| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
12 Sep 2005 10:04:10 PM |
| Object: |
nature of electrical influence |
I'm a freshman physics student and I'm learning about electricity, the
electric field, etc... reading various books, and wokring in my lab
classes... I come to understand it this way... and I have some
questions...confusions, I'm trying to put it all together to get that
"feeling" of what is really occuring, not just some theories, and
models, because that feeling is what will really allow me to do
anything with what I learn
for any charged particle, there is this spot we call matter which is
then surrounded by an expanding volume of influence, that we call the
electric field, whose intensity decreases with distance...
this "field" is really "photons" being released, which transfer energy,
or act as mediators for this influence over a distance,
but there can only be influence if there is something else to interact
with.
in that case, it is the combination of the two particles, the influence
of each on the other, the interaction which is meaningful, and it seems
to me that thinking of just one particle is meaningless, and even our
book suggested that the idea of a single particle emitting a "field"
has not been tested, and may not be able to be tested.
it brings me to a basic idea in science which has been questioned of
recent times, that of "objective observation" vs the effect of the
observer on that which is being considered, basically supporting that
only interaction is meaningful (which is a question that has been
contributing to how much I've struggled with learning the material, for
it calls into doubt for me much of what we think)
but, what we call matter, is the same thing we call energy, just more
condensed, at a slower vibration, so this makes me think of the
particle, surrounded by a volume of influence, a little differently....
more like the entire thing is just a gradient of increasing density of
energy/influence, which seesm to correspond with physics saying that
these "fundamental particles" really don't have a physical space, the
so-called "point",
but is it more like a black-hole, where there is something like an
event horizon so-to-speak of energy concentration, and this "boundary"
is what gives rise to our concept of a particle? or is it a constant
gradient?
so, if we were to intercept the "photons" travelling between charged
objects, we would then cut off the effect of them on each other. how
can we test this? could me make it a one-way test, as well of both
ways (kind of like that electrical component that only allows flow in
one direction)? I know in the bls we are able to count photons using a
photomultiplier, can we make some variation of this? I know there are
some materials which "shield" electric charges, effectively preventing
their influence on things around them, but there are also materials
that do not prevent the infulence. What makes the difference between
them?
And how does emitting photons create attraction?
thanks
James
.
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: nature of electrical influence |
13 Sep 2005 03:24:11 AM |
|
|
<jccorreu@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1126580650.120106.285010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I'm a freshman physics student and I'm learning about electricity, the
electric field, etc... reading various books, and wokring in my lab
classes... I come to understand it this way... and I have some
questions...confusions, I'm trying to put it all together to get that
"feeling" of what is really occuring, not just some theories, and
models, because that feeling is what will really allow me to do
anything with what I learn
Feelings can be very useful in getting to grips with a subject,
they helped the likes of Faraday, Maxwell, and Einstein, but
what remains of the work of these people is the mathematical
models that they created.
for any charged particle, there is this spot we call matter which is
then surrounded by an expanding volume of influence, that we call the
electric field, whose intensity decreases with distance...
That is the classical view.
this "field" is really "photons" being released, which transfer energy,
or act as mediators for this influence over a distance,
but there can only be influence if there is something else to interact
with.
That is the current view but not there is no 'really' in physics.
Nobody has access to the 'Cosmic Rule Book' or knows if
there is such a thing.
in that case, it is the combination of the two particles, the influence
of each on the other, the interaction which is meaningful, and it seems
to me that thinking of just one particle is meaningless, and even our
book suggested that the idea of a single particle emitting a "field"
has not been tested, and may not be able to be tested.
Classically that is undoubtedly true.
it brings me to a basic idea in science which has been questioned of
recent times, that of "objective observation" vs the effect of the
observer on that which is being considered, basically supporting that
only interaction is meaningful (which is a question that has been
contributing to how much I've struggled with learning the material, for
it calls into doubt for me much of what we think)
This is all part of the philosophical background to physics,
a subject in itself. My answer is that the first assumption
we need to make is that 'physics is possible'. This would
include things like the assumptions that there is some kind
of objective reality and it is the same for all of us, and other
stuff we normally take for granted without thinking too much.
but, what we call matter, is the same thing we call energy, just more
condensed, at a slower vibration, so this makes me think of the
particle, surrounded by a volume of influence, a little differently....
more like the entire thing is just a gradient of increasing density of
energy/influence, which seesm to correspond with physics saying that
these "fundamental particles" really don't have a physical space, the
so-called "point",
Think of it however you like. Remember, there is no 'real'
answer, and the mathematical model is what is of the most
use in the end.
but is it more like a black-hole, where there is something like an
event horizon so-to-speak of energy concentration, and this "boundary"
is what gives rise to our concept of a particle? or is it a constant
gradient?
Questions such as this (the self-energy of an electron) puzzled
classical physicists.
so, if we were to intercept the "photons" travelling between charged
objects, we would then cut off the effect of them on each other. how
can we test this? could me make it a one-way test, as well of both
ways (kind of like that electrical component that only allows flow in
one direction)? I know in the bls we are able to count photons using a
photomultiplier, can we make some variation of this? I know there are
some materials which "shield" electric charges, effectively preventing
their influence on things around them, but there are also materials
that do not prevent the infulence. What makes the difference between
them?
And how does emitting photons create attraction?
What you cannot do is insist that everything we observe _must_
be describable using everyday concepts. We will always come to
a point where the answer to the question, 'Why?' is, 'I just does'.
There is no justification in assuming that this point will come
at a convenient point for us.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: nature of electrical influence |
13 Sep 2005 04:38:38 AM |
|
|
It's a fallacy to think that mathematics is physics. The platonic
philosophy which says that everything in nature is mathematical turns
out to be wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: nature of electrical influence |
15 Sep 2005 08:23:15 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I'm a freshman physics student and I'm learning about electricity, the
electric field, etc... reading various books, and wokring in my lab
classes... I come to understand it this way... and I have some
questions...confusions, I'm trying to put it all together to get that
"feeling" of what is really occuring, not just some theories, and
models, because that feeling is what will really allow me to do
anything with what I learn
for any charged particle, there is this spot we call matter which is
then surrounded by an expanding volume of influence, that we call the
electric field, whose intensity decreases with distance...
this "field" is really "photons" being released, which transfer energy,
or act as mediators for this influence over a distance,
but there can only be influence if there is something else to interact
with.
in that case, it is the combination of the two particles, the influence
of each on the other, the interaction which is meaningful, and it seems
to me that thinking of just one particle is meaningless, and even our
book suggested that the idea of a single particle emitting a "field"
has not been tested, and may not be able to be tested.
it brings me to a basic idea in science which has been questioned of
recent times, that of "objective observation" vs the effect of the
observer on that which is being considered, basically supporting that
only interaction is meaningful (which is a question that has been
contributing to how much I've struggled with learning the material, for
it calls into doubt for me much of what we think)
but, what we call matter, is the same thing we call energy, just more
condensed, at a slower vibration, so this makes me think of the
particle, surrounded by a volume of influence, a little differently....
more like the entire thing is just a gradient of increasing density of
energy/influence, which seesm to correspond with physics saying that
these "fundamental particles" really don't have a physical space, the
so-called "point",
but is it more like a black-hole, where there is something like an
event horizon so-to-speak of energy concentration, and this "boundary"
is what gives rise to our concept of a particle? or is it a constant
gradient?
so, if we were to intercept the "photons" travelling between charged
objects, we would then cut off the effect of them on each other. how
can we test this? could me make it a one-way test, as well of both
ways (kind of like that electrical component that only allows flow in
one direction)? I know in the bls we are able to count photons using a
photomultiplier, can we make some variation of this? I know there are
some materials which "shield" electric charges, effectively preventing
their influence on things around them, but there are also materials
that do not prevent the infulence. What makes the difference between
them?
And how does emitting photons create attraction?
thanks
James
Well you ask a lot of different questions, especially at the end, but
your most valuable ones are the few at the beginning.
The reality is, we have a very poor understanding *conceptually* of
what an electromagnetic interaction is, though we have a superb
*operational* understanding. Part of the issue is we're trying to
describe a camel without the benefit of a concept of camel-ness, and so
we resort to phrases like "lips and legs like a giraffe" and "hump like
a bison" and "tail like a cow" and "neck like an ostrich", and then
people get all confused and wonder whether a camel is a mammal or a
bird.
What we know is this:
1. We can successfully (defined operationally) segregate mathematically
the interaction between A and B into a part that deals with B and the
part that deals with A and the space around A (including where B sits).
2. This interaction can exert simultaneous influence on different
objects in different places, and this influence can travel in
non-straight lines, and it can superimpose additively, much like a wave
would.
3. This interaction carries and delivers momentum and energy in
discrete packets, much like a particle would.
4. There is energy that is carried *in the region of influence itself*,
or put in the terms we use, there is energy stored in the "field"
itself.
5. In order to completely and accurately account for the rate at which
energy and momentum are transferred from A to B, we must include the
contributions that *all possible configurations* of momentum and energy
transfer are happening simultaneously, though with appropriate weights
and including the possibility that the "phase orientation" of one
configuration can cancel the impact of another configuration.
6. The nature of this interaction is identical in strength and other
characteristics to what we otherwise label light, radio, x-rays,
gamma-rays, microwaves, shortwaves, etc.
Now, trying to wrap this up in some simple picture is where we get into
trouble, despite the strong urge to do so. When someone asks you, "What
is light?" the best answer you can give is, "Light is light. What do
you want to know about it?" It follows that the best thing you can do
to understand light is to gather the best possible *operational*
understanding of what light *does*, which will include a fair amount of
the use of math as a tool.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "platopes" |
|
| Title: Re: nature of electrical influence |
22 Sep 2005 07:57:01 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
The reality is, we have a very poor understanding *conceptually* of
what an electromagnetic interaction is, though we have a superb
*operational* understanding. Part of the issue is we're trying to
describe a camel without the benefit of a concept of camel-ness, and so
we resort to phrases like "lips and legs like a giraffe" and "hump like
a bison" and "tail like a cow" and "neck like an ostrich", and then
people get all confused and wonder whether a camel is a mammal or a
bird.
What we know is this:
1. We can successfully (defined operationally) segregate mathematically
the interaction between A and B into a part that deals with B and the
part that deals with A and the space around A (including where B sits).
2. This interaction can exert simultaneous influence on different
objects in different places, and this influence can travel in
non-straight lines, and it can superimpose additively, much like a wave
would.
3. This interaction carries and delivers momentum and energy in
discrete packets, much like a particle would.
4. There is energy that is carried *in the region of influence itself*,
or put in the terms we use, there is energy stored in the "field"
itself.
5. In order to completely and accurately account for the rate at which
energy and momentum are transferred from A to B, we must include the
contributions that *all possible configurations* of momentum and energy
transfer are happening simultaneously, though with appropriate weights
and including the possibility that the "phase orientation" of one
configuration can cancel the impact of another configuration.
6. The nature of this interaction is identical in strength and other
characteristics to what we otherwise label light, radio, x-rays,
gamma-rays, microwaves, shortwaves, etc.
Now, trying to wrap this up in some simple picture is where we get into
trouble, despite the strong urge to do so. When someone asks you, "What
is light?" the best answer you can give is, "Light is light. What do
you want to know about it?" It follows that the best thing you can do
to understand light is to gather the best possible *operational*
understanding of what light *does*, which will include a fair amount of
the use of math as a tool.
PD
Bookmarked. Thank you.
p
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: nature of electrical influence |
14 Sep 2005 03:27:19 PM |
|
|
I don't think photons can create an attraction. This whole exchange
particle theory doesn't make any sense.
See my own theory on what the electrostatic field is:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/electrostatic.html
Read it and see if this is a more sensible view. Also take a look at
how this fits into the grand scheme of things at:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html
fhufield
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: nature of electrical influence |
15 Sep 2005 11:03:13 PM |
|
|
How does emitting photons create an attraction?
Initially, I said that photons could not create an attraction, but
actually this does occur in my own model of space. According to my
model, protons and electrons emit an extremely high frequency
electromagnetic radiation - which could be thought of as high frequency
photons. I would imagine the frequency is in the range of 10^30 cps -
well beyond gamma ray radiation.
However, my model excludes photons as having localized particle
features, photons are purely wave phenomenon. Photons get a fixed
quantity of energy associated with them due to their fixed amplitude
and wave train size. This quantization of energy has been mistaken for
photons having a particle like nature. I would say they have a
wave-packet nature, not a particle nature in any sense.
Assuming that photons are merely EM waves being emitted by protons and
electrons, if the waves have the same frequency, but are out of phase
in an elastic medium, then they will attract according to the 'Bjerknes
forces' (see reference in previous post) according to the 1/r^2 law.
Two protons would emit the same frequency and phase and would repel
each other.
So this is a reasonable explanation of how "photons" could create an
attracting and repelling force. It is all due to the interaction of the
wave phases coming from protons and electrons. There is no "particle
exchange" between a proton and an electron.
I think this is more intuitively satisfying than the answer given by
other posters which is basically that we cannot know how photons really
work, we can only describe their effects mathematically. I say that's a
load of crap. We need to understand the underlying model to validate
mathematics and experiment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: nature of electrical influence |
16 Sep 2005 08:02:56 AM |
|
|
wrote:
How does emitting photons create an attraction?
Initially, I said that photons could not create an attraction, but
actually this does occur in my own model of space. According to my
model, protons and electrons emit an extremely high frequency
electromagnetic radiation - which could be thought of as high frequency
photons. I would imagine the frequency is in the range of 10^30 cps -
well beyond gamma ray radiation.
You can well imagine anything we do not presently see. Is there a basis
for this imagination?
However, my model excludes photons as having localized particle
features, photons are purely wave phenomenon. Photons get a fixed
quantity of energy associated with them due to their fixed amplitude
and wave train size. This quantization of energy has been mistaken for
photons having a particle like nature. I would say they have a
wave-packet nature, not a particle nature in any sense.
Perhaps you should distinguish for us the difference between a wave
packet and a particle. What properties does one have that the other
does not?
Assuming that photons are merely EM waves being emitted by protons and
electrons, if the waves have the same frequency, but are out of phase
in an elastic medium, then they will attract according to the 'Bjerknes
forces' (see reference in previous post) according to the 1/r^2 law.
Two protons would emit the same frequency and phase and would repel
each other.
And you are aware that simple displacement in space can change
something from being in phase to being out of phase, do you not? This
is how an antireflective coating on your eyeglasses works.
So this is a reasonable explanation of how "photons" could create an
attracting and repelling force.
Yeah, except the *other* things that this reasonable explanation also
predicts quickly rules it out.
It is all due to the interaction of the
wave phases coming from protons and electrons. There is no "particle
exchange" between a proton and an electron.
You simply changed it from "particle exchange" to "wave exchange". You
have not recognized that *photon* exchange is *both* particle exchange
and wave exchange.
I think this is more intuitively satisfying than the answer given by
other posters which is basically that we cannot know how photons really
work, we can only describe their effects mathematically. I say that's a
load of crap. We need to understand the underlying model to validate
mathematics and experiment.
The problem is that a purely wave exchange model doesn't work. It does
not explain electron-positron pair creation, it doesn't explain the
photoelectric effect, nor a host of other phenomena that can only be
described by a something that also has particle characteristics.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: nature of electrical influence |
17 Sep 2005 12:41:33 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote:
How does emitting photons create an attraction?
Initially, I said that photons could not create an attraction, but
actually this does occur in my own model of space. According to my
model, protons and electrons emit an extremely high frequency
electromagnetic radiation - which could be thought of as high frequency
photons. I would imagine the frequency is in the range of 10^30 cps -
well beyond gamma ray radiation.
You can well imagine anything we do not presently see. Is there a basis
for this imagination?
I only made a very rough calculation based on my guess at the size of
the aether particle, plancks constant and the maximum possible
frequency based on those dimensions. The highest observable EM wave is
around 10^20, so I am predicting a frequency nearly a million times
faster than that. EM radiation has radically different properties
depending on the frequency and I am thinking the ultra-high frequency
makes it nearly impossible to detect.
However, my model excludes photons as having localized particle
features, photons are purely wave phenomenon. Photons get a fixed
quantity of energy associated with them due to their fixed amplitude
and wave train size. This quantization of energy has been mistaken for
photons having a particle like nature. I would say they have a
wave-packet nature, not a particle nature in any sense.
Perhaps you should distinguish for us the difference between a wave
packet and a particle. What properties does one have that the other
does not?
A particle has a localized behavior, it cannot be in both locations A
and B at the same time. It can only affect 1 location of space at one
instant. A wave packet expands in a spherical shell from the point of
origin and it's effect can be at multiple locations on this shell.
Assuming that photons are merely EM waves being emitted by protons and
electrons, if the waves have the same frequency, but are out of phase
in an elastic medium, then they will attract according to the 'Bjerknes
forces' (see reference in previous post) according to the 1/r^2 law.
Two protons would emit the same frequency and phase and would repel
each other.
And you are aware that simple displacement in space can change
something from being in phase to being out of phase, do you not? This
is how an antireflective coating on your eyeglasses works.
Sure, that can change the phase of a wave hitting a wall. But if you
consider 2 in phase wave sources, their crests will meet exactly in the
centerpoint between the 2 wave sources and since they are equadistant
to that point, the waves will always meet in phase - no matter what
distance they are apart.
So this is a reasonable explanation of how "photons" could create an
attracting and repelling force.
Yeah, except the *other* things that this reasonable explanation also
predicts quickly rules it out.
I would like to hear about any *other* things that quickly rule this
out. One of the main problem with looking at problems like this is that
there appear to be such trivial things which are in conflict. But if
you examine them closely, you find they are not in conflict at all.
It is all due to the interaction of the
wave phases coming from protons and electrons. There is no "particle
exchange" between a proton and an electron.
You simply changed it from "particle exchange" to "wave exchange". You
have not recognized that *photon* exchange is *both* particle exchange
and wave exchange.
You're right I don't recognize this. I only recognize the photon as
strictly wave phenomenon. I think it makes for a much more sensible
picture than saying it is both a wave and a particle. What I find hard
to believe is that such a thing is logically impossible. It is like
saying 1 = 2. It never makes sense, and must be wrong.
I think this is more intuitively satisfying than the answer given by
other posters which is basically that we cannot know how photons really
work, we can only describe their effects mathematically. I say that's a
load of crap. We need to understand the underlying model to validate
mathematics and experiment.
The problem is that a purely wave exchange model doesn't work. It does
not explain electron-positron pair creation, it doesn't explain the
photoelectric effect, nor a host of other phenomena that can only be
described by a something that also has particle characteristics.
There is one of two possiblities, either a photon is both light and
wave and 1=2 or the experiments that lead us to think that a photon is
a particle have been misinterpreted. Previous disccusions of the
photo-effect have lead me to believe that this can be easily explained
in terms of fixed quanta wave packets. These are pure wave phenomenon
that spread out as waves and do not involve the long distance
displacement of any kind of particle.
Electron-positron pair creation has little to do with the nature of
light. My model indicates that if you hit an aether particle with
enough EM energy, it will break the proton/electron bond of the aether
particle and the electron will be ejected. The hole left behind in the
aether is the positron. The fact that matter can be created out of the
vacuum suggests that it is not really empty at all.
The only other effect in support of the particle view is the compton
effect which I am studying to determine if this can also be explained
as wave phenomenon. My basic thoughts are that the EM wave move
electrons in their path and give them momentum. When they have enough
momentum to start ejecting electrons, the EM wave cannot continue on as
before and thus changes in frequency tying to conserve overall energy.
Overall the compton effect is not a very direct piece of evidence since
it is just matching a predicted formula. Any number of phenomenon could
wind up with the same result, so while compton may support particle
phenomenon, it does not rule out wave phenomenon. Other than these
effects, the overwhelming evidence is that photons are strictly a wave
phenomenon. Although it seems that whenever people discuss photons,
they overwhelmingly view it as a particle so they think that a photon
from a candle only hits one pixel of a CCD sensor in a camera. This is
a totally mistaken view.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: nature of electrical influence |
17 Sep 2005 08:45:27 AM |
|
|
wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
How does emitting photons create an attraction?
Initially, I said that photons could not create an attraction, but
actually this does occur in my own model of space. According to my
model, protons and electrons emit an extremely high frequency
electromagnetic radiation - which could be thought of as high frequency
photons. I would imagine the frequency is in the range of 10^30 cps -
well beyond gamma ray radiation.
You can well imagine anything we do not presently see. Is there a basis
for this imagination?
I only made a very rough calculation based on my guess at the size of
the aether particle, plancks constant and the maximum possible
frequency based on those dimensions.
And why is the *maximum* possible frequency the one that would be most
commonly populated?
The highest observable EM wave is
around 10^20, so I am predicting a frequency nearly a million times
faster than that. EM radiation has radically different properties
depending on the frequency and I am thinking the ultra-high frequency
makes it nearly impossible to detect.
And why is that a good thing to propose?
However, my model excludes photons as having localized particle
features, photons are purely wave phenomenon. Photons get a fixed
quantity of energy associated with them due to their fixed amplitude
and wave train size. This quantization of energy has been mistaken for
photons having a particle like nature. I would say they have a
wave-packet nature, not a particle nature in any sense.
Perhaps you should distinguish for us the difference between a wave
packet and a particle. What properties does one have that the other
does not?
A particle has a localized behavior, it cannot be in both locations A
and B at the same time. It can only affect 1 location of space at one
instant. A wave packet expands in a spherical shell from the point of
origin and it's effect can be at multiple locations on this shell.
Ah, I see. I'm not sure I agree, but at least I see.
Assuming that photons are merely EM waves being emitted by protons and
electrons, if the waves have the same frequency, but are out of phase
in an elastic medium, then they will attract according to the 'Bjerknes
forces' (see reference in previous post) according to the 1/r^2 law.
Two protons would emit the same frequency and phase and would repel
each other.
And you are aware that simple displacement in space can change
something from being in phase to being out of phase, do you not? This
is how an antireflective coating on your eyeglasses works.
Sure, that can change the phase of a wave hitting a wall. But if you
consider 2 in phase wave sources, their crests will meet exactly in the
centerpoint between the 2 wave sources and since they are equadistant
to that point, the waves will always meet in phase - no matter what
distance they are apart.
But look at the nearby minimum. This point has a difference in
*distance* between the two sources, resulting in destructive
interference even if the waves emitted at the sources are in phase.
So this is a reasonable explanation of how "photons" could create an
attracting and repelling force.
Yeah, except the *other* things that this reasonable explanation also
predicts quickly rules it out.
I would like to hear about any *other* things that quickly rule this
out. One of the main problem with looking at problems like this is that
there appear to be such trivial things which are in conflict. But if
you examine them closely, you find they are not in conflict at all.
The fact that two out-of-phase sources also produce *constructive*
interference. You fail to realize that an interference pattern is a
pattern of *both* constructive and destructive interference, and this
pattern contains both regardless whether the sources are in phase or
out of phase.
It is all due to the interaction of the
wave phases coming from protons and electrons. There is no "particle
exchange" between a proton and an electron.
You simply changed it from "particle exchange" to "wave exchange". You
have not recognized that *photon* exchange is *both* particle exchange
and wave exchange.
You're right I don't recognize this. I only recognize the photon as
strictly wave phenomenon. I think it makes for a much more sensible
picture than saying it is both a wave and a particle. What I find hard
to believe is that such a thing is logically impossible. It is like
saying 1 = 2. It never makes sense, and must be wrong.
It is no more "logically impossible" than saying a quarter is a
president with wings and talons or a bird that once held political
office. What we have here is a failure of our own concepts to
encapsulate reality, not a logical inconsistency.
I think this is more intuitively satisfying than the answer given by
other posters which is basically that we cannot know how photons really
work, we can only describe their effects mathematically. I say that's a
load of crap. We need to understand the underlying model to validate
mathematics and experiment.
The problem is that a purely wave exchange model doesn't work. It does
not explain electron-positron pair creation, it doesn't explain the
photoelectric effect, nor a host of other phenomena that can only be
described by a something that also has particle characteristics.
There is one of two possiblities, either a photon is both light and
wave and 1=2 or the experiments that lead us to think that a photon is
a particle have been misinterpreted.
Yes, in which case, a theory that is all wave and does account for the
particle-like behavior is more than welcome. However, note that you are
certainly not the first nor the brightest to attempt this. You have
*much* work to do with few tools.
Previous disccusions of the
photo-effect have lead me to believe that this can be easily
"Easily" is the part I think you will find surprising.
explained
in terms of fixed quanta wave packets. These are pure wave phenomenon
that spread out as waves and do not involve the long distance
displacement of any kind of particle.
Then you misunderstand what the issue is with the photoelectric effect.
Electron-positron pair creation has little to do with the nature of
light. My model indicates that if you hit an aether particle with
enough EM energy, it will break the proton/electron bond of the aether
particle
I've already explained to you how we know that the ether is not
proton-electrons. Moreover, you have not distinguished the difference
between light and "EM energy"; if they are the same, then
electron-positron creation has *everything* to do with light, as you
say yourself. Then you have to account not only for the fact that it
happens, but the peculiar behavior that is measured in the *way* that
the electron-positron pair appears (their momenta, their opening angle,
etc).
and the electron will be ejected. The hole left behind in the
aether is the positron. The fact that matter can be created out of the
vacuum suggests that it is not really empty at all.
The only other effect in support of the particle view is the compton
effect which I am studying to determine if this can also be explained
as wave phenomenon. My basic thoughts are that the EM wave move
electrons in their path and give them momentum. When they have enough
momentum to start ejecting electrons, the EM wave cannot continue on as
before and thus changes in frequency tying to conserve overall energy.
Show this quantitatively. The current theory does so, and says that the
observed energy distribution *must* have the form that it does.
Overall the compton effect is not a very direct piece of evidence since
it is just matching a predicted formula. Any number of phenomenon could
wind up with the same result,
I think you underestimate how hard it is for a theory to quantitatively
predict behavior. As as example, you *suppose* above that electrons
emit radiation at the maximum allowed frequencies. A good theory would
say *why* the frequencies would be dominated by the high end and it
could *only* be that way. This is your charge too.
so while compton may support particle
phenomenon, it does not rule out wave phenomenon. Other than these
effects, the overwhelming evidence is that photons are strictly a wave
phenomenon. Although it seems that whenever people discuss photons,
they overwhelmingly view it as a particle so they think that a photon
from a candle only hits one pixel of a CCD sensor in a camera. This is
a totally mistaken view.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: nature of electrical influence |
18 Sep 2005 01:11:43 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote:
PD wrote:
franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote:
How does emitting photons create an attraction?
Initially, I said that photons could not create an attraction, but
actually this does occur in my own model of space. According to my
model, protons and electrons emit an extremely high frequency
electromagnetic radiation - which could be thought of as high frequency
photons. I would imagine the frequency is in the range of 10^30 cps -
well beyond gamma ray radiation.
You can well imagine anything we do not presently see. Is there a basis
for this imagination?
I only made a very rough calculation based on my guess at the size of
the aether particle, plancks constant and the maximum possible
frequency based on those dimensions.
And why is the *maximum* possible frequency the one that would be most
commonly populated?
I would surmise that protons and electrons have a natural resonant
frequency, like that of a bell. It is not unreasonable to think that
the frequency happens at the smallest possible fixed dimension. Such a
frequency exists at the highest possible frequency, so that it why it
is most commonly populated.
The model also explains the energy source for the electrostatic field -
something that no other theory explains. How can a proton exert a force
on an electron without expending any energy - wouldn't it run out? My
model explains that random thermal energy hits the protons/electrons
like bells and causes them to ring at their resonant frequency - thus
converting random thermal energy into a very specific type of energy.
This does make the interesting prediction that if you cooled something
to absolute zero, you would see the electrostatic field basically
dissappear and the attraction/repulsion of atoms dissapear along with
it. I have noted that we can reach these temperature with supercooled
helium and it indeed shows some weird effects. Perhaps the reason why
it can crawl its way out of beakers is because my model predicts that
if the electrostatic effect is nullified, gravity is also nullified. It
would be interesting to see if a beaker of supercooled He has a weight
anomoly. I would predict it would become slightly lighter.
The highest observable EM wave is
around 10^20, so I am predicting a frequency nearly a million times
faster than that. EM radiation has radically different properties
depending on the frequency and I am thinking the ultra-high frequency
makes it nearly impossible to detect.
And why is that a good thing to propose?
It is a good thing because it would explain why we haven't been able to
detect the mechanism which causes gravity. I would be interested in
knowing what is our experimental limit in determing the frequency of an
EM wave? If a 10^30 cps EM wave existed, would we be able to detect it?
However, my model excludes photons as having localized particle
features, photons are purely wave phenomenon. Photons get a fixed
quantity of energy associated with them due to their fixed amplitude
and wave train size. This quantization of energy has been mistaken for
photons having a particle like nature. I would say they have a
wave-packet nature, not a particle nature in any sense.
Perhaps you should distinguish for us the difference between a wave
packet and a particle. What properties does one have that the other
does not?
A particle has a localized behavior, it cannot be in both locations A
and B at the same time. It can only affect 1 location of space at one
instant. A wave packet expands in a spherical shell from the point of
origin and it's effect can be at multiple locations on this shell.
Ah, I see. I'm not sure I agree, but at least I see.
Assuming that photons are merely EM waves being emitted by protons and
electrons, if the waves have the same frequency, but are out of phase
in an elastic medium, then they will attract according to the 'Bjerknes
forces' (see reference in previous post) according to the 1/r^2 law.
Two protons would emit the same frequency and phase and would repel
each other.
And you are aware that simple displacement in space can change
something from being in phase to being out of phase, do you not? This
is how an antireflective coating on your eyeglasses works.
Sure, that can change the phase of a wave hitting a wall. But if you
consider 2 in phase wave sources, their crests will meet exactly in the
centerpoint between the 2 wave sources and since they are equadistant
to that point, the waves will always meet in phase - no matter what
distance they are apart.
But look at the nearby minimum. This point has a difference in
*distance* between the two sources, resulting in destructive
interference even if the waves emitted at the sources are in phase.
So this is a reasonable explanation of how "photons" could create an
attracting and repelling force.
Yeah, except the *other* things that this reasonable explanation also
predicts quickly rules it out.
I would like to hear about any *other* things that quickly rule this
out. One of the main problem with looking at problems like this is that
there appear to be such trivial things which are in conflict. But if
you examine them closely, you find they are not in conflict at all.
The fact that two out-of-phase sources also produce *constructive*
interference. You fail to realize that an interference pattern is a
pattern of *both* constructive and destructive interference, and this
pattern contains both regardless whether the sources are in phase or
out of phase.
I see your point about how it may become constructive/destructive along
differing points, and I am not going to try to explain it. I can say
that the phenomenon of attraction/replusion from phased sources has
been experimentally and mathematically shown to work in the paper I
cited before:
http://historical.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/cul.math/docviewer?did=02780002&view=50&frames=0&seq=11
This is a very long and detailed scientific paper showing how
electrostatic properties can be demonstrated by a hydrodynamic (waves
is water) manner. A 1/r^2 force caused by phased wave interactions is a
scientific and experimentally proven fact.
It is all due to the interaction of the
wave phases coming from protons and electrons. There is no "particle
exchange" between a proton and an electron.
You simply changed it from "particle exchange" to "wave exchange". You
have not recognized that *photon* exchange is *both* particle exchange
and wave exchange.
You're right I don't recognize this. I only recognize the photon as
strictly wave phenomenon. I think it makes for a much more sensible
picture than saying it is both a wave and a particle. What I find hard
to believe is that such a thing is logically impossible. It is like
saying 1 = 2. It never makes sense, and must be wrong.
It is no more "logically impossible" than saying a quarter is a
president with wings and talons or a bird that once held political
office. What we have here is a failure of our own concepts to
encapsulate reality, not a logical inconsistency.
No, it is much more illogical. I stated that a particle cannot impact
more than one location at any given time, but a wave can. If a photon
is both a wave and a particle, then it cannot impact more than one
location at a time AND it impacts many locations at a time. Logically
impossible. Much more so than a president with wings. There is a direct
and unresolvable conflict between identical terms. Something cannot be
both particle and wave.
I think this is more intuitively satisfying than the answer given by
other posters which is basically that we cannot know how photons really
work, we can only describe their effects mathematically. I say that's a
load of crap. We need to understand the underlying model to validate
mathematics and experiment.
The problem is that a purely wave exchange model doesn't work. It does
not explain electron-positron pair creation, it doesn't explain the
photoelectric effect, nor a host of other phenomena that can only be
described by a something that also has particle characteristics.
There is one of two possiblities, either a photon is both light and
wave and 1=2 or the experiments that lead us to think that a photon is
a particle have been misinterpreted.
Yes, in which case, a theory that is all wave and does account for the
particle-like behavior is more than welcome. However, note that you are
certainly not the first nor the brightest to attempt this. You have
*much* work to do with few tools.
I think one of the major problems is the lack of an underlying physical
model for space. How can you possibly know how a wave reacts if you
don't understand the underlying medium? I have the advantage of a
physical description which should obey classical mechanics and lends
itself to farily simple calculations of its behavior.
Previous disccusions of the
photo-effect have lead me to believe that this can be easily
"Easily" is the part I think you will find surprising.
explained
in terms of fixed quanta wave packets. These are pure wave phenomenon
that spread out as waves and do not involve the long distance
displacement of any kind of particle.
Then you misunderstand what the issue is with the photoelectric effect.
Please enlighten me then. I already had a fairly long Usenet discussion
on this topic and in the end, a "photon" and "wave packet" were
essentially identical.
Electron-positron pair creation has little to do with the nature of
light. My model indicates that if you hit an aether particle with
enough EM energy, it will break the proton/electron bond of the aether
particle
I've already explained to you how we know that the ether is not
proton-electrons. Moreover, you have not distinguished the difference
between light and "EM energy"; if they are the same, then
electron-positron creation has *everything* to do with light, as you
say yourself. Then you have to account not only for the fact that it
happens, but the peculiar behavior that is measured in the *way* that
the electron-positron pair appears (their momenta, their opening angle,
etc).
I have yet to pursue all of your comments about the aether, so I cannot
comment on your objections. I have accounted for why it happens within
my model, but I do need to explain the effect quantatively which should
be possible.
and the electron will be ejected. The hole left behind in the
aether is the positron. The fact that matter can be created out of the
vacuum suggests that it is not really empty at all.
The only other effect in support of the particle view is the compton
effect which I am studying to determine if this can also be explained
as wave phenomenon. My basic thoughts are that the EM wave move
electrons in their path and give them momentum. When they have enough
momentum to start ejecting electrons, the EM wave cannot continue on as
before and thus changes in frequency tying to conserve overall energy.
Show this quantitatively. The current theory does so, and says that the
observed energy distribution *must* have the form that it does.
I suppose this is the greatest compliment you can pay to a crank by
saying to prove it quantitatively. This means you cannot rule it out
experimentally and is by all known facts, possible. Indeed I am working
on it, and it hasn't borne fruit yet - I don't get the correct results
yet, but I feel I must understand the generation and absorption of
waves by electrons more closely before I can get to the correct answer.
Overall the compton effect is not a very direct piece of evidence since
it is just matching a predicted formula. Any number of phenomenon could
wind up with the same result,
I think you underestimate how hard it is for a theory to quantitatively
predict behavior. As as example, you *suppose* above that electrons
emit radiation at the maximum allowed frequencies. A good theory would
say *why* the frequencies would be dominated by the high end and it
could *only* be that way. This is your charge too.
You bet, my goal is to leave nothing postulated out of thin air, and
rely on nothing that cannot be shown true in a classical mechanical
sense. My goal, in a sense, is to toss out words like "strange",
"weird", "unintuitive" from the vocabulary of physics.
If you'd get past the first paragraph of my TOE, you just might find a
few other interesting phenomenon linked with aether. Once again, I
invite you to critique beyond the 1st paragraph, there's lots of fun
stuff in there. For example, the dimensions of the aether can be used
to trivally explain why the Balmer formula works. I've never seen
anyone put forth this explanation before. This part only relies on the
existence of an aether particle. It doesn't rely on the specific
formulation I have described in the 1st paragraph, so invalidating the
specific aether specification does not invalidate further parts of the
theory.
so while compton may support particle
phenomenon, it does not rule out wave phenomenon. Other than these
effects, the overwhelming evidence is that photons are strictly a wave
phenomenon. Although it seems that whenever people discuss photons,
they overwhelmingly view it as a particle so they think that a photon
from a candle only hits one pixel of a CCD sensor in a camera. This is
a totally mistaken view.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: nature of electrical influence |
19 Sep 2005 05:01:29 AM |
|
|
wrote:
PD wrote:
franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote:
PD wrote:
franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote:
How does emitting photons create an attraction?
Initially, I said that photons could not create an attraction, but
actually this does occur in my own model of space. According to my
model, protons and electrons emit an extremely high frequency
electromagnetic radiation - which could be thought of as high frequency
photons. I would imagine the frequency is in the range of 10^30 cps -
well beyond gamma ray radiation.
You can well imagine anything we do not presently see. Is there a basis
for this imagination?
I only made a very rough calculation based on my guess at the size of
the aether particle, plancks constant and the maximum possible
frequency based on those dimensions.
And why is the *maximum* possible frequency the one that would be most
commonly populated?
I would surmise that protons and electrons have a natural resonant
frequency, like that of a bell. It is not unreasonable to think that
the frequency happens at the smallest possible fixed dimension. Such a
frequency exists at the highest possible frequency, so that it why it
is most commonly populated.
It is not so reasonable. Every other oscillator in the world oscillates
dominantly at its fundamental frequency, which is the *lowest*
frequency available to it. There is a reason for that.
The model also explains the energy source for the electrostatic field -
something that no other theory explains. How can a proton exert a force
on an electron without expending any energy - wouldn't it run out?
No, because a force exerted on an object doesn't necessarily expend
energy. In particular, if a force is exerted on an object perpendicular
to its motion, then no energy is expended, though an acceleration
results. Look up "centripetal acceleration".
My
model explains that random thermal energy hits the protons/electrons
like bells and causes them to ring at their resonant frequency - thus
converting random thermal energy into a very specific type of energy.
This would need to follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and you
haven't shown how this does so.
This does make the interesting prediction that if you cooled something
to absolute zero, you would see the electrostatic field basically
dissappear and the attraction/repulsion of atoms dissapear along with
it. I have noted that we can reach these temperature with supercooled
helium and it indeed shows some weird effects. Perhaps the reason why
it can crawl its way out of beakers is because my model predicts that
if the electrostatic effect is nullified, gravity is also nullified. It
would be interesting to see if a beaker of supercooled He has a weight
anomoly. I would predict it would become slightly lighter.
You're right, you have a prediction.
The highest observable EM wave is
around 10^20, so I am predicting a frequency nearly a million times
faster than that. EM radiation has radically different properties
depending on the frequency and I am thinking the ultra-high frequency
makes it nearly impossible to detect.
And why is that a good thing to propose?
It is a good thing because it would explain why we haven't been able to
detect the mechanism which causes gravity. I would be interested in
knowing what is our experimental limit in determing the frequency of an
EM wave? If a 10^30 cps EM wave existed, would we be able to detect it?
Yes. Calculate the energy of such a photon.
However, my model excludes photons as having localized particle
features, photons are purely wave phenomenon. Photons get a fixed
quantity of energy associated with them due to their fixed amplitude
and wave train size. This quantization of energy has been mistaken for
photons having a particle like nature. I would say they have a
wave-packet nature, not a particle nature in any sense.
Perhaps you should distinguish for us the difference between a wave
packet and a particle. What properties does one have that the other
does not?
A particle has a localized behavior, it cannot be in both locations A
and B at the same time. It can only affect 1 location of space at one
instant. A wave packet expands in a spherical shell from the point of
origin and it's effect can be at multiple locations on this shell.
Ah, I see. I'm not sure I agree, but at least I see.
Assuming that photons are merely EM waves being emitted by protons and
electrons, if the waves have the same frequency, but are out of phase
in an elastic medium, then they will attract according to the 'Bjerknes
forces' (see reference in previous post) according to the 1/r^2 law.
Two protons would emit the same frequency and phase and would repel
each other.
And you are aware that simple displacement in space can change
something from being in phase to being out of phase, do you not? This
is how an antireflective coating on your eyeglasses works.
Sure, that can change the phase of a wave hitting a wall. But if you
consider 2 in phase wave sources, their crests will meet exactly in the
centerpoint between the 2 wave sources and since they are equadistant
to that point, the waves will always meet in phase - no matter what
distance they are apart.
But look at the nearby minimum. This point has a difference in
*distance* between the two sources, resulting in destructive
interference even if the waves emitted at the sources are in phase.
So this is a reasonable explanation of how "photons" could create an
attracting and repelling force.
Yeah, except the *other* things that this reasonable explanation also
predicts quickly rules it out.
I would like to hear about any *other* things that quickly rule this
out. One of the main problem with looking at problems like this is that
there appear to be such trivial things which are in conflict. But if
you examine them closely, you find they are not in conflict at all.
The fact that two out-of-phase sources also produce *constructive*
interference. You fail to realize that an interference pattern is a
pattern of *both* constructive and destructive interference, and this
pattern contains both regardless whether the sources are in phase or
out of phase.
I see your point about how it may become constructive/destructive along
differing points, and I am not going to try to explain it. I can say
that the phenomenon of attraction/replusion from phased sources has
been experimentally and mathematically shown to work in the paper I
cited before:
http://historical.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/cul.math/docviewer?did=02780002&view=50&frames=0&seq=11
This is a very long and detailed scientific paper showing how
electrostatic properties can be demonstrated by a hydrodynamic (waves
is water) manner. A 1/r^2 force caused by phased wave interactions is a
scientific and experimentally proven fact.
I'll read the paper.
It is all due to the interaction of the
wave phases coming from protons and electrons. There is no "particle
exchange" between a proton and an electron.
You simply changed it from "particle exchange" to "wave exchange". You
have not recognized that *photon* exchange is *both* particle exchange
and wave exchange.
You're right I don't recognize this. I only recognize the photon as
strictly wave phenomenon. I think it makes for a much more sensible
picture than saying it is both a wave and a particle. What I find hard
to believe is that such a thing is logically impossible. It is like
saying 1 = 2. It never makes sense, and must be wrong.
It is no more "logically impossible" than saying a quarter is a
president with wings and talons or a bird that once held political
office. What we have here is a failure of our own concepts to
encapsulate reality, not a logical inconsistency.
No, it is much more illogical. I stated that a particle cannot impact
more than one location at any given time, but a wave can. If a photon
is both a wave and a particle, then it cannot impact more than one
location at a time AND it impacts many locations at a time.
Yes. That's pretty much what QM says about *all* particles, not just
photons. And experiment bears that out. Oh, and by the way, a particle
is not defined as something that *cannot* impact more than one location
at a time, but something that *does* impact one location at a time.
There is a subtle difference.
Logically
impossible.
Well, I'm not so sure about that, though it is difficult to reconcile
with one concept.
Much more so than a president with wings. There is a direct
and unresolvable conflict between identical terms. Something cannot be
both particle and wave.
Perhaps it is better to say it is something that has both particle and
wave properties than it is to force the divergent parts of our
concepts.
I think this is more intuitively satisfying than the answer given by
other posters which is basically that we cannot know how photons really
work, we can only describe their effects mathematically. I say that's a
load of crap. We need to understand the underlying model to validate
mathematics and experiment.
The problem is that a purely wave exchange model doesn't work. It does
not explain electron-positron pair creation, it doesn't explain the
photoelectric effect, nor a host of other phenomena that can only be
described by a something that also has particle characteristics.
There is one of two possiblities, either a photon is both light and
wave and 1=2 or the experiments that lead us to think that a photon is
a particle have been misinterpreted.
Yes, in which case, a theory that is all wave and does account for the
particle-like behavior is more than welcome. However, note that you are
certainly not the first nor the brightest to attempt this. You have
*much* work to do with few tools.
I think one of the major problems is the lack of an underlying physical
model for space. How can you possibly know how a wave reacts if you
don't understand the underlying medium?
You presume, then, that a wave *needs* an underlying medium, simply
because you know of a couple examples that do have an underyling
medium. That is equivalent to saying that all mammals must have hooves,
because you know of several examples of mammals that do have hooves and
find it difficult to imagine a mammal that does not have hooves.
I have the advantage of a
physical description which should obey classical mechanics and lends
itself to farily simple calculations of its behavior.
Previous disccusions of the
photo-effect have lead me to believe that this can be easily
"Easily" is the part I think you will find surprising.
explained
in terms of fixed quanta wave packets. These are pure wave phenomenon
that spread out as waves and do not involve the long distance
displacement of any kind of particle.
Then you misunderstand what the issue is with the photoelectric effect.
Please enlighten me then. I already had a fairly long Usenet discussion
on this topic and in the end, a "photon" and "wave packet" were
essentially identical.
Right, which was my question above -- what's the disinction between a
particle and a wave packet?
Electron-positron pair creation has little to do with the nature of
light. My model indicates that if you hit an aether particle with
enough EM energy, it will break the proton/electron bond of the aether
particle
I've already explained to you how we know that the ether is not
proton-electrons. Moreover, you have not distinguished the difference
between light and "EM energy"; if they are the same, then
electron-positron creation has *everything* to do with light, as you
say yourself. Then you have to account not only for the fact that it
happens, but the peculiar behavior that is measured in the *way* that
the electron-positron pair appears (their momenta, their opening angle,
etc).
I have yet to pursue all of your comments about the aether, so I cannot
comment on your objections. I have accounted for why it happens within
my model, but I do need to explain the effect quantatively which should
be possible.
and the electron will be ejected. The hole left behind in the
aether is the positron. The fact that matter can be created out of the
vacuum suggests that it is not really empty at all.
The only other effect in support of the particle view is the compton
effect which I am studying to determine if this can also be explained
as wave phenomenon. My basic thoughts are that the EM wave move
electrons in their path and give them momentum. When they have enough
momentum to start ejecting electrons, the EM wave cannot continue on as
before and thus changes in frequency tying to conserve overall energy.
Show this quantitatively. The current theory does so, and says that the
observed energy distribution *must* have the form that it does.
I suppose this is the greatest compliment you can pay to a crank by
saying to prove it quantitatively. This means you cannot rule it out
experimentally and is by all known facts, possible.
Well, I haven't said that, but the quantitative predictions are part of
that evaluation.
Indeed I am working
on it, and it hasn't borne fruit yet - I don't get the correct results
yet, but I feel I must understand the generation and absorption of
waves by electrons more closely before I can get to the correct answer.
Overall the compton effect is not a very direct piece of evidence since
it is just matching a predicted formula. Any number of phenomenon could
wind up with the same result,
I think you underestimate how hard it is for a theory to quantitatively
predict behavior. As as example, you *suppose* above that electrons
emit radiation at the maximum allowed frequencies. A good theory would
say *why* the frequencies would be dominated by the high end and it
could *only* be that way. This is your charge too.
You bet, my goal is to leave nothing postulated out of thin air, and
rely on nothing that cannot be shown true in a classical mechanical
sense. My goal, in a sense, is to toss out words like "strange",
"weird", "unintuitive" from the vocabulary of physics.
If you'd get past the first paragraph of my TOE, you just might find a
few other interesting phenomenon linked with aether. Once again, I
invite you to critique beyond the 1st paragraph, there's lots of fun
stuff in there. For example, the dimensions of the aether can be used
to trivally explain why the Balmer formula works. I've never seen
anyone put forth this explanation before. This part only relies on the
existence of an aether particle. It doesn't rely on the specific
formulation I have described in the 1st paragraph, so invalidating the
specific aether specification does not invalidate further parts of the
theory.
so while compton may support particle
phenomenon, it does not rule out wave phenomenon. Other than these
effects, the overwhelming evidence is that photons are strictly a wave
phenomenon. Although it seems that whenever people discuss photons,
they overwhelmingly view it as a particle so they think that a photon
from a candle only hits one pixel of a CCD sensor in a camera. This is
a totally mistaken view.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: nature of electrical influence |
20 Sep 2005 12:27:22 AM |
|
|
The distinction between a particle and a wave packet is that a particle
has a localized nature and it can travel from point A to point B
without any intermediate transmission medium. A wave packet absolutely
requires a transmission medium and it is non-localized spreading out in
a wavefront. A wave packet has sometime been graphically displayed as a
little squiggle which could represent a "particle". But waves, do not
come in such localized packets that only hit one particular area of a
surface and eject one particular electron. They come like ocean waves
all along the beach and eject as many electrons in the same wave packet
(just a fixed series of wave cycles) as it has energy to do so. If a
photon is a wave packet, then it is 100% wave phenomenon and I don't
see why you would need to invoke the particle picture at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: nature of electrical influence |
20 Sep 2005 12:44:16 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The distinction between a particle and a wave packet is that a particle
has a localized nature
Right, and when low-intensity light is shined on an *array* of
light-detectors (like VLPCs or PMTs or some such), then only *one*
detector fires at a time, even though the light is shining on the whole
array. Sounds like local behavior to me.
and it can travel from point A to point B
without any intermediate transmission medium. A wave packet absolutely
requires a transmission medium
No, it doesn't. Where did you get that idea?
and it is non-localized spreading out in
a wavefront. A wave packet has sometime been graphically displayed as a
little squiggle which could represent a "particle". But waves, do not
come in such localized packets that only hit one particular area of a
surface and eject one particular electron. They come like ocean waves
all along the beach and eject as many electrons in the same wave packet
(just a fixed series of wave cycles) as it has energy to do so. If a
photon is a wave packet, then it is 100% wave phenomenon and I don't
see why you would need to invoke the particle picture at all.
Because a wave picture does not explain *prompt* photoelectric emission
at low intensity, nor does it account for why low frequency light does
not produce emission ever. A wave phenomenon would predict a measurable
time delay between arrival of low-intensity light and electron
emission. Furthermore, a wave of low frequency could be forced to cause
emission by raising intensity, but this does not happen. Believe me,
folks tried for *years* to make the photoelectric effect consistent
with a wave picture. It just *isn't*.
On the other hand, Young's double-slit experiment has resisted
countless serious theoretical efforts to make it consistent with a
particle picture. It just *isn't*.
So what's a physicist to do? Nature *resists* the pigeon-holing.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: nature of electrical influence |
22 Sep 2005 06:43:38 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote:
The distinction between a particle and a wave packet is that a particle
has a localized nature
Right, and when low-intensity light is shined on an *array* of
light-detectors (like VLPCs or PMTs or some such), then only *one*
detector fires at a time, even though the light is shining on the whole
array. Sounds like local behavior to me.
This would support a particle nature, do you have particular
references, or are you assuming this happens? If the light-detector
closest to the source always lights up, then this could be caused by a
wave, since it has highest intensity with shorter distance. However, if
a random distance is observed, this would be good evidence for particle
nature. Are you aware of particular experimental results? Also, a
detector array can has a random amount of energy in it (which is why we
see noise), so any particlar sensor could be triggered or not by an
identical light wave.
and it can travel from point A to point B
without any intermediate transmission medium. A wave packet absolutely
requires a transmission medium
No, it doesn't. Where did you get that idea?
Waves, by definition, need a medium to travel. They cannot exist
without one. A wave packet is a wave, and thus needs a medium.
and it is non-localized spreading out in
a wavefront. A wave packet has sometime been graphically displayed as a
little squiggle which could represent a "particle". But waves, do not
come in such localized packets that only hit one particular area of a
surface and eject one particular electron. They come like ocean waves
all along the beach and eject as many electrons in the same wave packet
(just a fixed series of wave cycles) as it has energy to do so. If a
photon is a wave packet, then it is 100% wave phenomenon and I don't
see why you would need to invoke the particle picture at all.
Because a wave picture does not explain *prompt* photoelectric emission
at low intensity,
As I explained above, electrons can be at random energy levels just due
to the ambient thermal energy. Any given electron might be ready to
leave even without any external energy input. So some individual
electrons may leave with the slightest energy input.
nor does it account for why low frequency light does
not produce emission ever.
I have explained in my previous posts that due to the way that light
waves are generated (by an electron moving through fixed levels in the
atom) - it also has a fixed amplitude. A brighter low frequency light
merely contains more equal amplitude wave packets. The amplitude of any
individual wave packet is limited. Since the wave packets are generated
randomly, they don't all line up in phase to create an overall
increased amplitude.
I would be curious if the photoelectric effect has been observed for
radio waves, which we can easily generate in differing amplitudes. I
would predict that a sufficiently large amplitude low frequency radio
wave would produce a photo effect in accordance to classical wave model
theory.
Laser light might be coming closer to a radio wave. Is there any
differene in the photo effect when using laser light? Although, I don't
think that you can guarantee that all the wave packets will be in phase
enough to increase overall amplitude. I would be curious if you knew of
any experiments.
A wave phenomenon would predict a measurable
time delay between arrival of low-intensity light and electron
emission.
Why? As with prompt electrons, the whole wave energy doesn't have to be
delivered to the electron. If the electron has almost enough energy to
leave, then any partial wave energy could eject it, thus no delay would
be expected.
Furthermore, a wave of low frequency could be forced to cause
emission by raising intensity, but this does not happen.
Once again, intensity does not mean increased amplitude for optical
range light. So we wouldn't expect that raising intensity would do
anything to increase the overall energy delivered by a wave packet. It
just means we deliver more wave packets per second.
Believe me,
folks tried for *years* to make the photoelectric effect consistent
with a wave picture. It just *isn't*.
On the other hand, Young's double-slit experiment has resisted
countless serious theoretical efforts to make it consistent with a
particle picture. It just *isn't*.
So what's a physicist to do? Nature *resists* the pigeon-holing.
Go back and keep going back until it makes logical sense.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: nature of electrical influence |
23 Sep 2005 03:04:53 PM |
|
|
wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
The distinction between a particle and a wave packet is that a particle
has a localized nature
Right, and when low-intensity light is shined on an *array* of
light-detectors (like VLPCs or PMTs or some such), then only *one*
detector fires at a time, even though the light is shining on the whole
array. Sounds like local behavior to me.
This would support a particle nature, do you have particular
references, or are you assuming this happens?
It's definitely been measured in a variety of circumstances. And no it
does not support a particle nature. It supports a *new* nature that is
neither particle nor wave, but which exhibits some properties that we
associate with waves and some properties that we associate with
particles. The fallacy is thinking that one of the two prior concepts
(particles and waves) *must* apply to all things, when in fact quantum
mechanical nature is neither one, though it exhibits traits that are
common to both. I suggest you read Richard Feynman's "The Character of
Physical Law" for a short, inexpensive and accessible book that is
illuminating about this point.
For a crude but interesting demonstration of how such an experiment
might display its results, take a look at the Java applet at
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/two-slit3.html
If the light-detector
closest to the source always lights up, then this could be caused by a
wave, since it has highest intensity with shorter distance.
This is not what happens.
However, if
a random distance is observed, this would be good evidence for particle
nature. Are you aware of particular experimental results? Also, a
detector array can has a random amount of energy in it (which is why we
see noise), so any particlar sensor could be triggered or not by an
identical light wave.
This is not what happens.
and it can travel from point A to point B
without any intermediate transmission medium. A wave packet absolutely
requires a transmission medium
No, it doesn't. Where did you get that idea?
Waves, by definition, need a medium to travel.
No, they don't. Waves exist in any physical system where the
mathematical expression of the physical laws governing the system can
be rearranged to produce a wave equation, which is a particular form of
a differential equation. This behavior is completely independent of
whether there is a medium present to support it, although it is quite
common behavior in a system with a medium.
They cannot exist
without one. A wave packet is a wave, and thus needs a medium.
and it is non-localized spreading out in
a wavefront. A wave packet has sometime been graphically displayed as a
little squiggle which could represent a "particle". But waves, do not
come in such localized packets that only hit one particular area of a
surface and eject one particular electron. They come like ocean waves
all along the beach and eject as many electrons in the same wave packet
(just a fixed series of wave cycles) as it has energy to do so. If a
photon is a wave packet, then it is 100% wave phenomenon and I don't
see why you would need to invoke the particle picture at all.
Because a wave picture does not explain *prompt* photoelectric emission
at low intensity,
As I explained above, electrons can be at random energy levels just due
to the ambient thermal energy. Any given electron might be ready to
leave even without any external energy input. So some individual
electrons may leave with the slightest energy input.
And this is *contradicted* by your own argument below for why low
frequency light does not produce emission ever. Low frequency light
satisfies the criterion of "slightest energy input". You can't have it
both ways. This is precisely the conundrum that got people worried that
a purely wave-based explanation wouldn't explain the results.
nor does it account for why low frequency light does
not produce emission ever.
I have explained in my previous posts that due to the way that light
waves are generated (by an electron moving through fixed levels in the
atom) - it also has a fixed amplitude. A brighter low frequency light
merely contains more equal amplitude wave packets. The amplitude of any
individual wave packet is limited.
See, here is where your own definition becomes muddy. A particle is
something that deposits energy and momentum in a lump. A wave is
something that deposits energy and momentum continuously (not
*constantly* but *continuously* if you understand the distinction). So
indeed, by describing something that deposits energy in a lump, you are
attributing a particle-like feature to light. Note: this does NOT mean
that light is fundamentally a particle, either -- only that it shares a
behavior similar to that of particles.
Since the wave packets are generated
randomly, they don't all line up in phase to create an overall
increased amplitude.
Why would they have to?
I would be curious if the photoelectric effect has been observed for
radio waves,
No, never. This is consistent with the observation that below a
frequency threshold (and radio waves have very low frequencies compared
to those in the photoelectric effect), no photoemission is observed.
which we can easily generate in differing amplitudes. I
would predict that a sufficiently large amplitude low frequency radio
wave would produce a photo effect in accordance to classical wave model
theory.
This is inconsistent with experiment and exactly the point.
Laser light might be coming closer to a radio wave. Is there any
differene in the photo effect when using laser light?
There is no observed difference. This is as expected, because laser
light's differences from an incoherent source are irrelevant for the
photoelectric effect. (A laser's frequency, for example, is identical
to the frequency of the same color light from an incoherent source.)
Although, I don't
think that you can guarantee that all the wave packets will be in phase
enough to increase overall amplitude. I would be curious if you knew of
any experiments.
A wave phenomenon would predict a measurable
time delay between arrival of low-intensity light and electron
emission.
Why? As with prompt electrons, the whole wave energy doesn't have to be
delivered to the electron. If the electron has almost enough energy to
leave, then any partial wave energy could eject it, thus no delay would
be expected.
Including any wave at low frequency, which is counter to experiment.
See above.
Furthermore, a wave of low frequency could be forced to cause
emission by raising intensity, but this does not happen.
Once again, intensity does not mean increased amplitude for optical
range light.
For a wave picture it means exactly that.
So we wouldn't expect that raising intensity would do
anything to increase the overall energy delivered by a wave packet. It
just means we deliver more wave packets per second.
Believe me,
folks tried for *years* to make the photoelectric effect consistent
with a wave picture. It just *isn't*.
On the other hand, Young's double-slit experiment has resisted
countless serious theoretical efforts to make it consistent with a
particle picture. It just *isn't*.
So what's a physicist to do? Nature *resists* the pigeon-holing.
Go back and keep going back until it makes logical sense.
At some point, one has to ask whether the lack of sense is due to
improper pigeonholing. At some point, one has to ask whether it's
possible that it is neither a Blobyx nor a Flamizzle, but possibly a
new thing entirely, with some Blobyx-like features and some
Flamizzle-like features.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
