Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


relationship between electrons and photons

relationship between electrons and photons - Physics Forum

relationship between electrons and photons - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-30-2008, 04:38 PM
franklinhu@yahoo.com
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default relationship between electrons and photons



On Mar 28, 10:15*pm, Benj <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

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:

[Only registered users see links. ]

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


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.


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.


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.


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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-30-2008, 06:21 PM
Ralph Hertle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default relationship between electrons and photons

Frank and alt.sci.physics:

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote:
[...]





Prior to 1960, so my college course in human factors engineering science
related, the individual photon had been visible as a discrete entity
event under experimental conditions. The receptor cell of the eye needed
to be charged with four photons, which were not visible, and the fifth
photon enabled the activation of the retinal cell which, via cascading,
resulted in a signal that registered as a visible event. The location of
the photon source, that was optically identified on a specific retinal
cell, was called out by the subject observer at the time and place of
the projection of the photon. Numerous instances of the photon events
were recorded and also statistically noted. The speculation at the time
was that Planck's Constant was operative, however, that had not been
experimentally demonstrated and proved.

That was for visible photons. Other energy level photons, e.g., xray,
radio, uv, ir, gamma, or possibly gravity were not evaluated.

One possible error in the photon particle/wave issue is that the photon
has not been identified as a discrete existent. Many of the properties
and measurements of the photon are known, however, the photon has mostly
been discussed as a flow or as waves of many photons in science. A
nano-science of photons is needed; one that identifies the properties of
individual photons, and also in a relationship with other selected entities.

Then the double-slit experiment may be performed. The accurate aiming of
the photon is also required. Facts will be facts, and all presumptions,
assumptions, wishful theories, and prevarications aside, some of the
fundamental properties of the photon may be more accurately identified
and measured.








You can't prove that the photon is not a discrete existent and that the
appropriate experiments are not possible.

What facts exist that indicate that the photon actually exists?

The photon science should start from the basic facts.

Ralph Hertle
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-30-2008, 06:53 PM
Randy Poe
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default relationship between electrons and photons

On Mar 30, 2:21 pm, Ralph Hertle <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Thousands of experiments. Off the top of my head:

Direct evidence:

Single-photon diffraction experiments, single-photon *anything*
experiments.

Indirect evidence: blackbody radiation and the photoelectric
effect, which are inconsistent with un-quantized light. Why
is there a minimum frequency for the photoelectric electrons
to be emitted?



Single photons are routinely detected in experiments all
the time.

- Randy
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-30-2008, 10:22 PM
Androcles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default relationship between electrons and photons


"Randy Poe" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
| On Mar 30, 2:21 pm, Ralph Hertle <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
| > You can't prove that the photon is not a discrete existent and that the
| > appropriate experiments are not possible.
| >
| > What facts exist that indicate that the photon actually exists?
|
| Thousands of experiments. Off the top of my head:
|
| Direct evidence:
|
| Single-photon diffraction experiments, single-photon *anything*
| experiments.
|
| Indirect evidence: blackbody radiation and the photoelectric
| effect, which are inconsistent with un-quantized light. Why
| is there a minimum frequency for the photoelectric electrons
| to be emitted?
|
|
| >
| > The photon science should start from the basic facts.
|
| Single photons are routinely detected in experiments all
| the time.

Which is why their speed is directly proportional to wavelength -
red and blue shift is routinely observed and Einstein's
crackpottery is not routinely observed or ever observed.



Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-31-2008, 11:03 AM
Daniel Mandic
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default relationship between electrons and photons

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote:


Hi there!


What about electric tension (amerind: Voltage)?

Can someone decribe, or give at least to its best a theory about? Does
it (DC) start from minus, does it start at plus, or at both ends at
once!?



Kind regards,

Daniel Mandic
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-31-2008, 11:21 AM
Daniel Mandic
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default relationship between electrons and photons

Ralph Hertle wrote:


Hi Ralph Hertle!


Thanks for your delicate and insightful posting ;-)

Some things in the Universe can't be brought to pen and paper (fleeing
into other dimensions to describe soemthing). You described nicely our
own limits. A photon won't wait, eg. to take a cup of coffee.
Describing it stillstand makes it not more living and takes away
"probably", the essential function of a photon (off course, I can
believe such knowledge might lead to new t'ekkks, bah)

I can also say..... that what we call sunwind, is rather the Sun,
sucking in Dark Matter.
To our senses and believing, it seems that it goes out like a wind and
only greater particles may fall back into the sun, due to gravitation
(heliopause, sun particle border).
But, as on Earth... there is no point or source from which the wind
comes (or forms!?). At least, it isn't know exactly ;-), as we know too
less about the Sun.

A Laser is not the Sun



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-31-2008, 03:47 PM
Randy Poe
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default relationship between electrons and photons

On Mar 30, 6:22 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:

Counter to experimental observation.


On the contrary, the record of experimental confirmation is
a century old now, and growing.

On the other hand, there is no experimental confirmation
of the effect you claim, dispersion of light in vacuum. And
where there is dispersion (in air for instance), it certainly isn't
as strong as "speed is directly proportional to wavelength". That
would
mean that 650 nm red light travels 50% faster than 433 nm
blue light. It would mean the sun should be a rainbow-colored
smear in the sky, with the blue sun image being several
minutes behind the red sun image. And it would mean 100 MHz
radio waves, with a wavelength of 3 m, should travel 4.6 million
times faster than red light. Why, we ought to be able to get
radio signals from Mars in about 40-50 microseconds instead
of the several minutes those silly NASA people have been
waiting.

- Randy
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-31-2008, 04:37 PM
Androcles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default relationship between electrons and photons


"Randy Poe" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
| On Mar 30, 6:22 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > "Randy Poe" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
| >
| >
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
| > | On Mar 30, 2:21 pm, Ralph Hertle <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
| > | > You can't prove that the photon is not a discrete existent and that
the
| > | > appropriate experiments are not possible.
| > | >
| > | > What facts exist that indicate that the photon actually exists?
| > |
| > | Thousands of experiments. Off the top of my head:
| > |
| > | Direct evidence:
| > |
| > | Single-photon diffraction experiments, single-photon *anything*
| > | experiments.
| > |
| > | Indirect evidence: blackbody radiation and the photoelectric
| > | effect, which are inconsistent with un-quantized light. Why
| > | is there a minimum frequency for the photoelectric electrons
| > | to be emitted?
| > |
| > |
| > | >
| > | > The photon science should start from the basic facts.
| > |
| > | Single photons are routinely detected in experiments all
| > | the time.
| >
| > Which is why their speed is directly proportional to wavelength -
|
| Counter to experimental observation.

This pencil is bent - that's experimental observation, you ****in' crank
troll.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/brokpen.jpg







Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-02-2008, 09:32 PM
Benj
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default relationship between electrons and photons

On Mar 30, 2:53 pm, Randy Poe <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:



Randy is right and the monkey wrench in Ralph's wave-photon theory is
that a photon detector doesn't need to be 100% efficient to detect
photons. It basically just misses a few. And the kick in the butt to
Ralph's double slit idea is that IF you put a detector over one slit
of a double slit, and bring the intensity down to single photon
levels, you find that a photon goes through either one slit or the
other and ALL of it goes through JUST ONE slit! You can tell by the
energy in the photons detected. Wave theory on the other hand would
predict a splitting of the energy. So now is the mystery! You have
BOTH particle and wave properties attached to the this "entity" called
a "photon" and no real model with which to "think" about what might be
going on! The current view that such a model is "impossible" seems to
me to be a cop-out!

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-02-2008, 10:40 PM
Ralph Hertle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default relationship between electrons and photons

Randy:

Randy Poe wrote:

[...]


You are right, and I agree.

I don't have a copy of Photonics magazine here, and I can't provide a
single cite at the minute.


Ralph Hertle


Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
electrons , photons , relationship


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Moving Dimensions Theory Book Due Out in Fall 05--Very Rough Draft: 4th Dimensions Expanding Relative to 3 Spatial Dimensions jollyrogership@yahoo.com Physics Forum 64 03-31-2012 10:24 AM
relationship between electrons and photons Benj Physics Forum 1 03-29-2008 06:39 PM
Simply put, MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY is THE NEW MODEL: http://physicsmathforums.com drelliot@gmail.com Physics Forum 0 08-29-2006 06:32 AM
Moving Dimensions Theory!! Rock On!! drelliot@gmail.com Physics Forum 1 07-06-2006 05:19 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.22702 seconds with 16 queries