| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Landle" |
| Date: |
13 Jan 2005 08:27:16 PM |
| Object: |
Compton's photon bullet |
Compton's theory of a corpuscular incident photon assumes
that the light emits as bullets (or billiard balls) that
happen to shoot directly at the target (electrons). But how
come the photons always manage to miss the nucleus of the atom,
or fail to knock electrons from the outside toward the
inside of the atom?
Landle
.
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Compton's photon bullet |
14 Jan 2005 02:21:02 AM |
|
|
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105669636.773329.215190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Compton's theory of a corpuscular incident photon assumes
that the light emits as bullets (or billiard balls) that
happen to shoot directly at the target (electrons). But how
come the photons always manage to miss the nucleus of the atom,
or fail to knock electrons from the outside toward the
inside of the atom?
Landle
Order of magnitude. They don't "always" miss: NMR.
Landle displays delusions of competence. In reality,
he displays less competence than that of a parrot.
[Old Man]
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Compton's photon bullet |
14 Jan 2005 09:08:19 AM |
|
|
In article <1105669636.773329.215190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:
Compton's theory of a corpuscular incident photon assumes
that the light emits as bullets (or billiard balls) that
happen to shoot directly at the target (electrons).
Energy and momentum are conserved, whether it be wave or particle. You
can think of the photon as a little wrinkled green pea if you like, that's
an adequate picture for that particular problem.
But how
come the photons always manage to miss the nucleus of the atom,
or fail to knock electrons from the outside toward the
inside of the atom?
Who said that? Read about photoemission spectroscopy, Auger spectroscopy,
and x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy.
--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Compton's photon bullet |
14 Jan 2005 09:32:17 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1105669636.773329.215190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:
Compton's theory of a corpuscular incident photon assumes
that the light emits as bullets (or billiard balls) that
happen to shoot directly at the target (electrons).
Energy and momentum are conserved, whether it be wave or particle.
You
can think of the photon as a little wrinkled green pea if you like,
that's
an adequate picture for that particular problem.
-----------------
with some creative immaginatuion
that dumb matemathiciance lack
it can be a longish chain of subparticles
and yet behave as a 'point particle'
if you consider the elctron to be Eel liks particle
an 'eel like can be hitted in a point
behve like a point particle
though it is not a point particle
a real 'point particle' cannot have any properties!!
a point is 'zero entity' ivention of people not of nature
got it fucken matemathiciancs ??
---------------
Y.Porat
-----------------
But how
come the photons always manage to miss the nucleus of the atom,
or fail to knock electrons from the outside toward the
inside of the atom?
Who said that? Read about photoemission spectroscopy, Auger
spectroscopy,
and x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy.
--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Compton's photon bullet |
15 Jan 2005 06:52:20 AM |
|
|
Hi Y Porat I think I'm missing something reading these posts. It was
Einstien that resurrected Newton's particle theory for light. He called
the particle photon(or maybe it was Fermi that coined the word) Photons
don't kick electrons out of orbit. They kick "free" electrons that are
found on the surface of a metal. Reality is only very short wave length
photons like gamma can do this. Long length wave photons like red can't
move a free electron no matter how intense their source. Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Compton's photon bullet |
21 Jan 2005 05:02:41 AM |
|
|
see my explanations to a previous answwer of hansen
you have some answer for you as well
while a speak there about the 'Eel' that is connected
or not connected onj its edges
there are a few posibilites of
connected onlt at one edge
connected on two edges
and not conncted at all ie isolated positiion
----------
all the best
Y.Porat
------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Compton's photon bullet |
14 Jan 2005 12:47:41 PM |
|
|
In article <1105716737.224032.46030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Y.Porat <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1105669636.773329.215190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:
Compton's theory of a corpuscular incident photon assumes
that the light emits as bullets (or billiard balls) that
happen to shoot directly at the target (electrons).
Energy and momentum are conserved, whether it be wave or particle.
You
can think of the photon as a little wrinkled green pea if you like,
that's
an adequate picture for that particular problem.
-----------------
with some creative immaginatuion
that dumb matemathiciance lack
it can be a longish chain of subparticles
and yet behave as a 'point particle'
if you consider the elctron to be Eel liks particle
an 'eel like can be hitted in a point
behve like a point particle
though it is not a point particle
a real 'point particle' cannot have any properties!!
a point is 'zero entity' ivention of people not of nature
got it fucken matemathiciancs ??
No. If electrons were eel-shaped, then free electrons would have emission
spectra, single electrons could have angular momenta other than hbar/2,
and the rotational energy would have to be figured into photon scattering.
That would easily be seen in the form factors when scattering things from
electrons. The electrons would have electric and magnetic quadrupole and
higher moments. The free electrons in a metal would make a different
contribution to the specific heat. Not to mention the fun with atomic
physics.
And the best part is that you probably still think the electron is called
point-like for no other reason than because the dumb fucken
matemathiciancs can't think of anything else.
You keep bringing up extended structures as if the only thing needed is to
convince someone that they can be extended and still act like they're not.
But there are observable consequences, the data don't support your
hypothesis, and as far as I can tell that doesn't bother you in the least.
If the electron were like a rigid rod with mass m and length L, the free
electron would have an emission spectrum that looks something like
E_n = 6 n^2 hbar^2 / m L^2
The first few emission lines would be 28 nm, 7 nm, 3 nm, high ultraviolet
to soft x-ray. It's a simple calculation, you should be able to do it.
--
"What are the possibilities of small but movable machines? They may or
may not be useful, but they surely would be fun to make."
-- Richard P. Feynman, 1959
.
|
|
|
| User: "Landle" |
|
| Title: Re: Compton's photon bullet |
14 Jan 2005 03:53:40 PM |
|
|
Mr. Hansen,
If the electron is really oscillation of a string in higher
dimension (as in Superstring or M-theory), can the oscillations
be the cause of the wave-like behavior of the electron, photon
and other subatomic particles?
Landle
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1105716737.224032.46030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Y.Porat <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article
<1105669636.773329.215190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:
Compton's theory of a corpuscular incident photon assumes
that the light emits as bullets (or billiard balls) that
happen to shoot directly at the target (electrons).
Energy and momentum are conserved, whether it be wave or particle.
You
can think of the photon as a little wrinkled green pea if you
like,
that's
an adequate picture for that particular problem.
-----------------
with some creative immaginatuion
that dumb matemathiciance lack
it can be a longish chain of subparticles
and yet behave as a 'point particle'
if you consider the elctron to be Eel liks particle
an 'eel like can be hitted in a point
behve like a point particle
though it is not a point particle
a real 'point particle' cannot have any properties!!
a point is 'zero entity' ivention of people not of nature
got it fucken matemathiciancs ??
No. If electrons were eel-shaped, then free electrons would have
emission
spectra, single electrons could have angular momenta other than
hbar/2,
and the rotational energy would have to be figured into photon
scattering.
That would easily be seen in the form factors when scattering things
from
electrons. The electrons would have electric and magnetic quadrupole
and
higher moments. The free electrons in a metal would make a different
contribution to the specific heat. Not to mention the fun with
atomic
physics.
And the best part is that you probably still think the electron is
called
point-like for no other reason than because the dumb fucken
matemathiciancs can't think of anything else.
You keep bringing up extended structures as if the only thing needed
is to
convince someone that they can be extended and still act like they're
not.
But there are observable consequences, the data don't support your
hypothesis, and as far as I can tell that doesn't bother you in the
least.
If the electron were like a rigid rod with mass m and length L, the
free
electron would have an emission spectrum that looks something like
E_n = 6 n^2 hbar^2 / m L^2
The first few emission lines would be 28 nm, 7 nm, 3 nm, high
ultraviolet
to soft x-ray. It's a simple calculation, you should be able to do
it.
--
"What are the possibilities of small but movable machines? They may
or
may not be useful, but they surely would be fun to make."
-- Richard P. Feynman, 1959
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Compton's photon bullet |
14 Jan 2005 04:08:38 PM |
|
|
In article <1105739620.210102.226400@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mr. Hansen,
If the electron is really oscillation of a string in higher
dimension (as in Superstring or M-theory), can the oscillations
be the cause of the wave-like behavior of the electron, photon
and other subatomic particles?
Landle
Nope. The string and the wavelengths would be far too small for that to
matter at the scales we see now. Which is sort of a problem-- string
theory hasn't generated any predictions yet that could be tested.
But more than that, it looks like you're trying to find an explanation of
the wave-like behavior of quantum particles in a classical wave. But
think of the two-slit thought experiments. If a little oscillating thing
went through either one slit or the other, then the diffraction pattern
cast on a screen would have no dependence on the distance between the
slits (considering the distance between the slits might be micrometers
while the peaks in the pattern could be centimeters). Quantum mechanics
doesn't reduce to classical mechanics.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Landle" |
|
| Title: Re: Compton's photon bullet |
14 Jan 2005 04:15:41 PM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1105739620.210102.226400@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mr. Hansen,
If the electron is really oscillation of a string in higher
dimension (as in Superstring or M-theory), can the oscillations
be the cause of the wave-like behavior of the electron, photon
and other subatomic particles?
Landle
Nope. The string and the wavelengths would be far too small for that
to
matter at the scales we see now. Which is sort of a problem-- string
theory hasn't generated any predictions yet that could be tested.
But more than that, it looks like you're trying to find an
explanation of
the wave-like behavior of quantum particles in a classical wave. But
think of the two-slit thought experiments. If a little oscillating
thing
went through either one slit or the other, then the diffraction
pattern
cast on a screen would have no dependence on the distance between the
slits (considering the distance between the slits might be
micrometers
while the peaks in the pattern could be centimeters). Quantum
mechanics
doesn't reduce to classical mechanics.
In the 2 slit experiment.. as the photon comes out of the
source, it sends a wave to the 2 slits much like a car
shining the headlights into the front?? What's the best
way to picture or visualize what happens to the photon
in terms of its wave like manifestation as it moves
between the source and the 2 slits?
Landle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Compton's photon bullet |
14 Jan 2005 07:01:41 PM |
|
|
In article <1105740940.998112.74480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1105739620.210102.226400@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mr. Hansen,
If the electron is really oscillation of a string in higher
dimension (as in Superstring or M-theory), can the oscillations
be the cause of the wave-like behavior of the electron, photon
and other subatomic particles?
Landle
Nope. The string and the wavelengths would be far too small for that
to
matter at the scales we see now. Which is sort of a problem-- string
theory hasn't generated any predictions yet that could be tested.
But more than that, it looks like you're trying to find an
explanation of
the wave-like behavior of quantum particles in a classical wave. But
think of the two-slit thought experiments. If a little oscillating
thing
went through either one slit or the other, then the diffraction
pattern
cast on a screen would have no dependence on the distance between the
slits (considering the distance between the slits might be
micrometers
while the peaks in the pattern could be centimeters). Quantum
mechanics
doesn't reduce to classical mechanics.
In the 2 slit experiment.. as the photon comes out of the
source, it sends a wave to the 2 slits much like a car
shining the headlights into the front?? What's the best
way to picture or visualize what happens to the photon
in terms of its wave like manifestation as it moves
between the source and the 2 slits?
I pretty much forget that a particle is involved at all, until the end
when I look for a classical detection event.
Feynman's path integral approach may be a more sensible way to think about
it. Feynman advanced that a particle travels along all possible
trajectories simultaneously. It goes forward and backward, left and
right, it goes through the left slit and it goes through the right slit.
Find the diffraction pattern by adding up the phase along each trajectory
at each point on the screen. It's equivalent to wave mechanics, it's just
a different way of doing the math. But on a more philosophical level it
raises the question: why did you think a particle can only be in one place
and follow only a single trajectory? I try to remind myself not to pound
modern physics into a framework that's not a priori necessary.
--
"Then they placed the ark of the Lord on the cart; along with the box
containing the golden mice and the images of the hemorrhoids."
-- 1 Samuel 6:11
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Compton's photon bullet |
21 Jan 2005 04:53:49 AM |
|
|
i dont know whjere from you took all your assertions
refuting my electron structre
ye tstill i didnr present it all laong as i understand it
while i was speaking about a eel shpe it was just a methaphore
actualy it is more detailed ofor me
it is a chein of suorbitals connected linearily
even that linearily is just a remralization!
in my atomic an d nuclear findings i found by observing substantiated
structures
the folowin rul for connecting orbitals:
a connection between two ornitals will always be done
by a change in direction of the new coming orbilal
(grossly somwething like 3o degrees
now
the next to the next one will combine again with a change of direction
to generaly the 'corrctive direction ie it will bend back the previous
orbila direction in corection to the general 'line direction
if you what it would ne a zig zag structure
a bit imposible to show it in asci
/\/\/\ - but in a more flat angle
insted of the someting like 150 break of direction
it should be only a 30 degrees break of direction
now you understand why i called it
The eel structure or the 'snake' structure
if you do it with 3 quark ornitals you get :
/\/
ie the third one corrected the orriginal direction
and i founf that combination of rather 3 subparticles even in ......
binding eneregies *which is unprecedentd discovery*
ie 3 quarks are compatible withbinding energy experimental data
but that is only 10 percent of the stoty
because ..
the 3 quarks are only ....
the head of that long 'snake'
thereis still 90 percent unknown
and i have good reason to make the extrapolation and thing that
the rest 90percent are something alike
but different order of orbitals ie much smaller and more massive!!
now please note that this 'snake or eel structire in not just a 'line'
it is at least two dimentional!1
now i forgot to explain why i thing that change in directin is
reasonable
if you get my chain of orbitals:
if there was no change in direction of the incoming orbital and it
would be
exactly on the same plan and line
you wold get * a collision* between the links of the chain
to similarly tot he unam invented chain
the incoming orbital must have a chnge in direction
or else
they wil collide and destroy each other
now
a structure as i described while vibrating *vigogousely*
and not always as you acused me to think)
has the abiliy to 'look like 3d structure - if not connected on its
both edges
yet if it is connected on one side or two of its edges as it in many
methal latice
its degrees of freedom are much more limited
so in short Hansen & company!!
dont jump too soon before you heared more from your 'defendant '
hope it xplaines a bit more my
Eel model ' not only of thr electron but much beyond that
many other basic abundant.
ps i didnt answer untill now because only now i monitored the response
to it .
anyway i thing that this model is too intetresting to be shaken of
'just like that'
--------------
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Compton's photon bullet |
13 Jan 2005 08:49:44 PM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
Compton's theory of a corpuscular incident photon assumes
that the light emits as bullets (or billiard balls)
Actually, if you run the math, very small slightly wrinkled green
peas.
that
happen to shoot directly at the target (electrons).
Except when they fly in randomly, which is always.
But how
come the photons always manage to miss the nucleus of the atom,
or fail to knock electrons from the outside toward the
inside of the atom?
How come science describes empirical observation instead of telling
physical realtiy what to do, like religion? Didn't God Almighty
confer upon the Church of Rome the secret of the flush toilet?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Compton's photon bullet |
14 Jan 2005 04:12:21 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
Compton's theory of a corpuscular incident photon assumes
that the light emits as bullets (or billiard balls) that
happen to shoot directly at the target (electrons).
No, it doesn't. Why do you think so?
But how
come the photons always manage to miss the nucleus of the atom,
They don't always "miss" it. Why do you think so?
or fail to knock electrons from the outside toward the
inside of the atom?
How should that work? The inner shells are all filled up.
No room there. Additionally, when a photon "knocks" an
electron, the energy of the electron *increases*. So it
can't go further inside - it has to go further outside!
And, hint: such processes are indeed observed. Try reading
up on "absorption" and "photo effect".
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
