But I'd like to know, supposing for the sake of argument we can
dispense with the photo-electric effect in establishing the particle
nature of light

First, I consider it EXTREMELY bad form to say: "for the sake
of argument, let us concede your point on the photo-electric
effect..."

I did not intend to be offensive. I regret if you were offended.

(Marty:) That's the kind of SHIT that I had to put up with
ten years ago with assholes like Jim Carr and Mati Meron. They'd
never engage you on your chosen territory, they'd always skate
around it by throwing in extraneous complications.

(Edward:) I have mixed feeling about that passage. On the one hand, I think I
understand your frustration, on the other, I'm not too happy with your
classification of those gentlemen. Please refrain from this if you
wish my input.

(Edward) But I don't wish to argue with you....

(Edward) But I'd like to know, supposing for the sake of argument we can
dispense with the photo-electric effect...

On Dec 28, 8:11 am, "Edward Green" <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
Off hand, this story sounds out of synch with the principle of linear
superposition.

Nope, as I understand it, it's *based* on linear superposition. If we
have a dipole emitter which sends out a sphere-wave, and we illuminate
it with a plane wave, we can adjust the relative phase in order to
create an interference pattern with a downstream node: a downstream
"shadow." If we also adjust the relative amplitudes, we can force
this shadow to be identical to the downstream shadow which would be
punched in the plane wave behind any good EM absorber. The math is
covered in those two quoted papers on the
http://amasci.com/tesla/nearfld1.html wepage:

C. F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light
incident
on it?", Am J Phys, 51 #4, pp323 Apr 1983

H. Paul and R. Fischer "Light Absorption by a dipole", SOV. PHYS.
USP.,
26(10) Oct. 1983 pp 923-926


In fact, the above is just an alternate way to understand how
conventional receiving antennas absorbs EM waves. The usual undergrad
intro to antenna theory goes like this: analyze the nearfield and
farfield patterns around a dipole transmitting antenna, then state that
receiving antennas have exactly the same antenna pattern because of
reciprocity. (And then don't bother to analyze a receiving antenna.)

I suspect that most of the contemporary physics community has no good
grasp on how receiving antennas work. *I* certainly didn't, since my
own classes had used that same trick: analyze a transmitter, then
invoke reciprocity.

Here's a recent paper by another fan of Carver Mead's "Collective
Electrodynamics" which actually analyzes a receiving antenna from first
principles:

Short wire antennas: a scaling approach:

http://www.microwavescafe.com/documents/Short_Wire_Antennas-A_Simplified_approach_11-07-2005.zip
http://radarcafe.com/documents/Short_Wire_Antennas_Part1_r1p0.pdf

http://www.enigmatic-consulting.com/Communications_articles/Comm_index_1.html
(found on http://www.rfcafe.com/references/articles/articles.htm)

Though perhaps I am reacting to some kind of unfounded
prejudice, since when I think of it, I realize that the wave amplitude
reaching any point downstream in the "effective shadow" must be the
linear sum of direct and scattered waves,

Exactly. The scattered wave must be responsible for the EM absorption
process. There's nothing else that could do it. It's an odd idea,
and not explicitly discussed in the intro physics texts I've seen.
We're all aware that, if an optical planewave illuminates a screen, and
we beamsplit the source to add a second plane wave coming from a
different angle, energy is conserved and the average perceived
brightness of the screen does not change. The interference pattern
merely redistributes the arriving wave-energy, moving it out of the
dark stripes and dumping it into the bright stripes.

But things are
different if we use a plane wave along with a dipole radiator which
sends out a sphere wave. Put a Gaussian surface around this emitter,
and the integrated interference pattern at this surface should be seen
as violating energy conservation because, depending on phase/etc., a
bit of net power must either be emitted or absorbed by the dipole
radiator.

but the energy flux at that
point need not be the sum of direct and scattered fluxes, and, in the
same vein, Poynting vectors are known to have peculiar properties.

Those two above papers have diagrams of the Poynting vector field
surrounding the dipole radiator. The radiation from the dipole causes
the Poynting vector field of the plane wave to bend inwards and dive
into the dipole radiator. That's what their term "Energy Sucking"
means. (I think these diagrams are best-case versions, frozen
snapshots at one particular instant, and at other times the vector
field includes the backward-scattered component of radiation as well.)

Psst! A nice heresy is non-zero photon rest mass.

Bill; with the greatest respect, QM can't be _totally_ wrong. Many of
the things people say about quantum mechanics may be wrong, but the
theory is in touch with some element of physical structure. Clearly.

Edward Green wrote:

As to whether "there is a photon", people somewhat talented in
induction and science may not ask this poorly operatonalized
question.
It's like debating whether there is an aether.

I never asked the question as to whether there are photons.
My claim is that the photon theory is un-necessary to explain
phenomena that are perfectly well explained by the wave theory
of light.

I am challenging the widely-held claims that the photo-electric
effect and the Compton effect are inconsistent with Maxwell's
equations, and I have constructed exact models to show the contrary.
If I am right, then every undergraduate textbook needs to be
rewritten.

Y.Porat wrote:
let me give you another hint about that rotten part in QM:

a photon THAT MOVES IN A STRAIGHT LINE
CAN NEVER MAKE ANY ATTRACTION FORCE!!

still wrong:
--------------------------
Virtual particles are virtual science it is mathematics not physics

Autymn D. C. wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
let me give you another hint about that rotten part in QM:

a photon THAT MOVES IN A STRAIGHT LINE
CAN NEVER MAKE ANY ATTRACTION FORCE!!

still wrong:
--------------------------
Virtual particles are virtual science it is mathematics not physics
you never detected them and never will
and even if once you will find them -
you will find as well that they move*** in curved (circular)
paths***!!
nature is not cleaver enough to understand
the current mathematical junglairing (sp?) theories

2
Aether is long ago dead - and IMHO rightly so !!

we can do nicely without it
and as you know the less and the simpler is - better !!

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------

A virtual particle is one that does not exist (by definition).
---------------------

In classical electromagnetism radiation from a dipole there are two hertzian
waves, the space wave that leaves the dipole and carries energy and momentum
with it and the induction field which does not radiate but whose energy
passes back to to the radiator.
------------------

The space wave is a radiant energy field whose power is E.X.H (the vector
product of E and H) this is known as poynting (it is a man's name) vector
this has a frequency f. Now this actually consists of (E x H)/hf photons per
second each having an energy hf. These photons are the result of transisions
inside the conductor of the dipole as the electrons jump from one level to
another (according to microwave theory this is at the permitted frequency of
the exciter) as they do so the emit a photon carrying the energy hf, the
total momentum change.
---------------

connect with another electron in a random manner such that all their energy
and total momentum is taken up by the electron.
-------------

diminishes as the inverse square of the distance and with the polar diagram
of the radiator.
------------

The induction field is the one with the virtual photons they do not
propagate and collapse back to their emmiting electrons.
-------------
and that is why they cant be attration agents !!!

ATB
Y.Porat

On Dec 28, 7:59 am, "Edward Green" <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
Bill; with the greatest respect, QM can't be _totally_ wrong. Many of
the things people say about quantum mechanics may be wrong, but the
theory is in touch with some element of physical structure. Clearly.

I should have said "QED" rather than "QM." What if atom states are
quantized but EM is not, and photons are a misinterpretation; an
artifact? I originally thought that this was total heresy, but now it
turns out that Willis Lamb and a
few others suspect something similar. Most of the examples used to
'prove' the existence of photons are now known to be faulty, including
Photoelectric Effect, and can all be explained using EM fields and
quantized electron orbitals. Only a couple of exotic physics examples
do require that EM fields be quantized. The case for the existence of
photons is still good, but it's *far* weaker than undergrad physics
texts admit.

Chris wrote:
A virtual particle is one that does not exist (by definition).
---------------------
that is why it is not physics !!
physics deals (by definition) with existing entities
that are proven and detected by experiment
proving all their properties
if you dont have thosse experimental findings and properties
found **to the last of them* you are just speculating and guessing!!
and if it is the situation
it is virtual physics
actually somemathematical speculations
and the most missing part of it is
**the admiition* tha tyou dont realy know
what is going there in reality!!
and if you pretend you know---- that is the worst part of it:
you are cheating !!!!
and preventing real advance of scince !!

--------
--------------


In classical electromagnetism radiation from a dipole there are two hertzian
waves, the space wave that leaves the dipole and carries energy and momentum
with it and the induction field which does not radiate but whose energy
passes back to to the radiator.
------------------
a particle that moves naturally in a closed circle
is a good answer (or sugestion) to that claime !!!(in case that is
realy the case!)
----------

The space wave is a radiant energy field whose power is E.X.H (the vector
product of E and H) this is known as poynting (it is a man's name) vector
this has a frequency f. Now this actually consists of (E x H)/hf photons per
second each having an energy hf. These photons are the result of transisions
inside the conductor of the dipole as the electrons jump from one level to
another (according to microwave theory this is at the permitted frequency of
the exciter) as they do so the emit a photon carrying the energy hf, the
total momentum change.
---------------
dont you mix
light emmision with attraction forces ??
in light emmition we have photons (that is an experuimental fact)
now
why alowed you to tell the same story in attraction force ??!!
how can a photon tha tmoves in a stright line from A to B
act as an attraction agentwhile its momentum Vector!!
is just should push A or B from one enother !!
(momentum has a distinct direction that is why it is a vector !!)
------------------
They do not weaken with the inverse square law they

is it not rather against the suggestion of being attraction cariiers
while we know that atraction cariers are becoming weaker with distance
??!
----------------

connect with another electron in a random manner such that all their energy
and total momentum is taken up by the electron.
-------------
that is literature not scince !!
-----------

The density of these photons
diminishes as the inverse square of the distance and with the polar diagram
of the radiator.
------------
now if they are weakened because of bigger dispertion
**why should not some or many of them MISS THE TARGET AND GET LOSED
FOREVER ***???!!!
----------------------------------

The induction field is the one with the virtual photons they do not
propagate and collapse back to their emmiting electrons.
-------------
and that is why they cant be attration agents !!!
ps
one thing tyhat is puzeling me is
how is it that people who calim to be intelligent people
cannt see all the above arguments !!!
maybe they are just born as parrots ?? (
ps
sorry not spell checking i was born lazy

anyway i am sure every one can undersatnd my claimes though the
spelling.....

--------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------

"Jewish Cowboy" <btestware@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167250954.124406.144610@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Edward Green wrote:
As to whether "there is a photon", people somewhat talented in
induction and science may not ask this poorly operatonalized
question.
It's like debating whether there is an aether.
I never asked the question as to whether there are photons.
My claim is that the photon theory is un-necessary to explain
phenomena that are perfectly well explained by the wave theory
of light.
Well, photon theory is both a wave and a "particle" theory of light. If
you study high energy physics (HEP), you will find that a purely wave
theory of light will not always work out properly.

Y.Porat wrote:
Chris wrote:
A virtual particle is one that does not exist (by definition).
---------------------
that is why it is not physics !!
physics deals (by definition) with existing entities
that are proven and detected by experiment
proving all their properties
if you dont have thosse experimental findings and properties
found **to the last of them* you are just speculating and guessing!!
and if it is the situation
it is virtual physics
actually somemathematical speculations
and the most missing part of it is
**the admiition* tha tyou dont realy know
what is going there in reality!!
and if you pretend you know---- that is the worst part of it:
you are cheating !!!!
and preventing real advance of scince !!

--------
--------------


In classical electromagnetism radiation from a dipole there are two hertzian
waves, the space wave that leaves the dipole and carries energy and momentum
with it and the induction field which does not radiate but whose energy
passes back to to the radiator.
------------------
a particle that moves naturally in a closed circle
is a good answer (or sugestion) to that claime !!!(in case that is
realy the case!)
----------

The space wave is a radiant energy field whose power is E.X.H (the vector
product of E and H) this is known as poynting (it is a man's name) vector
this has a frequency f. Now this actually consists of (E x H)/hf photons per
second each having an energy hf. These photons are the result of transisions
inside the conductor of the dipole as the electrons jump from one level to
another (according to microwave theory this is at the permitted frequency of
the exciter) as they do so the emit a photon carrying the energy hf, the
total momentum change.
---------------
dont you mix
light emmision with attraction forces ??
in light emmition we have photons (that is an experuimental fact)
now
why alowed you to tell the same story in attraction force ??!!
how can a photon tha tmoves in a stright line from A to B
act as an attraction agentwhile its momentum Vector!!
is just should push A or B from one enother !!
(momentum has a distinct direction that is why it is a vector !!)
------------------
They do not weaken with the inverse square law they

is it not rather against the suggestion of being attraction cariiers
while we know that atraction cariers are becoming weaker with distance
??!
----------------

connect with another electron in a random manner such that all their energy
and total momentum is taken up by the electron.
-------------
that is literature not scince !!
-----------

The density of these photons
diminishes as the inverse square of the distance and with the polar diagram
of the radiator.
------------
now if they are weakened because of bigger dispertion
**why should not some or many of them MISS THE TARGET AND GET LOSED
FOREVER ***???!!!
----------------------------------

The induction field is the one with the virtual photons they do not
propagate and collapse back to their emmiting electrons.
-------------
and that is why they cant be attration agents !!!
ps
one thing tyhat is puzeling me is
how is it that people who calim to be intelligent people
cannt see all the above arguments !!!
maybe they are just born as parrots ?? (
ps
sorry not spell checking i was born lazy

As well as stupid.

--------------------------

"Jewish Cowboy" <btestware@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167250954.124406.144610@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Edward Green wrote:

As to whether "there is a photon", people somewhat talented in
induction and science may not ask this poorly operatonalized
question.
It's like debating whether there is an aether.

I never asked the question as to whether there are photons.
My claim is that the photon theory is un-necessary to explain
phenomena that are perfectly well explained by the wave theory
of light.

Well, photon theory is both a wave and a "particle" theory of light. If
you study high energy physics (HEP), you will find that a purely wave
theory of light will not always work out properly.

I am challenging the widely-held claims that the photo-electric
effect and the Compton effect are inconsistent with Maxwell's
equations, and I have constructed exact models to show the contrary.
If I am right, then every undergraduate textbook needs to be
rewritten.

Yes, those effects were not absolutely definitive for photon theory.
That is pretty well known. But they gave enough evidence to assume
photon theory was correct. Einstein got the prize. I think I have seen
the photo-electric effect already explained using just Maxwell's
equations. But even if those effects are properly explained without
using photon theory, you still have a ton of evidence in HEP to discount
which is much more up-to-date. Sorry.

However, I do highly suspect photons are very much like phonons only
with the quantum "vacuum" as a relativistic medium. A very special
medium indeed.

Fred Diether wrote:
"Jewish Cowboy" <btestware@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167250954.124406.144610@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Edward Green wrote:

As to whether "there is a photon", people somewhat talented in
induction and science may not ask this poorly operatonalized
question.
It's like debating whether there is an aether.

I never asked the question as to whether there are photons.
My claim is that the photon theory is un-necessary to explain
phenomena that are perfectly well explained by the wave theory
of light.

Well, photon theory is both a wave and a "particle" theory of light.
If
you study high energy physics (HEP), you will find that a purely wave
theory of light will not always work out properly.

I am challenging the widely-held claims that the photo-electric
effect and the Compton effect are inconsistent with Maxwell's
equations, and I have constructed exact models to show the
contrary.
If I am right, then every undergraduate textbook needs to be
rewritten.

Yes, those effects were not absolutely definitive for photon theory.
That is pretty well known. But they gave enough evidence to assume
photon theory was correct. Einstein got the prize. I think I have
seen
the photo-electric effect already explained using just Maxwell's
equations. But even if those effects are properly explained without
using photon theory, you still have a ton of evidence in HEP to
discount
which is much more up-to-date. Sorry.

However, I do highly suspect photons are very much like phonons only
with the quantum "vacuum" as a relativistic medium. A very special
medium indeed. ;-)

The mapping of photons to phonons has been mentioned.

But what is this mysterious "photon theory" everyone talks about so
confidently. Can nobody tell me? Is that a new name for QED, for
half-baked just-so stories one sometimes hears about "photons", or
something else?

The trope here is parallel to the trope about "Lorentz aether theory"
and relativity (the former maps to classical EM in this analogy). It
is conventional to speak of Lorentz aether theory as a discredited
alternative to special relativity, with an either/or quality: it must
be one or the other and Lorentz lost.

Well, not quite, in my book. Lorentz's work is not completely
adequate, perhaps, but it includes a point of view which, as Bell
might
have said, included ways of thinking which were right now dumped in
the
rubbish heap alongside ways of thinking which were wrong. Similarly,
taking Marty at his word (quantitative explanations of phenonena
purported to be evidence for photons available in classical EM), I
doubt this way of thinking need be regarded as in contest with "photon
theory", but rather may be a reminder that classical theory extends a
little farther than we might believe -- a way of thinking which we
have
been a little too quick to discard.

The problem is, as a species, we just are not that bright. It's
amazing between feeding, fighting and reproductive behavior we can
manage any kind of abstract understanding. Oh sure, we're much
smarter
than the dumb apes, but I wouldn't go beating my chest about it.