Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?

From: RP (no_mail_no_spam_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/09/05 

Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 03:36:46 -0600

bz wrote:

> 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.

Point noted. Now explain how an electron absorbs all of the energy of
your volumous photon? Is it instantly converted into electron energy,
and does this occur upon its leading front impinging on the electron,
or after its trailing end has passed, or somewhere in between? Better
yet, explain how an electron emits such a creature? One femtosecond
after emission begins, what does the partially generated photon look
like? How did it expand out into space in a preferred direction?
Suppose the photon doesn't collide head on with the electron, more of
a sideswipe, but does collide with another head on in the same
instant, will the sideswiped electron be affected or not? Do large
photons affect all electrons in its path, or just one?

More hard questions raised than easy questions answered, it would
seem. Two steps backward isn't progress.

>
>
>>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.

Your common transformer should suffice. Director and driven element of
a two element yagi for another.

> 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?

Quite sure.

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

The full cycle is completed, but the energy is transferring during the
cycle in both cases above.

>
> 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/

Irrelevant.

>
> Show me the evidence.

As a self professed expert in the field, you should be quite familiar
with the evidence.

>
>
>> How do you explain divergence?
>
>
> Divergence of what? A beam of light photons? They were not traveling totally
> parallel to start with.

Can you say the same of a maser originating from a parabolic dish
antenna? Why would the photons vary in direction? In what way do maser
and laser beams differ other than frequency? The em field in the far
field of the maser is directly measurable, these *photons* spread out
with distance from the source, no superposition of fixed sized photons
can account for the variations in field across the wave front over
distance. Explain if you will how this might be accomplished assuming
my conclusion is incorrect, though you should know, as somewhat of an
expert that my conclusion is nothing more than the empirical facts.

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

Why? Symmetry and repeatability are suddenly null and void when they
come into conflict with belief?

>
> 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.

So you say.

>
>
>>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.

Obviously, since your conception is incorrect.

>
>
>>Furthermore, electrons respond to local
>>fields, always, whether free or bound,
>
>
> Absolute statements are dangerous(sometimes).

Given that real physicists treat the interaction according to this
absolute statement, whether or not they have rationalized other causes
of the interaction, I feel somewhat justified in the statement.

>
> 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?

Counter-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?

The oscillating charge in a material object is both macroscopic in
that there are very many of them moving through a sizable volume, and
microscopic, in that they don't necessarily every leave their host
atoms. The same fields and reaction forces result whether we treat
them as a group or singly, i.e. whether they are bound to an atom or
not bound, they respond to the ambient field in which they are
located, in exactly the same way. IOW, there is nothing special about
bound charges, they simply responding to local fields that their
neighbors don't get to enjoy. Oddly, ions can be manipulated by laser
by taking advantage of the purely classical field of the beams, and
yet there are those who would still argue that photons are things.

>
> 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.

The only logic applied there is unfounded, since you're talking about
a model whose only basis is functionality. It's a strawman, offering
no contradiction to classical em wave dynamics.

>
>
>>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.

Plank addressed atomic spectra, not long-waves, and BTW he did not
subscribe to the photon-particle nonsense.

>
>
>>, 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?

It was directed to the local sage who said it, he knows who he is.

>
>
>>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?

You might follow some of the other threads to which I'm posting and
find that answer in them - too much to repeat here.

>
>
>>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?

Yes, and I addressed the problem with your fixed volume photon above.

>
>>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.

This concept of "allowed" is meaningless to me, so no, I didn't mean
that at all.

>
>
>>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.

The transitions correspond to relatively discrete energies because the
stable geometric structures of the atom are absolute. Transition and
restructuring of the atom are one in the same. The energy emitted in a
given change in geometry (transition) is constant (repeatable) because
charge is quantized. Orbital diameters are fixed for purely classical
reasons that have nothing to do with probability distributions or wave
functions or any other sort of magic strewn in the mix to make it
work. I won't get into corrections to em theory yet, and hopefully not
at all, since I'd rather see your answers to the questions that I've
raised about your notions.

>
>
>>These discrete orbits can be derived classically,
>>I've done so myself.
>
>
> Congratulations. Bhoring, isn't it?

Bohr would have been mystified by my model of the hydrogen atom, since
I derive all of the series via ionization, that is, each series
corresponds to a different ionized state.

>
>
>> 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.

I didn't say they were circular, but they are in classical orbits,
chaotic, yet extremely stable.

>
> 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.

Right, and that's because classical em is somewhat incorrect. Now
before you go saying something like "Bull***" keep in mind that your
very statement above is an admission to the truth of my statement. Now
the difference from this point onward is in the proposed solution to
the classical shortcomings. Whereas QM and QED are largely composed of
ad hoc conjecture, my fix to the theory is the result of pure
mathematical deduction, so please don't automatically assume that the
orthodoxy's approach was the superior approach, nor that the end
result is any more empirically correct. I can assure you that mine is
not only correct, it is *exact*.

>
> 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.

Probabilities were also very beneficial to Maxwell in the development
of the gas laws, and yet they rest upon the the absoluteness of
Newton's laws applied to single molecules. Probabilities have no
empirical existence. Don't mistake the math for the reality.

> 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.

I've got an infrared thermometer that quite depends upon the emission
of thermal radiation. What do you suppose its source?

>
>> 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."

LOL. Fun stuff, please don't interpret any of my replies as personal
attacks, it's the theory that I'm attacking, I have nothing but
respect for your person. :)

Richard Perry

>
>
>