before the FIRST quarter cycle has been emitted?

It is difficult to emit ONLY a quarter cycle, I think that at least one half
cycle must be completed.

I do know that beginning a cycle at a low frequency and suddenly terminating
it would result in a HUGE number of 'side bands' being generated, running to
very high frequencies. The fourier transform of the voltage/current wave form
produced by dropping from the peak of that first half cycle down to zero
volts would create harmonics up beyond microwaves. Not to mention what the
keying transients would do to the antenna system.

Have you seen what happens when the circuit breaker on a high voltage
transmission line opens at the wrong point in the current/voltage cycle?
http://ee.stlcc.info/movies/

Show me the evidence.

> How do you explain divergence?

Divergence of what? A beam of light photons? They were not traveling totally
parallel to start with.

Radio? A LOT of photons make up the signal. It is hard to send them all in
the same direction.

1 microwatt at 40 meters (about 7 Mhz) creates about 2e20 photons per second.
That would be about 3e13 photons per cycle.

Each of those photons is about 40 meters in size and carries 5e-27 Joules of
energy. Single photon detection at these wavelengths is going to be
"difficult", but that does NOT mean that the photons don't exist.

> Having studied
> radiation first in the form of radio theory I have a more grounded
> perspective on these matters.

I have been playing with radio since the late 50s. First licensed to send
radio signals in 1961 at the age of 16. I hold Amateur Extra Class license
N5BZ. At one time I held a First Class Radio Telephone license, Second Class
Radio Telegraph License with Radar endorsement, and I was a Certified
Electonics Technican in Industrial, Audio, and Radio Television.

In the early 70's I worked as a process engineer designing and making
capacitors and resistors. I have worked with, programmed and maintained
computer controlled CO2 and YAG laser systems. I have fixed shipboard radios
and radars for a living. I have repaired computers for a living. I have
repaired scientific instruments for a living. I have a BS in chemistry with a
math minor. I know a little bit about radio, lasers, and photons.

> Light is em radiation, and it obeys the
> same rules as all other em radiation.

I agree.

> No conceivable point source can
> produce a directional wave.

Depends on what you mean by a point source and a directional wave. I think
your conception is different than mine.

> Furthermore, electrons respond to local
> fields, always, whether free or bound,

Absolute statements are dangerous(sometimes).

I am not sure exactly what you mean by local fields. The inner electrons of
an atom are often pretty well shielded from fields external to the atom.

The 1s electrons of a Copper atom probably don't know or care about anything
going on around the atom.

> these two states being relative
> states with no logically definable dividing line between them.

evidence?

> The
> electrons in a radio antenna behave according to well tested classical
> laws,

ok.

> and being the same electrons that are bound to the atoms of the
> antenna, must logically behave according to the same rules when bound
> to an atom.

Is that sentence missing a few words or perhaps has a few extra words?

I think your leap of logic has a few barriers to overcome, like that between
the inner electron levels of the atom, and the degenerate conduction bands.

>
> I've heard rationalizations ranging from "radio waves are composed of
> many gamma photons"

I am not sure what a 'gamma' photon is. I know what gamma rays are. I see
some discussion of splitting gamma photons but no explanation of what they
are.

Radio 'waves' are almost certainly composed of a lot of rather low energy
photons, if Plank was correct.

> , to "study QED, it answers the questions". As for
> the first, bull f**king sh*t.

When one is out of something worth saying, say something anyway?

> As for the second, I have, and though
> the equations work, they are independent of the interpretations of
> them, the latter of which are the result of absolutely horrendous use
> of logic.

How is the use of logic horrendous?

> I agree with the instruction to "shut up and calculate",
> that is, until such time as the correct theory emerges, and point
> photons is not that theory.

Again, the size of the photon would seem to depend on its wavelength. It is
not what I would consider to be a 'point'. Do you have a point?

>
> The spectral lines are the result of relatively constant energy levels
> of electrons within atoms,

I think you mean that visible spectral emission/absorption lines are often
associated with the allowed TRANSITIONS between the energy levels of the
outer electrons associated with the atoms. Said levels are quantitized.

> and are due to the quantization of *charge*
> and the constant c.

change /charge/energy/
Of course charge is ALSO quantitized, but it is the fact that the allowed
transitions are quantitized that is important.

> These discrete orbits can be derived classically,
> I've done so myself.

Congratulations. Bhoring, isn't it?

> As for the explanation of why the electrons don't
> spiral down as they radiate, it's a simple matter of equilibrium, they
> are absorbing energy too, i.e. in the form of thermal radiation.

You just chased a pop fly ball into left field and stepped off the edge into
deep dew-dew.

First, electrons are NOT in circular orbits, the way that planets are.

We can't even tell where the electrons are at the same time we measure where
they are going, but we do know that they don't act like macroscopic charged
objects would act.

One must stop trying to visualize hard little balls flying around in an
orbit. The electrons act more like a particle/wave in a box. And the energy
levels can be derived from such assumptions.

The probability wave form for the electron orbitals can be plotted. These
orbitals can be used to predict bonding between atoms. The orbitals look a
lot like antenna radiation patterns. It is interesting to note that some
orbitals show a significant probablility that electrons at those particular
energy levels may spend a significant portion of their time IN the nucleus of
the atom.

Second, conflating thermal radiation with electronic energy levels is not
only stepping off the edge, but going swimming in the stuff you were talking
about early, you know the 'bs' stuff? Show me any evidence to support this
wild theory.

> The
> energy of the electrons is constant "on average", and thus also their
> orbitals. This is basic thermodynamics, a section that our top
> theorist must have hurried through.
>

Show me the evidence. "You argue but you do not persuade." 

-- 
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an 
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lets fight
    ... When it behaves exclusively as a wave, ... So it is reasonable to say that there are still photons ... of particles: photons and electrons. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: nature of electrical influence
    ... >>> How does emitting photons create an attraction? ... my model excludes photons as having localized particle ... photons are purely wave phenomenon. ... >>> electrons, if the waves have the same frequency, but are out of phase ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: nature of electrical influence
    ... >> How does emitting photons create an attraction? ... my model excludes photons as having localized particle ... photons are purely wave phenomenon. ... >> electrons, if the waves have the same frequency, but are out of phase ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Helical Particle Waves.
    ... and wave length of 10 ^9 m. ... The 60 Hz PHOTONS have an energy of 4x10^-32 Joules each. ... A radio transmitter can transmit radio waves of different power. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Wave as wave, particle as particle
    ... When photon numbers are counted each emission or transition event is merely *assumed* to be caused by one photon, the number of events then counted and assumed to equal the number of photons. ... That transitions occur in particular molecules is a result of its chance receptiveness to the incident wave. ... How does this explain the photo effect, i.e. the fact that the energy of the ejected electrons increases as the *frequency* of the wave increases, instead of the *amplitude*, which according to you yourself ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading