Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?
From: bz (bz+sp_at_ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu)
Date: 03/09/05
- Next message: bz: "Re: List of Cranks here"
- Previous message: PD: "Re: One Universe With a Begining - No Multiverse/Superverse"
- In reply to: RP: "Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?"
- Next in thread: JM Albuquerque: "Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:05:29 +0000 (UTC)
RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:397u5uF5r7hq0U1@individual.net:
>
>
> 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?
which volumous photon? are we talking about a radio photon or a light
photon? It makes a difference.
> 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?
I am not sure. Assuming a light photon, probably 'as the center of energy
arrives'.
When a sound wave impinges upon a resonant cavity, how many cycles of
sound does it take to induce oscillation into the cavity? Many!
Waves are a poor model for this reason. It only takes one photon.
> Better
> yet, explain how an electron emits such a creature? One femtosecond
> after emission begins, what does the partially generated photon look
> like?
Perhaps there is the beinning of the building of the E field in one
direction and the M field orthogonal to that. Both fields orthogonal to
the direction of travel. Perhaps nothing happens until the photon pops
into existence, whole. Perhaps someone knows. I don't.
> How did it expand out into space in a preferred direction?
see above.
> 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?
Probably only 'head on' collisions count.
> Do large
> photons affect all electrons in its path, or just one?
Unless the photons are 'the right size' to effect the electron, they
don't. The photo electric effect. A minimum energy is needed.
The photon must resonate with the electron and there must be an available,
unoccupied energy level available for the electron to move to.
So, how, you ask, do radio photons excite electrons? I am glad you asked.
THOSE electrons are in molecular orbitals which stretch along a portion of
the length of the wire. These degenerate, conduction orbitals are huge.
>
>
> More hard questions raised than easy questions answered, it would
> seem. Two steps backward isn't progress.
>
I think I answered them all.
>
>>
>>
>>>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.
It suffices to show the flaw in your reasoning. Someone else in s.p. made
the same mistake, recently.
Energy transfer within a transformer is by means of a changing M field,
not EM. There are no photons involved. [besides those due to heat from
various losses in the transformer.]
Proof, you ask?
[quote from
http://www.qte.com/Main_Pages/Technical_Papers_Page/Glossary_Page/qte_tech_
papers_glossary.htm]
Electrostatic Shielding- Placed between windings (usually the primary and
secondaries) to provide maximum isolation. Additional Electrostatic
Shields can be placed between secondary windings as required. Shielding is
normally connected to the transformer's core (ground).
[unquote]
Electrostatic shielding would prevent EM radiation from transfering from
primary to secondary.
> Director and driven element of
> a two element yagi for another.
Another good example.
The elements probably act as windings in a transformer. The coupling would
be by M field.
...
>>
>> 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.
Both cases above are M field energy transfers.
>
>>
>> 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.
Not if you are claiming an effect from 1/4 cycle.
>
>>
>> Show me the evidence.
>
> As a self professed expert in the field, you should be quite familiar
> with the evidence.
I don't claim to be an expert, I do know a little about the field.
I know that transformers are NOT such evidence. Show me 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?
Yes.
> Why would the photons vary in direction?
The size of a practical parabolic dish is not sufficient to make them all
parallel. They didn't come out of the illuminating horn parallel.
> In what way do maser
> and laser beams differ other than frequency?
size, energy per photon, coherence length, divergence.
> The em field in the far
> field of the maser is directly measurable, these *photons* spread out
> with distance from the source,
I think you may have just proven my point. If these photons expanded along
a spherical wave front, then, no matter what, the radiation will fall off
as the inverse of the square of the distance. The angle of beam divergence
would not be important. But it is. Beams do not decay as the inverse
square of distance. They spread with distance from the source.
Show me how you can get a 'tight beam of waves' such as sound waves with a
single radiator. No fair using a phased array of radiators.
> no superposition of fixed sized photons
> can account for the variations in field across the wave front over
> distance.
Why not? If the photons are going out with a spread in direction, you will
get variations in field.
Heisenberg may have slept here.
> 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.
Your conclusion is nothing more than a hypothesis about emperical facts,
some of which you were mistaken about. My conclusions are nothing more
than hypotheses about emperical facts. I may also be mistaken, show me
the evidence.
>
>>
>> Radio? A LOT of photons make up the signal. It is hard to send them all
>> in the same direction.
>
> Why?
Heisenberg.
> Symmetry and repeatability are suddenly null and void when they
> come into conflict with belief?
Data always trumps belief. Show me the data.
>> 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.
....
>>>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.
A transformer that uses EM waves is correct?
Show me my errors.
>>
>>>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.
They usually qualify their statments.
>> 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?
evidence?
....
> 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.
conduction orbitals are not localized to atoms, they spread over many
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.
I doubt that. Electrons behave the way they behave. Our descriptions may
or may not capture all the characteristics of their behavior.
> 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.
>
These interactions can be explained by photons too.
>
>>
>> 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.
The ONLY basis for a model is functionality. If it doesn't describe
everything know, it is a failed model.
A theory that supplants another does not contradict experiments that the
supplanted theory could explain. Theories must explain all the data. When
a theory FAILS to do that, it falls, but it still explaines that data that
it explained before it was supplanted.
...
>> 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.
The constant was named in his honor. But you are right. I wasn't
historically correct in my naming him rather than 'his' constant.
...
>> 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.
'allowed' is a necessary part of quantum theory. Explain the photo
electric effect with out the concept.
.....
>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.
>
ok, look over my answers.
>>
>>
>>>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.
Then you leave out a lot of the lower, permitted energy states and can not
explain a lot of emission/absorption lines.
....
>> 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 will discuss this in more detail when you admit transformers work via M
field rather than EM.
>
>>
>> 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 "Bullsh*t"
I might say bs, but not what you said. But what I do say is 'show me the
evidence'.
> 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*.
Fix your transformers and show me your 'superior approach'. I hope it
doesn't depend on EM being the basis of transformers.
....
>
>
> 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.
Don't make the mistake of building models based on the macro world and
expect them to apply to the microworld. Sometime math is the ONLY language
that makes sense when one tries to discribe something. Words fail because
they can't really describe an energy bundle that has some wave like
characteristics.
>
>
>> 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?
I didn't say that thermal radiation doesn't exist.
Don't suppose it comes from electronic transitions!
It comes from vibrational modes of atoms bound to other atoms, you wag,
you!
>>> 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. :)
Likewise, and it is fun. I suppose you recognized the quote from the Movie
"Amadeus", a great movie, by the way!
-- 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 remove ch100-5 to avoid the spam trap.
- Next message: bz: "Re: List of Cranks here"
- Previous message: PD: "Re: One Universe With a Begining - No Multiverse/Superverse"
- In reply to: RP: "Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?"
- Next in thread: JM Albuquerque: "Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
