Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Quantum Mistake!


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#18 geoff

geoff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 09 February 2017 - 07:57 AM

In the 1920's EM radiation was thought of as a CONTINUOUS FLOW OF ENERGY

 

Max Planck investigated the results of black body radiation and photoelectric effect which were showing incremental jumps in energy transfer, he called these 'Quanta' 

 

In 1927 Albert Einstein proposed that these 'Quanta' were an actual thing, 'the photon' a  'wave/particle'

 

The contemporary model of Electromagnetic Magnetic radiation is the WAVEFORM model with the electric and magnetic waves at ninety degrees to each other

 

Waves exist in whole cycles,  small bits of waves are not viable so EM radiation can only transfer energy ONE CYCLE at a time , or a whole number of cycles, these are your Quanta 

 

NO PARTICLES REQUIRED

 

All results can now be explained using wave theory , particle theory sometimes works, 

 

 

think about this one, long wave radio, R4 etc, the wave length is aprox one mile, quantise that ! whenever i tried to go there, there was this fuzz in my head, spent years learning all that math which is just another language, just because one can write a fairy story it don't make fairies real does it? If you want to believe in particles, that's your choice, and there are lots of little bright particles floating around the ISS , another taking a look at concord on her maiden flight and flying around the sky at night sometimes being chased by the Raf , so maybe they are real , but I see no evidence for the existence of particles, 

 

'resonance' was the signpost showing me where to look, I think in pictures , I was supposed to see a standing wave,  thanks for the browbeating exchem , forced me to to look more carefully.  

 

hug's and cuddle's , you'll need them, the man with straw in his head just made a lot of clever people look silly,but it will be a while yet. before you realize it,, 

geoff



#19 geoff

geoff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 09 February 2017 - 08:19 AM

theres a welsh bloke, alan wilson and his mate baram blacket translating Etruscan into welsh,  which really upsets the established historians, because they can't read etruscan. so they pretend they don't exist or dis them cos they upsett their version of reality, can't have the welsh conquering europe in 325 ish can we?



#20 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2805 posts

Posted 09 February 2017 - 08:52 AM

In the 1920's EM radiation was thought of as a CONTINUOUS FLOW OF ENERGY

 

Max Planck investigated the results of black body radiation and photoelectric effect which were showing incremental jumps in energy transfer, he called these 'Quanta' 

 

In 1927 Albert Einstein proposed that these 'Quanta' were an actual thing, 'the photon' a  'wave/particle'

 

The contemporary model of Electromagnetic Magnetic radiation is the WAVEFORM model with the electric and magnetic waves at ninety degrees to each other

 

Waves exist in whole cycles,  small bits of waves are not viable so EM radiation can only transfer energy ONE CYCLE at a time , or a whole number of cycles, these are your Quanta 

 

NO PARTICLES REQUIRED

 

All results can now be explained using wave theory , particle theory sometimes works, 

 

 

think about this one, long wave radio, R4 etc, the wave length is aprox one mile, quantise that ! whenever i tried to go there, there was this fuzz in my head, spent years learning all that math which is just another language, just because one can write a fairy story it don't make fairies real does it? If you want to believe in particles, that's your choice, and there are lots of little bright particles floating around the ISS , another taking a look at concord on her maiden flight and flying around the sky at night sometimes being chased by the Raf , so maybe they are real , but I see no evidence for the existence of particles, 

 

'resonance' was the signpost showing me where to look, I think in pictures , I was supposed to see a standing wave,  thanks for the browbeating exchem , forced me to to look more carefully.  

 

hug's and cuddle's , you'll need them, the man with straw in his head just made a lot of clever people look silly,but it will be a while yet. before you realize it,, 

geoff

So that would mean that the Nobel prize committee were clairvoyant when they awarded Einstein his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect in 1921.

 

Einstein proposed quanta in 1905https://en.wikipedia...irabilis_papers

 

I'm sorry Geoff, I've had it with you. You just talk out of your arse all the time. I am beginning to think you may be some kind of psychiatric case. 

 

Good luck, anyway, and I look forward to reading about your Nobel Prize in due course. :)

 

 

 

(But, if anyone else wants to pursue this discussion, I'll keep looking in on it from time to time.) 



#21 geoff

geoff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 05:44 AM

anybody spot the game yet? why would my physics teacher risk blinding his pupils with UV when blue light would have done the job? albert didn't get his Nobel prize for wave / particle duality , a theory discussed for years , einstien decided it was wrong(god don't play dice) but others accepted it eventually about 1920, depends whose history one believes. the original paper was 1905, 

 

my prediction was personal abuse, and it don't get worse than 'mentally ill' does it?  Can anyone see the science? or are you only able to see the wrong date?  It's about the observer .

 

would anyone like to explore the possibility of a wave only universe, or are you scared of being kicked out the club for heresy? albert, nikola and max certainly would,  

 

pip pip     geoff



#22 DrKrettin

DrKrettin

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 07:15 AM

 einstien decided it was wrong(god don't play dice)

 

cf. The Crackpot Index, item 8, with double score for the vowel and lack of uppercase E


Edited by DrKrettin, 10 February 2017 - 07:39 AM.


#23 geoff

geoff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 07:17 AM

ps it was newtons work on light that convinced science light was waves, despite the fact newton believed in corpuscles, and  hooke's  theory was little wavelets or something, i'm not sure. but QM is not working but nobody is prepared to get kicked out of the club, albert tried to convince people his theory was wrong, but people are people



#24 geoff

geoff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 07:26 AM

yeah , i told my english teacher i would have a secutary for that sort of thing ,there followed one of those silences while she looked at me and thought arrogent little **** is not wrong , ha! shamefull, but last laugh to her.



#25 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2805 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 08:23 AM

cf. The Crackpot Index, item 8, with double score for the vowel and lack of uppercase E

Surely triple score, when the bad grammar is taken into account? But seriously, every time Geoff says something it turns out to be wrong  even if it is easily verifiable by a 15 sec internet search. It's uncanny. One might even think he was a troll, but I don't think so, because he is not rude. 

 

Oh well, at least Ocean Breeze injected some interest into the proceedings with the bit about ESR - can't get used to calling it EPR, old fogey that I am. But....that makes me think.....could there be variants of EPR in which orbital angular momentum plays a role, i.e. not just electron spin? I'd never previously thought of that. 



#26 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1073 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 11:27 AM

In the 1920's EM radiation was thought of as a CONTINUOUS FLOW OF ENERGY

 

Max Planck investigated the results of black body radiation and photoelectric effect which were showing incremental jumps in energy transfer, he called these 'Quanta' 

 

In 1927 Albert Einstein proposed that these 'Quanta' were an actual thing, 'the photon' a  'wave/particle'

 

The contemporary model of Electromagnetic Magnetic radiation is the WAVEFORM model with the electric and magnetic waves at ninety degrees to each other

 

Waves exist in whole cycles,  small bits of waves are not viable so EM radiation can only transfer energy ONE CYCLE at a time , or a whole number of cycles, these are your Quanta 

 

NO PARTICLES REQUIRED

 

All results can now be explained using wave theory , particle theory sometimes works, 

 

 

 

 

 

If all you are saying is the photoelectric effect can be  explained in terms of waves, (no quantization into photons), then I agree, based on this paper, although the math is daunting, it does not involve resonance as far as I can tell.

 

But, the paper is quick to point out that quantization and photons are required to explain other aspects of nature.

Quoting:

 

 

"In fact we shall see that the photoelectric effect may be completely explained without invoking the concept of "light quanta".

To be sure, certain aspects of nature require quantization of the electromagnetic field for their explanation, for example:

1. Planck distribution law for black body radiation

2. Compton effect (1926),

3. Spontaneous emission (Dirac, 1927),

4. Electrodynamic level shifts (1947)."



#27 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2805 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 11:56 AM

If all you are saying is the photoelectric effect can be  explained in terms of waves, (no quantization into photons), then I agree, based on this paper, although the math is daunting, it does not involve resonance as far as I can tell.

 

But, the paper is quick to point out that quantization and photons are required to explain other aspects of nature.

Quoting:

 

 

"In fact we shall see that the photoelectric effect may be completely explained without invoking the concept of "light quanta".

To be sure, certain aspects of nature require quantization of the electromagnetic field for their explanation, for example:

1. Planck distribution law for black body radiation

2. Compton effect (1926),

3. Spontaneous emission (Dirac, 1927),

4. Electrodynamic level shifts (1947)."

Interesting. However I read the first part and had trouble recognising the energy states in a metal. They seem to say the electron has a ground state that is still associated with a single atom and it is only the excited states that constitute the continuum corresponding to the conduction band. This is not my understanding. Furthermore they also seem to say that the photoelectric effect corresponds to an excitation from the ground state into this continuum. That can't be right. 

 

Did these guys ever publish, or was this just a university research project?



#28 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1073 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 03:55 PM

Interesting. However I read the first part and had trouble recognising the energy states in a metal. They seem to say the electron has a ground state that is still associated with a single atom and it is only the excited states that constitute the continuum corresponding to the conduction band. This is not my understanding. Furthermore they also seem to say that the photoelectric effect corresponds to an excitation from the ground state into this continuum. That can't be right. 

 

Did these guys ever publish, or was this just a university research project?

 

Well, the principal author is Willis E Lamb Jr, that is THE Lamb for whom the Lamb Shift is named, and for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1955.

 

This paper was apparently done for NASA and it doesn’t appear to have been published in a journal, but I don’t think it is bunkum.

 

I have only skimmed through it myself and I am probably not qualified to judge it on the theory or the math.  I’m not sure if they are talking about the ground state in a single atom or in a conduction band of collective atoms. However, as I said earlier, Lamb was careful to point out that the electromagnetic field does indeed have a quantum nature. He is only pointing out that the photoelectric effect can be accounted for by classical means. At least, that is my understanding of it all. I don’t see this paper as unconditional support for our poster here, but perhaps he isn’t entirely bonkers either. :lol: 



#29 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2805 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 04:21 PM

Well, the principal author is Willis E Lamb Jr, that is THE Lamb for whom the Lamb Shift is named, and for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1955.

 

This paper was apparently done for NASA and it doesn’t appear to have been published in a journal, but I don’t think it is bunkum.

 

I have only skimmed through it myself and I am probably not qualified to judge it on the theory or the math.  I’m not sure if they are talking about the ground state in a single atom or in a conduction band of collective atoms. However, as I said earlier, Lamb was careful to point out that the electromagnetic field does indeed have a quantum nature. He is only pointing out that the photoelectric effect can be accounted for by classical means. At least, that is my understanding of it all. I don’t see this paper as unconditional support for our poster here, but perhaps he isn’t entirely bonkers either. :lol: 

Yes I do understand this is just an exercise. However I had not realised who the Lamb in question was.  I had better read it again and see if I can follow the logic.

 

The normal argument about the PE effect is that classical electrodynamics would predict emission as a function of radiation intensity not frequency. So the key thing will be how this paper gets a result in which the onset of emission occurs at a particular frequency. I remain suspicious of any argument that puts the ground state of the valence electrons in a metal in an atomic orbital however. That can't be right. 



#30 geoff

geoff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 11 February 2017 - 12:53 PM

If resonance was involved one would see a near vertical line at the threshold frequency then your usual straight line ,

 

classical physics does not account for the quanta effect, that was the problem, as of now if I write something silly that will me be getting it wrong rather than winding up exchem. With respect exchem , if your going to comment on my post could you please check your facts, what evidence do I have for planck ever being involved with PE ? er K=hf  , h is planck's constant, it's as fundamental as F=ma etc then you tell me I don't understand QM . Now we have a few sensible persons on here I am not expecting this to disappear, as usual.

 

The key to what I am proposing is that wave's only exist in whole numbers, so join your photons up into waves and use one at a time  , then we get really radical and lose the particles, everything can now be explained using wave mechanics, and we don't need 11 dimensions etc , and yeah the math is appalling, but it's 35 years since I had to do that stuff so I won't be writing any papers thankfully!   Then we take a leap into the blue and put the aether back to give our waves a medium, electric fields remind me of standing waves in ripple tanks, Then we  give the aether mass , about twenty times the known mass in the universe , but concentrate it into what we call particle's ,which are compression waves of some description , but then you could set up your nucleus in a similar manner to the electrons , no exchange particles required. The aether is cohesive so there we have our gravity, so light passing a large body will go through a higher density , causing it to refract, which is Einstine's curved space .

I realise that at first this is a bit Terry Prachett but we only need four dimensions now , and there is now no worrying about a giant turtle popping out of one of those other dimensions and colliding with us!

The biggest problem we all will have,and I was there once, is dropping the belief system we call QM it took me years, despite the fact I 'knew' it was wrong, it's part of our programming the brain treats any narrative the same way, it does not differentiate religion from science, I have lots of examples of this. I sure you've listened to some very sane inteligent people and then discovered they are creationists etc.

 

seriously many thank's ,geoff

I'll read that paper now,

 

many thank's  



#31 geoff

geoff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 11 February 2017 - 12:56 PM

PS Tesla's electrons were wave's 



#32 geoff

geoff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 11 February 2017 - 01:28 PM

That not what I was saying, it seems to shift the quanta effect to the electrons rather than the EM radiation. The important bit of my version is that EM waves will give up one whole cycle of energy to the electron, nothing else has to be different, but of course it will be, as the evidence for particles is compromised, probably you still think I'm nut's, but they thought that of Albert for a while, and he did not believe in his own theory either. I'm in the Einstein camp along with tesla, there are four dimensions in my universe, If I'm nuts for not accepting multiverses well hey  the math is easier. ! ,  



#33 geoff

geoff

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 11 February 2017 - 06:22 PM

And for your model of the particle ,check out williamson and van der marc (spelling) is the electron a photon with toroidal topology,   that's a spinning double loop,  protons are threefoil knots and so on. albert talks about the aether, leiden address 1920, even newton describes light and matter as  made the same thing. Describing fields as distortions in space is not something I made up  . space has to be something to be distorted, can't distort or bend a hard vacuum, one needs something to bend or distort, just because one can't find it it don't mean it's not there. loose the particles  there just waves trapped in a loop but pulsing which is why they are not always there, which explains alpha particle tunneling. and if you want to transfer energy it happens at resonant frequencies, sos for the silly stuff but mad people are not dangerous, sane ones with Ideas that work scare people on big wage's that can't make things work. It's about the observer.



#34 DrKrettin

DrKrettin

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts

Posted 12 February 2017 - 02:32 AM

 causing it to refract, which is Einstine's curved space .

 

 

Extra points for that!