nothing is kept to myself (except the transistion; no one needs it to benefit mankind)
If you're being genuinely truthful* about keeping nothing to yourself then you've quite clearly demonstrated that you've got nothing but specious (and largely false) generalisations.
That's all you've posted here.

In short you're a clueless troll.

* Not that you're above telling lies and fabricating data when it suits your purpose.

2. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
If you're being genuinely truthful* about keeping nothing to yourself then you've quite clearly demonstrated that you've got nothing but specious (and largely false) generalisations.
That's all you've posted here.

In short you're a clueless troll.

* Not that you're above telling lies and fabricating data when it suits your purpose.
moderation?

get this punk off the thread

anyone can see the thread is with more true, natural and observable evidence then any black hole, dark matter or ranting of hadron idiots ever produced; as electronics and the math there-of, does build;

ie... without the math of electrical/electronics, the hadron could not be built.

for example: can a 1 second amount of charge for a basic 100w light bulb be calculated (coulombs law) that is equal to a physicists calculations?

(that could be a thread in itself)

let's see how many try

i don't need to be on a podium with applause (ie.... imagine how many would be unemployed on the hadron alone, not to mention you)
If the Standard Model were invalided tomorrow noone would be fired from the physics community. Clearly you have no grasp as to how academia works. Were all the physicists fired when Einstein's prediction of light deflection was confirmed? No. Were all the physicists fired when the atom was split? No. Proving a physicist wrong doesn't get him fired.

And I wouldn't be fired either, I don't work on the Standard Model.

it is all over the world and even on this site as i watch newbees rendering questions and even the philosophy that share the inquiries into truth)
Posting it on a forum doesn't mean its 'well known' or even acknowledged. Nor does it make it valid since it isn't submitted to peer review.

you're just blind and fail to just be honest (but i know what is happening to you and why you Love me so much )
I'm not the one lying about my achievements.

The problem you have is your education and pride conflicts with common sense and you cannot overcome your own self
So my problem is I know things? And I'm not the one claiming to to have done this and that and then having nothing to show for it. I freely admit I have done very little to advance science but I can prove that I have at least done something. You utterly fail to. Pride is more of a problem for you it would seem.

i will bet by the time i was 17 back in the early 80's i knew more physics, then you know now
What was that you were saying about pride?

And any time you want to actually put your physics where your mouth is, feel free to actually show you can do some physics. All I ever see from you is talk. If your work is here for people to read, link to it. And it obviously doesn't matter how good (or not) you were at 17, you've done nothing with it.

then you should be able to answer the questions
So its my fault you're incoherent? It's my fault you don't know any electromagnetism, quantum mechanics or quantum electrodynamics?

as your whole purpose is not of scientific inquiry or pursuit
Unlike you I don't put my work on forums. I don't have to tell lies on forums and avoid peer review, I actually produce work and submit it to journals for peer review and publication. Further more, I'm not the one who is ignoring anyone and everyone and proclaiming to have got plenty of answers but refuses to answer questions. You keep making claims about how amazing you are but what have you actually got to demonstrate your claims? Nothing. No work, no understanding, nothing.

bastards like you are why i have no interest in publishing in the so called community; all you want is what it can do for you, versus what can you do for mankind
You know the best way to shutup 'bastards' like me? Putting your physics where your mouth is and actually backing up your claims. When you keep saying how amazing you are but never show it are you really that surprised people don't believe you? Do you fail to understand that perpetual bullshit does nothing but alienate people and make them hostile to you? You spend more time whining about how people are mean to you than it would take you to actually produce the work you claimed to have done or show some understanding. So why don't you? Because you're a liar.

you and i are on separate ends when observing the good of what human beings are and can be
Yes, I'm at the sane informed end.

Answer questions like "What's the difference between a radio wave and a gamma ray?"? I already did, its their frequency and thus their energy and momentum. Their description using electromagnetism, electrodynamics or quantum electrodynamics is exactly the same, you just have a larger value for energy and momentum. Haven't you ever done any of those theories?

the thread is offering you a venue to see and you choose not too
So its my fault you're incoherent and deliberately cryptic to the point of being unintelligible?

4. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
If the Standard Model were invalided tomorrow noone would be fired from the physics community. Clearly you have no grasp as to how academia works. Were all the physicists fired when Einstein's prediction of light deflection was confirmed? No. Were all the physicists fired when the atom was split? No. Proving a physicist wrong doesn't get him fired.
but an idiot like you would be

ie... if it is slapping you in the face, right now and you have no idea?!?!?!?

And I wouldn't be fired either, I don't work on the Standard Model.

Posting it on a forum doesn't mean its 'well known' or even acknowledged. Nor does it make it valid since it isn't submitted to peer review.
ie... and you not a capable peer to do any reviewing, i agree

I'm not the one lying about my achievements.
you don't have any, you still learning how to observe the old stuff.

So my problem is I know things? And I'm not the one claiming to to have done this and that and then having nothing to show for it. I freely admit I have done very little to advance science
that is about as clear as it gets.

What was that you were saying about pride?
i am just so damn pretty and proud of it.

i am proud to have actually gone thru most every discipline in physics, relevant to the foundation of the sciences themselve (that is what the last 3 decades have been for, from faraday to maxwell, string, to branes, lavoisier to chemistry, and even polaritonics (energy upon mass; evidenced)

but you still ranting while i am still learning every day

ie.... i know you so far behind, it is funny to see you show up and argue

(wonder what you emplyer thinks of you on the internet, ranting so much of the day away; talking about how great you are but have produced NOTHING for mankind (advancement of the sciences)

And any time you want to actually put your physics where your mouth is, feel free to actually show you can do some physics. All I ever see from you is talk. If your work is here for people to read, link to it. And it obviously doesn't matter how good (or not) you were at 17, you've done nothing with it.
that is all smack (i wanted to make sure)

ie... i submitted back when, idiots didn't have the depth to comprehend it and that is evidenced right here with you, on all these foolish posts, ranting and yet not a once will you deal straight. (why post up anything of theorem, when you can't even understand the 2nd is a joke to be incorporated into 'h' (planck's constant) and you think (believe, accept, will die over) that a photon is a particle (i could care less what is 'accepted')

i could care less if the community likes me

the kids gonna love understanding; that is all i care about (them)

So its my fault you're incoherent? It's my fault you don't know any electromagnetism, quantum mechanics or quantum electrodynamics?
more than you do (i comprehend, you remember theorem; huge difference)

5. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Unlike you I don't put my work on forums.
because you want propriety or better still, you signed over your butt to someone else, to keep your job; it's a common psychosis. (the ignorance of the field, to submit)
You know the best way to shutup 'bastards' like me? Putting your physics where your mouth is and actually backing up your claims.
vindication is important to you, not me (you live on pride, i don't)

if i wanted too there are a bunch of items i could build, that would be fun to play with.

but i will not, nor enable them either

Answer questions like "What's the difference between a radio wave and a gamma ray?"? I already did, its their frequency and thus their energy and momentum.
now anyone can see just how foolish you are; "momentum?' what difference of momentum can one LIGHT have over another light (in a vacuum)

what momentum to a massless entity (em/light/photon);

i asked you why the SIZE of the WAVELENGTH differences;
stay focused and stop wasting pages on my good looks

Their description using electromagnetism, electrodynamics or quantum electrodynamics is exactly the same, you just have a larger value for energy and momentum. Haven't you ever done any of those theories?
you ad lib like a kid who got caught stealing

what is incoherant, is that such a self proclaimed researcher is so dense, that observing reality is so far gone from your mind that you cannot even step back to even consider, perhaps there is more to learn

because you want propriety or better still, you signed over your butt to someone else, to keep your job; it's a common psychosis. (the ignorance of the field, to submit)
No, I have submitted all work I've done to the free archive www.arxiv.org. Anyone who wants to can get ahold of my work at any time for no cost. No one else has any claim to authorship of my work or 'owns' it, I have not had to 'sign over my butt'.

You are utterly clueless about how the academic community works. Your work is your own, plagerism or theft of someone else's work is a cardinal sin. The vast majority of theoretical physics is put on ArXiv, while 30 years ago you'd have to have a journal subscription, now anyone and everyone can get the latest research for nothing.

vindication is important to you, not me (you live on pride, i don't)
I don't deny I wish people to say "I read your work, its very interesting" occasionally but that's about it. As for pride, you're the one saying "I knew more when I was 17 than you do now!" and claiming to see something the entire physics community has missed for years.

now anyone can see just how foolish you are; "momentum?' what difference of momentum can one LIGHT have over another light (in a vacuum)

what momentum to a massless entity (em/light/photon);

The fact light has momentum has been known for a century now. Maxwell's work said electromagnetic fields can exert forces. Faraday demonstrated it. Einstein explains the photoelectric effect as the momentum of light falling on a metal as sufficient to knock electrons out of it. He, and others, got Nobel Prizes for work relating to that effect. In special relativity a photon has non-zero 4 momentum, so it has both energy and normal momentum but moves along null trajectories such that $E^{2}-|\mathbf{p}|^{2} = 0$ and since $E^{2}-|\mathbf{p}|^{2} = m^{2}$ in relativity the photon is massless yet has both energy and momentum.

I teach this stuff to first year undergraduates so its hardly advanced material. So much for your claim you knew more than me now when you were 17.

i asked you why the SIZE of the WAVELENGTH differences;
Because the processes which create gamma rays are much much more energetic (ie nuclear decay) than those which make radiowaves. More energy means higher frequency. Higher frequency means shorter wavelength (as the speed of light is constant).

This stuff isn't even university level, its high school. You struggling with that you?

is that such a self proclaimed researcher is so dense
Unlike you I don't just say "I do physics research" as a baseless claim, I actually have published work. I actually meet the criteria to call oneself a researcher. I do original work in collaboration with other people culminating in published work which has passed peer review and ultimately leads to a PhD. You just wail on forums. That doesn't quite met the requirements.

But then you fall short in so many things....

7. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
No, I have submitted all work I've done to the free archive www.arxiv.org. Anyone who wants to can get ahold of my work at any time for no cost. No one else has any claim to authorship of my work or 'owns' it, I have not had to 'sign over my butt'.

You are utterly clueless about how the academic community works. Your work is your own, plagerism or theft of someone else's work is a cardinal sin. The vast majority of theoretical physics is put on ArXiv, while 30 years ago you'd have to have a journal subscription, now anyone and everyone can get the latest research for nothing.
you said " I freely admit I have done very little to advance science "

it is useless

my professor taught me that a long time ago; 'hey kid if your math does nothing for mankind, it is useless'

perhaps if you learned that you wouldn't be wasting peoples time

As for pride, you're the one saying "I knew more when I was 17 than you do now!"

and why you rant, rather than address questions.

you never learned to maintain integrity to science, curiosity and reality over beliefs

and claiming to see something the entire physics community has missed for years.
like this thread OP and observance, for example?

absolutely.....

but you can't stay focused long enough to address even little items

i think what is happening; is you are getting frustrated when you read into some of the other disciplines and can't figure it out

The fact light has momentum has been known for a century now. Maxwell's work said electromagnetic fields can exert forces.
that is not momentum; unless mass is affected (no mass, no momentum; get over it)

that is what you are missing out on, you do not comprehend or observe the space affected, in which basic radio usage provides you with basic EVIDENCE, that em (light) is not a point particle,

energy imposed to a wavelength (maxwell) and retain it's frequency (95.5 klos, "turn it up")

(einstein aint god, nor is planck; they made a mistake; get over it)

Faraday demonstrated it. Einstein explains the photoelectric effect as the momentum of light falling on a metal as sufficient to knock electrons out of it.
or better, when the energy is imposed to mass and reaches its threashold for that mass, that is what you are measuring (PE effect) It aint an impact.... (that is your beliefs of particle 'acceptance' but you forget the wave/resonance issue as the whole body of the mass is affected)

He, and others, got Nobel Prizes for work relating to that effect. In special relativity a photon has non-zero 4 momentum, so it has both energy and normal momentum but moves along null trajectories such that $E^{2}-|\mathbf{p}|^{2} = 0$ and since $E^{2}-|\mathbf{p}|^{2} = m^{2}$ in relativity the photon is massless yet has both energy and momentum.
to a belief (meaning you have no problem with contradicting your own laws, rules or 'common sense")

to YOUR accepted discipline (accepted theology; practically), you have no care of causality as you hunky-dory to just 'accept'

ie... i ask a simple question and you have maintained ranting and now about momentum.

common sense, tells everyone that if a particle hits a structure, then momentum in involved but then you want to call a photon "both"

and that is the accepted ideology of the complacent; not the reality of how it works

ie... the double slit, bb and catastrophe were misdefined (get over it)

Because the processes which create gamma rays are much much more energetic (ie nuclear decay) than those which make radiowaves. More energy means higher frequency. Higher frequency means shorter wavelength (as the speed of light is constant).
what is the size difference of the gamma and radio wavelength?

why is there more 'space' affected by one over the other? (same damn question i have asked over and over, and you just can't stay in tune without ranting)

why can i increase the power of a signal 95.5 (same frequency) but greater power?

and that wavelength is over 3 meters (big freaking photons).....

{from the OP}:... 'Adding energy to a photon?'

i.e..... can a single wavelength (95.5) have its amplitude increased?
As is common with Bishadi, there is confusion and lack of understanding, even of the terms:

The energy of a photon is determined solely by its frequency (a linear relationship). The concept of "Amplitude" applies ONLY to a classical continuum wave, not to discrete energy packets.

Following is more on thread than rest of the posts here:

Yes one can easily add energy to a photon. All one needs to do is to reflect it from a mirror that is moving towards the approaching photon. (Unless the mirror is moving wrt the approaching photon at a significant fraction of the speed of light, the increase in photon energy will be only a tiny percentage.) The increase is linear with the "blue shift" achieved via the reflection.

9. Originally Posted by Billy T
As is common with Bishadi, there is confusion and lack of understanding, even of the terms:
as is common with others, there is confusion and lack of understanding, even in terms: (when focusing on understanding the causality)
The energy of a photon is determined solely by its frequency (a linear relationship).
then what is wavelength? (answer the question if you wish to remain credible)

ie.. we can modulate what? In which ways?

The concept of "Amplitude" applies ONLY to a classical continuum wave, not to discrete energy packets.
what packets?

are you JUST using the math defining a packet? or that 95.5 sends signals via packets all modulated and with photons (packets) that are 3 plus meters (wavelength)

but let's continue

Following is more on thread than rest of the posts here:

Yes one can easily add energy to a photon.
finally a straight answer but an honest one will also see what the reality means
All one needs to do is to reflect it from a mirror that is moving towards the approaching photon.
for which packet?

the first one or the last one? (how does a stream of packets, fullfill a radio transmission? (95.5, 3 meter plus, wavelength)

then of your example; which part of the mirror is reflecting the packet, the oxygen, silicon, boron, perhaps the total surface?

what element is doing in the 'quantum jump' of that packet?

where is the 'increased' energy coming from to have an element capture the photon, then increase the energy; show me that transformation?

show where and how that energy is increasing/decreasing (causality)?

(Unless the mirror is moving wrt the approaching photon at a significant fraction of the speed of light, the increase in photon energy will be only a tiny percentage.) The increase is linear with the "blue shift" achieved via the reflection.
now we 'shifting'? is the photon speed increasing or decreasing? (how is that 'shift' affecting the 'f' ....via a speed or mass in-between the line of site?)

does that mean, if i am driving my car away from the radio transmitter, do i need to change the tuner for that shift?

BillyT,

cross discipline observation in this case, means causality to actual evidence and engineering, not just the end all belief of math to a belief.

ie... you claim the packet is increasing per the analogy, but using not a single unit but a stream (per se) of individual packets, at the same frequency, (no per se amplitude) but increased power via volume. (like electrons)

to know electronics, then amplitude is huge in all power calulations.

what i am sharing is the analogies, that any who actually does math, experiments and combining what is literally happening (radio/electronics) and the per se analogy of photon packets, will find, there is much more to understand, when building in the real world of energy.

BillyT be fair, i want nothing but for any to see for themselves.

we being 'general' to observe the varying perspective

be fair as in both anyone can see the math for themselves, combined with the comprehension of actual engineering (observing the mass itself, rather than just the packets as affecting the 'tranformations' of the energy (total power))

i say it is far more coherant when waved at for it to be usable

You have so much confusion and such a deep lack of understanding that your questions are essentially gibberish. So instead of trying to answer you directly (a waste of time) I will explain a few things (at least some others may benefit):

Maxwell's equations concern electromagnetic waves, EM waves, but say NOTHING about photons or "Quantized Energy packets", QEP. (QEP is not a standard term, but I introduced it now for typing convenience.) QEP is preferred as is a more general term than "photons," which tends to be used only for QEPs with frequencies not significantly more than an octave above or below the (human) visible range which is slightly less than one octave. I.e. one speaks of UV & IR photons, but normally not gamma ray photons or "radio photons."

BTW, I used "(human)" as other creatures "see" with different energy photons than humans do. For example, bees see far out into the UV. Almost all the flowers that appear white to you have different vivid colors the bees can see and use to identify which is currently yielding nectar.

All QEPs have a wavelength, which is relatively easy to measure. For a "wavelength" to exist the frequency content of the radiated energy must be very narrow. This is normally the case for both QEPs and EM waves. However, with EM waves the radiation can intentionally be spread over a band of frequencies which are rapidly shifting in relative intensity. This is called "spread spectrum" and usually is done in modern times* to make any receiver monitoring one frequency unable to intercept the signal / information being transmitted. BTW, the actress, Heidi Lamar (I think it was she) invented "spread spectrum" and it was first used in WWII (I think). The “rescue transmitters” a pilot shot down behind enemy lines uses is "spread spectrum" so his transmission cannot be detected by the enemy, even if much closer to him than the friendly planes searching for him.

The individual QEPs almost always have a very precisely defined frequency and wavelength as they come from atomic transitions between two atomic energy levels. If the atoms (or molecules) are not being disturbed (essentially isolated one from another) their QEPs are nearly "monochromatic" but never exactly so because of the Quantum Mechanical, QM, uncertainty principle.

My Ph.D. research concerns the shape and shift of lines radiated by a very dense plasma. Several of the lines I measured were more than one angstrom wide. This was because the energy levels of radiating atoms were being shifted by "collisions" with other atoms while the radiation was being produced.

There is a correspondence principle in QM, so one can consider EM waves to be composed of many very low energy QEPs, but for low frequencies such as radio waves (even micro waves) the energy of each QEP is so small that they cannot be detected individually. I.e. the thermal noise energy fluxations in the detector, even if very cold (say at liquid nitrogen temperature), is much higher. Thus, it makes no practical sense to speak of this low frequency EM waves in terms of their undetectable QEPs. (One can probably describe EM waves in QEP terms mathematically, but there is little point in that which I am aware of, so I doubt if it is ever done; however, I must note that I am only an experimental physicist, not a theoretical one.)

BTW, the wavelength of a QEP is NOT the length of the QEP as you seem to believe. I have measured (and described how in another post) the length of QEPs known as the "sodium D" lines (yellow radiation). Their length depends upon the gas pressure in the lamp source. In my experimental case, they were about 30 cm long - millions (or more) times longer than their wavelength.

You need to study some, proclaim less, or at least learn how to proclaim clearly, instead of utter gibberish.

-------------
* Interestingly the first radio waves were "spread spectrum". Even as late as 1900, most were. I.e. before vacuum tubes were common, Morris code was often transmitted "wirelessly" (by "radio") via rotary gap spark tramsmitters. - Just like the "static" a spark makes on all frequencies of an AM receiver. The quasi constant set of sparks the rotary gap transmitter could make was turned on and off to make Morris code.

11. Originally Posted by Billy T

You have so much confusion and such a deep lack of understanding that your questions are essentially gibberish.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Maxwell's equations concern electromagnetic waves, EM waves, but say NOTHING about photons or "Quantized Energy packets", QEP. (QEP is not a standard term, but I introduced it now for typing convenience.)
i disagree but why listen to me

http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0604/0604169.pdf
James Clerk Maxwell unknowingly discovered a correct relativistic, quantum theory for the light quantum, forty-three years before Einstein postulated the photon’s existence. In this theory, the usual Maxwell field is the quantum wave function for a single photon. When the non-operator Maxwell field of a single photon is second quantized, the standard
Dirac theory of quantum optics is obtained. Recently, quantum-state tomography has been applied to experimentally determine photon wave functions.
just so you can see, i am not the only on sharing you have no idea what you talking about

first claim; trashed (read the pub and shut up, doc)

Originally Posted by Billy T
QEP is preferred as is a more general term than "photons," which tends to be used only for QEPs with frequencies not significantly more than an octave above or below the (human) visible range which is slightly less than one octave. I.e. one speaks of UV & IR photons, but normally not gamma ray photons or "radio photons."
the electromagnetic spectrim covers all ranges, i prefer consistancy. Not the pick and choose like the you's do.

skipped your whole 'range' crap...... i know exactly how that works as i built 'jammers' (with my own 2 hands, so shut up)

Originally Posted by Billy T
The individual QEPs almost always have a very precisely defined frequency and wavelength as they come from atomic transitions between two atomic energy levels. If the atoms (or molecules) are not being disturbed (essentially isolated one from another) their QEPs are nearly "monochromatic" but never exactly so because of the Quantum Mechanical, QM, uncertainty principle.
coherance can be maintained; the uncertainty principle is trash

it is for guys like you to be able to say "i dunno"

Originally Posted by Billy T
To bishadi:My Ph.D. research concerns the shape and shift of lines radiated by a very dense plasma.
Old shit... and i bet you didn't know the plasma maser even existed
Institute of Advanced Study in Science and Technology, Assam Science Society, Panbazar, Gauhati 781 001, Assam, India

The plasma maser theory of Langmuir waves produced from interaction between ion-wave turbulence and electrons in magnetized plasma is presented. The most dominant destabilizing effect comes from the polarization term. The instability occurs even for the Maxwell electron distribution function. The importance of the magnetic field for the plasma maser theory is stressed.
and how is the coherance maintained? Or are you even capable of developing (learning)?

i sense another ol timer who thinks they know it all.

Originally Posted by Billy T

BTW, the wavelength of a QEP is NOT the length of the QEP as you seem to believe. I have measured (and described how in another post) the length of QEPs known as the "sodium D" lines (yellow radiation). Their length depends upon the gas pressure in the lamp source. In my experimental case, they were about 30 cm long - millions (or more) times longer than their wavelength.

You need to study some, proclaim less, or at least learn how to proclaim clearly, instead of utter gibberish.
your whole post is 'gibberish' and ranting......

here is more for you to read

If a single-photon state of the field is created, then to know its quantum state means to know its electric and magnetic field distributions in space and time. Such a state is a single-photon wave-packet state, and its generation is an important goal in quantum-information research.

Recently, a technique has been developed to measure the transverse spatial quantum state of an ensemble of identically prepared photons [5, 6]. The single-photon light beam is sent into an all-reflecting, out-of-plane Sagnac interferometer, which performs a relative rotation of 180° and a mirror inversion on the wave fronts of the counter-propagating beams.
The Sagnac performs a two-dimensional parity operation on one of the beams relative to the other. The fields are recombined at the output beam splitter and are interfered on a photon-counting photomultiplier tube (PMT), allowing the emerging beams to be detected at the single-photon level. The mean photo-count rate is directly proportional to the transverse spatial Wigner function at a phase-space point that is set by the tilt and translation of a mirror external to the interferometer.

The situation becomes even more interesting when the joint spatial wave function of a pair of photons is considered. In the case that the two photons’ spatial and momentum variables are described by an entangled state, such a state measurement will provide the maximal-information characterization of the entanglement. By sending two entangled photons into two parity-inverting interferometers, one can measure the joint two-photon transverse spatial Wigner function, and completely characterize the transverse entanglement of this system [5,6]. The two-photon wave function
exists in six spatial dimensions, and its equation of motion can be called the two-photon Maxwell’s equations.

To conclude, the usual (classical) Maxwell field is the quantum wave function for a single photon. That it transforms like a three-dimensional vector arises from the spin-one nature of the photon. (In contrast, the electron transforms like a twodimensional spinor.) When two photons are present, the joint wave function “lives” in a higher dimensional space. These observations imply the interpretation of the Maxwell field as akin to the Schroedinger wave function, which evolves probability amplitudes for various possible quantum events in which the electron’s position is found to be within a certain volume, rather than being a realistic description of the electron as being here or there. In this sense, the Maxwell equation evolves the probability amplitudes for various possible quantum events in which the photon’s energy is found
within a certain volume.
In addition, quantum-state tomography methods have been devised for determining spatial states of one- and two-photon fields.
that ain't from me and you could have observed more and be a little more up to speed rather than having to learn from some "nobody" like me, educating you on a forum as to how antiquated you really are on the subject

go back and deal with the questions or get off the thread

http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0604/0604169.pdf
“ James Clerk Maxwell unknowingly discovered a correct relativistic, quantum theory for the light quantum, forty-three years before Einstein postulated the photon’s existence. In this theory, the usual Maxwell field is the quantum wave function for a single photon. When the non-operator Maxwell field of a single photon is second quantized, the standard
Dirac theory of quantum optics is obtained. Recently, quantum-state tomography has been applied to experimentally determine photon wave functions. ”
just so you can see, i am not the only on sharing you have no idea what you talking about

first claim; trashed (read the pub and shut up, doc)
You simply do not understand what you read. Here is the summary statement from your reference of what YOUR reference is about to do:

“We review the derivation of Maxwell’s equations from relativistic, quantum particle dynamics

Yes, Maxwell’s equations are consistent with quantum mechanics (and can be derived from QM applied to EM waves) just as classical physics is consistent with quantum mechanics (the “correspondence principle”). Just as Special Relativity is consistent with the more general General Relativity. Just as Newtonian physics is consistent with Einstein’s Relativity. Etc.

Maxwell’s equations, Special Relativity, Newtonian Physics are limited, less general versions of physical laws as they were known earlier. That does not mean the earlier more simple forms are equal to the more general / complete forms.

What I told you is 100% correct as there is no quantum in Maxwell’s equations. In Quantum Physic of EM waves there is a quantum, but when the wave energy is very large the more general Quantum Physics of electromagnetic waves reduces to essentially the earlier simpler equations of Maxwell.

I.e. Maxwell’s Equations description of Electromagnetic wave theory, falsely assumes that the energy of the wave can be arbitrarily weak. There is no minimum energy at any frequency in Maxwell’s Equations. I.e. there are no quantized energy packets. (photons) Photons do not “magically appear” if Maxwell’s Equations are derived from Quantum theory as your reference does.

This absence of any quantization (plus no upper limit on the possible frequencies) lead to a great thermodynamic problem, called the “ultra violet catastrophe” which Planck solved by introducing the concept of quantized energy packets, long after Maxwell was dead.

Again you simple are incapable of understanding what you read. You lack the educational background to know what the author is stating. Study some. Then you will be better able o pose meaningful questions and not misunderstand what you read.

BTW neither Maser nor Lasers require “Langmuir waves produced from interaction between ion-wave turbulence and electrons in magnetized plasma.” Both require two things:
(1) the general property of the interaction between EM waves (or photons) that Einstein first described from theory and called “stimulated emission” in contrast to the already well known “spontaneous emission” and
(2) a population in the upper state greater than thermodynamic equilibrium with the ground state of the radiative transition.

… and how is the coherence maintained? Or are you even capable of developing (learning)? …
I learned the answer to that when reading condensed versions of Einstein’s derivation of the existence of “spontaneous emission.”

Briefly it is a fact of nature that the energy added to an incident EM wave or photon is added in phase with the field stimulating the stimulated emission of energy when a excited atom (or molecule) is stimulated by an EM field to make a radiative transition from the excited state to the lower state.

It is not a question of how Lasers or Maser of “Maintain Coherence” in the fundamental emission act – that is simple a fact of nature. The energy of the transition is ALWAYS is coherently added, if the transition was stimulated. The main problem is not coherence but getting greater than unity gain. The stimulated emission is very weak (compared to the spontaneous emission) unless the stimulating field is strong. Typically greater than unity gain is achieved by folding the traveling EM wave path back on its self with mirrors* – this must be done so that a “standing wave “ is created. I.e. with stationary peaks and valleys in the field strength. Between two exactly parallel mirrors this always occurs for a set of different frequencies.

Fortunately, typically there is at least one such frequency within the Doppler profile of the excited atom’s spontaneous emission line. Sometimes several, but one normally has higher gain than the other and it will be the frequency at which the laser operates via stimulated emission, which by nature is coherent.

You do know, I hope, that the “…se…” in laser and Maser stands for “Stimulated Emission” do you not? But obviously you know next to nothing about “Stimulated Emission” or you would not ask how a fact of nature (namely “Stimulated Emission” is coherent addition of energy) is maintained.
-----
* Or for microwaves (Masers) one useds a wave guide or a resonate chambe but again one establishes standing waves.

13. Originally Posted by Billy T
You simply do not understand what you read. Here is the summary statement from your reference of what YOUR reference is about to do:

“We review the derivation of Maxwell’s equations from relativistic, quantum particle dynamics
anyone now a days, can put theorem side by side The point of the pub was in rebuttal of your claim of NO PHOTON (not the word of course), but the so called packet of energy can be derived as the identify of light (em) is both fields (electric and magnetic). (vector fields) is the damn photon

you can learn how to address the em wave, rather than your particle as your unit of energy (to comprehend the modes, then a unit via a conservation stand point; is a photon (per se))

it was a double edged sword and you didn't even see it coming

Yes, Maxwell’s equations are consistent with quantum mechanics (and can be derived from QM applied to EM waves) just as classical physics is consistent with quantum mechanics (the “correspondence principle”). Just as Special Relativity is consistent with the more general General Relativity. Just as Newtonian physics is consistent with Einstein’s Relativity. Etc.
and that paragraph alone has enough trash to fill a forum.

Maxwell’s equations, Special Relativity, Newtonian Physics are limited, less general versions of physical laws as they were known earlier. That does not mean the earlier more simple forms are equal to the more general / complete forms.

What I told you is 100% correct as there is no quantum in Maxwell’s equations.
depending how you look at it, i see both fields in Max, do you?

i will skip the BB and UVC comments as both were miss defined by planck
(that is the catastrophe)
Again you simple are incapable of understanding what you read. You lack the educational background to know what the author is stating. Study some. Then you will be better able o pose meaningful questions and not misunderstand what you read.
and these types of comments are why i insult you. It is quite opposite old man; I was playing with these issues 30 years ago and now having to return thru them because you just don't know what has happened since your education.

Briefly it is a fact of nature that the energy added to an incident EM wave or photon is added in phase with the field stimulating the stimulated emission of energy when a excited atom (or molecule) is stimulated by an EM field to make a radiative transition from the excited state to the lower state.
finally..... and as i said, you just figuring out what is going on

ie.... the "stimulating" energy as you so eloquently put it, is WHAT? A coherance of WHAT? (answer the questions)

sure aint particles, but em FIELDS (the electric and magnetic fields associating) upon mass

the mass is just harmonizing in a coherance until the threashold, then a release of an em state (light/photon/radiation)

-----
* Or for microwaves (Masers) one useds a wave guide or a resonate chambe but again one establishes standing waves.
sure aint a particle

that is what you are failing to comprehend

the 'fields' dooooooood

pay attention to the MAGNETIC FIELD dooooooooood

ie... no such thing as an electric charge in any motion with mass without it's other half, ever!

BillyT,
i am trying to assist you and not regress to YOUR belief system

i knew, in 82' planck screwed up converting the magnetic field to an angular momentum. ie... there is no way to combine the 'amplitude' of waves in a particle frame because of it.

that is 'what and why' you don't comprehend and why i had to return all the way to max, just so you would see the vector fields and you still missed it.

let's get something cleared up, i am trying to offer YOU information to learn

so YOU can catch up, OK.

i can help, if you let me

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•