- Thank you received: 0
Quantized redshift anomaly
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
18 years 10 months ago #14712
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Michiel</i>
<br />Still.. In the double slit experiment we see a wave which is clearly spread out (hence the interference), but when it hits the screen the energy is transferred to a small dot, with always the same intensity. I can't think of a way to explain that in terms of oceanic waves.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The light passing through the slits consists of pure waves. Interference is a normal property of waves. Anywhere that interference produces a bright band on the screen behind the slits, we have a higher probability that the light's frequency will be exactly in-phase with some electron's frequency in some surface atom on the screen. When that happens, the electron can jump orbitals of even escape its nucleus, and releases a new lightwave ("photo-electron") as it does so. -|Tom|-
<br />Still.. In the double slit experiment we see a wave which is clearly spread out (hence the interference), but when it hits the screen the energy is transferred to a small dot, with always the same intensity. I can't think of a way to explain that in terms of oceanic waves.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The light passing through the slits consists of pure waves. Interference is a normal property of waves. Anywhere that interference produces a bright band on the screen behind the slits, we have a higher probability that the light's frequency will be exactly in-phase with some electron's frequency in some surface atom on the screen. When that happens, the electron can jump orbitals of even escape its nucleus, and releases a new lightwave ("photo-electron") as it does so. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 10 months ago #14720
by Harry
Replied by Harry on topic Reply from Harry Costas
Just looking and reading. Too tied to think.
All your posts are interesting.
Harry
All your posts are interesting.
Harry
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 10 months ago #17179
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Michiel</i>
In the double slit experiment we see a wave which is clearly spread out (hence the interference), but when it hits the screen the energy is transferred to a small dot, with always the same intensity.
I can't think of a way to explain that in terms of oceanic waves.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Sometimes, the oceanic waves break the boats...
In electromagnetism, the energy in a mode has a minimal value,<b> in the average</b> equal to hf/2 (f: frequency). Following Einstein (1917), the energy in the mode may be increased (of decreased, if possible) of hf.
A good, cold photocell is excited (an atom performs a transition) by the fluctuations of the zero point energy (noise).
If an atom emits hf, the ZPF is increased over hf/2, the probability of exciting an atom of the cell in increased.
It is fundamental to understand that the energy used to excite an atom comes only <b>partly</b> from the source. The ZPF is a thermodynamical bath.
The problem is different for the particles, because the existence of a definite particle (centre...) requires a nonlinear wave equation, so that the particle is a soliton.
Where the field is large, the nonlinearity is large, this large field is stable and is the particle; in this region, the field is de Broglie's "u" field. Far from this region, the field is, with a good approximation linear, it is the "psi" field. The separation of the field into u and psi is somewhat artificial, but may be modelled by an attraction of the u by the psi (showed by the equations, with exceptions at short distance). The psi is split by slits, while u is transmitted by one of the slits. Beyond the slits, psi interferes, and the maximals of psi attract u, that is the particle.
In the double slit experiment we see a wave which is clearly spread out (hence the interference), but when it hits the screen the energy is transferred to a small dot, with always the same intensity.
I can't think of a way to explain that in terms of oceanic waves.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Sometimes, the oceanic waves break the boats...
In electromagnetism, the energy in a mode has a minimal value,<b> in the average</b> equal to hf/2 (f: frequency). Following Einstein (1917), the energy in the mode may be increased (of decreased, if possible) of hf.
A good, cold photocell is excited (an atom performs a transition) by the fluctuations of the zero point energy (noise).
If an atom emits hf, the ZPF is increased over hf/2, the probability of exciting an atom of the cell in increased.
It is fundamental to understand that the energy used to excite an atom comes only <b>partly</b> from the source. The ZPF is a thermodynamical bath.
The problem is different for the particles, because the existence of a definite particle (centre...) requires a nonlinear wave equation, so that the particle is a soliton.
Where the field is large, the nonlinearity is large, this large field is stable and is the particle; in this region, the field is de Broglie's "u" field. Far from this region, the field is, with a good approximation linear, it is the "psi" field. The separation of the field into u and psi is somewhat artificial, but may be modelled by an attraction of the u by the psi (showed by the equations, with exceptions at short distance). The psi is split by slits, while u is transmitted by one of the slits. Beyond the slits, psi interferes, and the maximals of psi attract u, that is the particle.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 10 months ago #17319
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Michiel</i>
Don't all photons of a certain wavelength have the same energy/intensity?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You point one of the absurdities of the photon concept: Planck's law E=hf is physically absurd because in physics, it cannot be a pure frequency f, all experiments having a beginning and an end. Therefore, Planck's law must be rewritten h= somme(e(f)/f), where "somme" is finite or integral, depending on whether the modes vary continuously or not.
An atom may emit its energy with variable linewidths, depending on perturbations and external field in the mode of emission. Therefore the photon depends not only on hf, but on the linewidth too. Worse, the lines are often not symmetrical, they may have a strange shape... The photon depends on so many parameters than the concept is absurd.
Other problem with the photon: While the defenders of QED show that the classical theory is wrong because they make wrong classical computations (neglecting the ZPF), the comparison of the spontaneous and stimulated emission shows that the classical theory works well, while in QED, a strange, ad hoc "radiation reaction" field must be introduced to get the right result.
Don't all photons of a certain wavelength have the same energy/intensity?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You point one of the absurdities of the photon concept: Planck's law E=hf is physically absurd because in physics, it cannot be a pure frequency f, all experiments having a beginning and an end. Therefore, Planck's law must be rewritten h= somme(e(f)/f), where "somme" is finite or integral, depending on whether the modes vary continuously or not.
An atom may emit its energy with variable linewidths, depending on perturbations and external field in the mode of emission. Therefore the photon depends not only on hf, but on the linewidth too. Worse, the lines are often not symmetrical, they may have a strange shape... The photon depends on so many parameters than the concept is absurd.
Other problem with the photon: While the defenders of QED show that the classical theory is wrong because they make wrong classical computations (neglecting the ZPF), the comparison of the spontaneous and stimulated emission shows that the classical theory works well, while in QED, a strange, ad hoc "radiation reaction" field must be introduced to get the right result.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 10 months ago #14724
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Michiel</i>
<br />Tommy states that a photon could be a wave closing in around itself. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The propagation of light in the vacuum obeys Maxwell's equations (which are linear) with an extreme precision; to get remarkable points in a field, points able to represent a particle, a nonlinearity is necessary.
<br />Tommy states that a photon could be a wave closing in around itself. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The propagation of light in the vacuum obeys Maxwell's equations (which are linear) with an extreme precision; to get remarkable points in a field, points able to represent a particle, a nonlinearity is necessary.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 10 months ago #14725
by Michiel
Replied by Michiel on topic Reply from Michiel
Hmm, I was about to ask Tom his view upon the linearity of the light carrying medium in general.
Tom?
Tom?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.385 seconds