sci.physics.electromag

On Mar 28, 10:15=A0pm, Benj wrote:
> On Mar 28, 5:03 am, shsfowcn...@mailinator.com wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > I wanted to ask for an explanation on the relationship between photons
> > and electrons when it comes to visible light andelectromagnetic
> > radiation.
>
> OK, =A0Generally speaking it is accepted that the acceleration of an
> electron produces photon orelectromagneticradiation. It's a very
> "hot" topic in physics and beaucoup papers are out there on the
> subject. They range from the highly mathematical and imaginative
> (using mythical point charges etc.) to the practical. =A0Not a lot of
> conclusions, however. Note for example that an "orbital" of an
> electron about an atom represents constant acceleration (as it's
> moving in a circle) but somehow does not produce radiation causing the
> atom to "decay". And as noted by others, when an orbital DOES produce
> radiation, it is in a very short time-frame "pulse", rather than by
> the Maxwell theory.

I have one of those imagninative ways of explaining how photons are
created by electrons. Basically, the electron dropping down on the
nucleus cause the nucleus to vibrate in proportion to the energy that
came in wth an electron. Much like a tennis ball might bounce around
more rapidly in a box when thrown harder. It is this vibration that
directly creates the em wave needed to generate visible light. See my
paper:

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/genlight.html

It is the only "mechanically" explanation that I know of.

>
> > I read that light iselectromagneticradiation and also that it is
> > made out of photons.
>
> That is the dogma although, I know of no proof that it is true at low
> frequencies. Exactly how coils of wire produce "photons" remains to be
> seen. In fact I've even not seen any positive proof that low frequency
> radiowavesare transverse polarized!
> At microwave and up to light they clearly are, but it's the low
> frequencies that are the question. Tesla was convinced low radiowaves
> werelongitudinal. =A0Therefore, until someone hauls a couple of large
> dipoles into space and does the definitive experiment, it remains an
> unknown. =A0If VLF "waves" are indeedlongitudinal, then that kind of
> puts the lie to theelectromagnetic"photon" theory doesn't it?
>

If you read my paper, you can see that em produced at radio and by
atomic processes are radically different, but both are carried by
longitudinal waves. I don't have a refrence, but it was discussed in
the usenet that somebody did do an experiment using an anntenna array
which proved that the em wave had to be longitudinal. It had to do
with arranging the antenna so it could only capture either
longituidinal or transverse waves. I would clearly capture only
longitudinal waves. Maybe you can find the reference.

> > If both of these is true, iselectromagneticradiation a photon (or
> > photons) moving across space?
>
> Obviously BOTHelectromagneticand photon models permit the moving of
> energy across space. Maxwell noted that there are really only TWO ways
> to move energy across space. 1. bywaveswhich is theelectromagnetic
> theory. =A02. by particles which is the kinetic "photon" theory. =A0The
> problem is thatwavesrequire a MEDIUM to transmit energy. =A0Particles
> do not. Modern physics dogma asserts that there is NO medium in "empty
> space". =A0Therefore one would have to assume that the Maxwell theory is
> totally "debunked" and rejected at this point. Only it isn't
> rejected! =A0It's just swept under the rug and nobody talks about these
> problems (except for questions on usenet).
>

So called "photons" are a pure wave phenomenon. It is never a
particle. Much of the confusion around this comes from assuming a
photon can be a contained particle.

> > And why are the photons we receive in our eyes calledelectromagnetic
> > radiation?
>
> Well, there is a REASON that Maxwell is not "debunked" and still taken
> as valid. And the reason is as follows: At LIGHT frequencies, it can
> easily be shown that as originally thought, namely that light is
> merely a very high frequency "radio wave", isn't true! =A0If you take a
> laser beam, for example, and do experiments like diffraction, or
> focusing or reflecting or filtering (multilayer dielectric filters ,
> OK?) The gross behavior follows the maxwell theory to a T! =A0You find
> diffraction patterns and other phenomena that strongly support theelectrom=
agneticnature of light and suggest it is merely a "very high
> frequency radio wave".
>
> But then comes along some other effects. For example light when
> striking a photo cathode kicks out electrons. And whats more it does
> it WAY too fast to be based onelectromagnetictheory. And it gets
> worse. Take a laser beam and shine it on a double slit. =A0Farther away
> you detect the well-known double slit diffraction pattern. =A0Now reduce
> the intensity of the light. Then reduce it some more, in fact reduce
> it so low that only SINGLE ENERGY PACKETS (which are termed "photons"
> are coming down the path. =A0So the laser ejects one photon, it goes
> down the path. it falls on only ONE of the two slits (as can be shown
> by putting detectors behind each slit to see if somehow it
> "divides" ... it does not.). =A0And then it goes to a detector where you
> see a single "flash" as it hits.
>
> Now here's the tricky part. =A0If you send enough single "photons" down
> the chute one at a time. and you record all the "flashes" that each
> individually makes, you see that the summation of all these flashes
> begin to build up not a SINGLE slit pattern but a DOUBLE slit pattern!
> In other words each single photon only goes through ONE of the two
> slits and yet somehow "knows" that the other slit is there! And
> furthermore, each single photon produces a pattern as if it were
> interfering with other photons, but it clearly is NOT. Each one is
> doing this all by itself!

Think for a moment - has this exact experiment ever been done? It is
spoken about as if it had been done, but our photon detectors are no
where near 100% efficient (which would be required to detect single
photons). Some experiments claim to detect single photons, but without
100% efficiency, I don't see how that is possible. I heard that the
equivalent experiment using electrons was executed in the early 70's,
but not that it had been peformed yet with light. So we may all be
confused about something that hasn't been shown to experimentally
happen - it only happens in our imagination according to quantum
mechanics.

According to my models, light can only exist in waves, so it would be
impossible for a "photon" to only pass through one of the slits. The
photon is a wide wave like a ripple in a pond and the only way to stop
the photon from reaching the other slit would be to block it since it
will physically reach it. Once again, we only get a confusion if we
assume light can be a localized particle - which it cannot and assume
experiments have been performed - which they have not.

>
> About this time physicists SHOULD be scratching their heads and
> casting about for a new theory to explain all this. =A0But of course
> they aren't. =A0Pretty much the whole business is "explained" as it
> always is... with lots of hand-waving and detailed arguments over
> mathematical fine points which are always easier to "explain" than
> real facts.
>
> Good questions. You have obviously found a place where some of the
> dead bodies are buried in physics!

Yup, lots of dead bodies - keep up the good work in digging them back
up. If my models are anything close to right, it will be like the
night of the living dead!

fhulight