John Cuthber Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 So, still no real differences between light and the rest of the EM spectrum then? Let us know if anything changes.
swansont Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Yes, we have QM in addition to Maxwell. Your point?
copernicus1234 Posted July 29, 2014 Author Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) Einstein, Albert. On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light. Annalem der Physik. 17, 132. 1905. Edited July 29, 2014 by copernicus1234
studiot Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Did you forget to write your own text after pasting in the quotes?
copernicus1234 Posted July 30, 2014 Author Posted July 30, 2014 "Professor Pippard has shown that many features of the behaviour of electrons and other sub-microscopic particles make no sense within the framework of what we now call classical physics. By this term we mean the physics of the last century, standing firmly on the twin foundations of Newton's laws, which describe the motion of massive bodies, and Maxwell's laws, which describe the behavior of the electronmagnetic radiation. In terms of classical physics the observed behaviour of electrons and nuclei appears to be extremely paradoxical. Yet all Professor Pippard has said is based on very firmly established observational evidence. So the modern physicist faces this dilemma. He is confident that his experiments are corrent. He also knows beyond any shadow of doubt that the picture he gets from classical physics is logically consistent. What's wrong then? The only anwser he has found is that the entities he observes, the things we have called electrons and nuclei and electro-magnetic waves, are in fact not what he thought they were. The so-called partices are not merely different from Newtonian point particles, they are objects of an entirely different category. They do not statisfy Newton's and Maxwell's laws, and new laws had to be found to describe them. The theory which was first propounded in 1925, Quantum Mechanics, is still generally accepted today." by Nicholas Kemmer, F.R.S. (Bohm, p. 37). Quantum mechanics is based on a position probability that cannot form a negative value required in representing wave interference. Also, Davisson–Germer experiment (1927) is based on the destruction (annhilation) of electrons, to form the non-electron fringes of the electron scattering pattern, which violates energy conservation.
studiot Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 I'm sorry, which Professor Pippard are you (or Bohm) referring to? Quantum mechanics is based on a position probability that cannot form a negative value required in representing wave interference. Also, Davisson–Germer experiment (1927) is based on the destruction (annhilation) of electrons, to form the non-electron fringes of the electron scattering pattern, which violates energy conservation. Your first paragraph notes that 'classical physics' does not explain or predict all observed effects/phenomena. So QM came into being since it explained/predicted observable effects/phenomena additional to those explained by classical physics. Since the calculation effort for QM is much greater than for classical physics, this was retained where it produced reliable results. There remained other effects, explainable by neither system, notably at that time relativity, and the simultaneity inherent in action at a distance theories. So in the 1920s we gained a dual system and maybe in the future we will gain a triple one............... Final point, QM does not rest upon probability, it is just one possible interpretation. But these days we have learned to live with mutiple theories and how to select the most appropriate for the phenomenon in hand.
swansont Posted July 31, 2014 Posted July 31, 2014 Also, Davisson–Germer experiment (1927) is based on the destruction (annhilation) of electrons, to form the non-electron fringes of the electron scattering pattern, which violates energy conservation. It most certainly did not depend on destruction of electrons, nor did it violate energy conservation. And, yes, as I said, we have QM in addition to Maxwell. It's not clear if you were posting to agree or disagree, since all you did was provide a quote. Quantum mechanics is based on a position probability that cannot form a negative value required in representing wave interference. QM described by the wave function, not the just square of it.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 31, 2014 Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) Copernicus may have a point here ! We as humans are so location orientated. Namely I am here and you are over there , and andromeda galaxy is some million or so light years over there , etc etc. So we immediately say the electron in ' there ' or 'over there, Yet at quantum / atomic particle level we meet non intuitive phenomenon which cause us visualisation problems , as to how can sub atomic particles appear to be in two places, or along way away? That's because 'we' can't do that sort of thing . By making an electron a point particle , we invoke infinities , which cause mathematician to run for cover. If sub atomic particles are not like us , namely ' mainly position orientated ' but rather otherwise orientated like ' everywhere orientated ' in some ' wave like way ' mainly , and only put on a position orientation from time to time, or when we demand it by , or something else demands it . But left to their own devices are in fact all over the place ' our place not their place ' . There is such a phenomenon that I came across during being taught maths , about a particular transform into an 's' plane or some other plane , . Where , when you did the transform on anything it always ended up in the identical ,exact place , on the 's' plane , defined as 'beta' . Hence if you transformed back from ' beta' you could appear ANYWHERE AT ALL on our home plane . So if sub atomic , quantum particles had this capability within their nature , they could do precisely what we seem to experience them doing in their wave - particle duality. Much as I hate to bring up the subject of maths as ' she ' hurts , it was something that struck me at the time I was being taught that particular transform . If what Copernicus is saying is that things are not always E-M waves , but PARTICLES sometimes , is in fact correct. But maybe a transform into and back , into this other ' s' plane or whatever transform it was dependant on the requirement put upon the entity . This does remind me of the sc-fi film of my youth called ' return of the fly ' . Where a fly , got in the machine that transformed people to enable them to be transported. A fly got in the machine , and the man got put back together in a part human part fly form . I digress . Mike Edited July 31, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
copernicus1234 Posted July 31, 2014 Author Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) . . ."According to the (field theory of matter) a material particle such as an electron is merely a small domain of the electical field within which the field strength assumes enormously high values, indicating that a comparatively huge field energy is concentrated in a very small space. Such an energy knot, which by no means is clearly delineated against the remaining field, propagates through empty space like a water wave across the surface of a lake; there is no such thing as one and the same substance of which the electon consists at all times. --Hermann Weyl" (Weaver. p. 849). In Weaver's book, the above quote, by Hermann Weyl, appears in a section (J.5) that is titled "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field" by James Clerk Maxwell. Weyl is implying that particles (electrons) can form the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field; consequently, Weyl is also suggesting that light particles can form the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic induction field, using a water wave analogy. Water in a small cup does forms a continuity, within the cup but when the water in the cup is poured out and falls 20,000 meters, the water in the cup that originally forms a continuity produces water droplets and the original structural continuity, of the water in the cup, is eliminated. Light emitted by a candle flame is represented with a continuous electromagnetic field structure near a candle flame but as the candle light propagates a far distance (1000 meters), the continuity that is implied near the candle flame is eliminated since light is composed of dispersing light particles, similar to the formation of water droplets which proves the water wave continuity analogy cannot be applied to despersing light particles. In addition, modern physicists represent an electron as a point source that is radiating an electromagnetic field structure in empty space, as time increase but the creation an electromagnetic field in free space, as time increase, implies that an electron is a physical source that is generating its own self-energy. The electron point source mechanism is volating the law of conservation of energy; consequently, an electron represented as a point source cannot be used to represent the formation of an electromagnetic wave or particle structure of light. "In classical theory, the field strengths E and H become arbitraily large in the neighborhood of the point-charge e, so that the integral over the energy density 1/8pi(E2 + B2) diverges. To overcome this difficulty, one therefore assumes a finte radius ro for the electron in classical electron theory." by Heisenberg (Miller, p. 121). A finite radius, of an electron, does not justify the additional energy divergence produced by an electron point source mechanism that is radiating an electomagnetic field structure (energy)in free space, as time increases. Edited July 31, 2014 by copernicus1234 -1
Strange Posted July 31, 2014 Posted July 31, 2014 Will you please stop posting random quotations with no explanation.
hypervalent_iodine Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 ! Moderator Note copernicus,Since you are clearly not interested in discussion, this thread is closed.
Recommended Posts