An addendum to my Topic of Energy and Matter

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to AIP's, re: replies to my Topic.

I was given a "link" to reference regarding "how quantum physics created the transistor" and apparently, everything else! This a fun link!

From what I read, electricity, and any devices using electricity, did not EXIST prior to 1900!!! I think it's an excellent thing that Edison, Marconi, Bell, Westinghouse, Faraday, Tesla,

Steinmetz, Nobel, and many other "minor tinkerers" had access to "proper peer review" and "EXPERT authority physicists" to keep them all abreast of QM theory, starting

around 1875 or so!!! I NEVER knew any of this! You must see this link provided at post #37.


I know beyond question all of the above is correct, because someone named Ian P. Bindloss says so, and he must be the "head honcho" at UCLA phy. dept., despite the lack

of a doctorate title or ANY reference to just what he does at UCLA.

.....

Although, there might be just a giant amount of utter conjecture and supposition involved in this Bindloss's propaganda...never mind, it's QM! And he "does something" at UCLA.

.....

Also, it was made clear to me that QM theory made the transistor possible. Really...I learn something valuable every day! The fact that 3 "wise men" made a "workable" solid state

switch that could actually function as a switch, a resistance "gate" threshold, and a form of capacitor all in one little package! Gee...did anyone else ever think of this type of device?

I wonder...let me think here. Oh, I remember! Some character named EINSTEIN was working on the EXACT SAME DEVICE almost 46 YEARS EARLIER, with patents and devices

to PROVE IT. Too bad he didn't have access to modern QM theory circa 1900. Just think how far he could have gone! I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles.

.....

Unless YOU are a mod, you don't get to tell ME when I can "come back" to my own thread.



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[paddoboy]

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Quantum Mechanics and the Electron:

Before talking more about specific inventions, I want to introduce the fundamental science that made them possible.

When physicists such as Planck, Bohr, de Broglie, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac, and Einstein formulated quantum mechanics from 1900 to 1930, they were trying to understand the fundamental laws of the universe, not invent something of great economic importance. But it turns out they did, as we shall explain below. And when the great physicist Paul Dirac said in 1929 that all of chemistry could, in principle, be explained in terms of the newly formulated theory of quantum mechanics, probably few people believed him. But it turns out he was right. As far as we know, the structure of every atom in the universe is determined by quantum mechanics. Today, all chemists and material scientists are trained extensively in quantum mechanics, as evidenced by this chemistry class at Harvard. Biologists like Francis Crick, who won the 1962 Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of DNA, realized many years ago that even biology is ultimately governed by the laws of physics and quantum mechanics.

A thorough understanding of quantum mechanics is necessary to engineer solid state devices such as transistors. Transistors are the building blocks of electronics and computers. It is impossible to understanding semiconductors (the building blocks of transistors), or any material for that matter, with classical physics alone (i.e. physics known before the discoveries of quantum mechanics and relativity). The physics of lasers and the interaction of light with matter are described by what's called quantum electrodynamics. Even the light entering your eye from this computer screen requires quantum mechanics to understand! Elementary particle physics describes the fundamental building blocks of the universe in the language of relativistic quantum field theory, which is basically quantum mechanics mixed with Einstein's relativity. Without quantum mechanics, the "information age" (and much of modern science) would not exist today.

This discovery of the electron by physicist J.J. Thompson in 1897 was probably underappreciated when it occurred, just like the development of quantum mechanics. After all, in 1897 it probably sounded like a waste of money to do experiments on a particle that is too tiny to ever see. But of course, now our civilization is dependent on electronics, chemistry, materials science, medicine, etc.--all of which require an understanding of the electron.

It is difficult to put a price tag on the amount of current U.S. gross domestic product that would not exist without the discoveries of the electron and quantum mechanics. But it would likely reach into the trillions of dollars. The inventions of the computer, the transistor, and the World Wide Web are also at the root of billions or trillions of dollars of our economy. The laser is used in fiber optics, which are the basis for a global telecommunications industry worth over a trillion dollars.

The 1906 Nobel Prize in Physics was given to J.J. Thomson for the discovery of the electron. The 1932 and 1933 Nobel Prizes were awarded to Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and Dirac for the development of quantum mechanics.


http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~ianb/history/#qm
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

[origin]

I never stated that anyone had to agree with anything I write, whereas YOU DEMAND that I comply with anything you state as "true theory or fact".
This not debate, rather a trial with YOU as final judge of "that which is right", with references from various sources.

I demand nothing. I am stating what is known to the best of my ability. The simple solution is for you, using your conjectures to prove me wrong, or at least use some evidence to show that your ideas have any merit.

You just refuse to even consider anything thing other than being a "smart-ass thread troll".

Stop coming of as a "dumb-ass pseudo-science flake" and supply some evidence.

(Yes...on my thread, I DECIDE what has value)

No, science decides what has value the rest is wasted bandwidth.

I noticed that you still refuse to address how your "no photon" conjecture can explain any of the phenomena I asked about.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to post #42, re: ?

And all of the page-length "quote" means what? This is what this "quote" means to me.

(1) The author barely mentions the FACT that Relativity forms the "springboard" from which 20th.c.QM theory arose. No Relativity...equals no QM, or no Einstein equals no Bohr.

(2) Einstein had worked out the mechanics of theory necessary for the creation of a laser FORTY YEARS prior to it first usage in 1960! (if he had had access to modern equipment

and the funding, the first laser would likely have been in existence by 1930)

(3) The author's suppositions of economic theory are crap...if quantum theory is the salvation of the modern age, why is unemployment "the new normal?"

"Trillions of dollars?" For whom? I haven't seen my share yet! All of the writer's assertions regarding "economic growth" involve a belief in "voodoo" economics in that somehow

these "trillions" are forming a "trickle down" effect that benefits everyone, and none of that has happened. This author is living a delusional fantasy of wishful thinking.

(4) The author is playing at "connect the dots" with regard to reality and theory, and has neither proved nor disproved anything! Except to support some personal agenda of

"Look everyone, I've tied everything up with a pretty quantum bow".



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[origin]

(1) The author barely mentions the FACT that Relativity forms the "springboard" from which 20th.c.QM theory arose. No Relativity...equals no QM, or no Einstein equals no Bohr.

But you said QM was voodoo/magic. Did you forget that you think QM is voodoo/magic? Can't you even keep straight what you think?

"Trillions of dollars?" For whom? I haven't seen my share yet! All of the writer's assertions regarding "economic growth" involve a belief in "voodoo" economicsThis author is living a delusional fantasy of wishful thinking.

From whom? You for one! That computer you are staring at. Your car. Your TV. Your phone. It is difficult to think of any electronic device that is not directly tied to QM.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to origin, re: your post #43.

"Wasted bandwidth?" Nature "wastes" NOTHING...not even a single atom, nor an erg of energy is ever "wasted".

......

You want or demand evidence from me, to prove my concept(s)? What evidence could I write that would qualify as having "merit" under your criteria? I don't know.

What constitutes valid evidence for you?

I write a long response to you...and then you write back "word-salad gooblygook etc. etc." Just how am I supposed to counter this?

All you want to is to argue over anything incessantly...are you really that bored?

I WILL fight FOR my concepts...I will not fight over them, as to whether or not they have "validity". To me, they have merit and validity, as least as "possibilities".

You will not grant that anything I write has any value, so there is really nothing to debate!

.....

Your "photon" question? Give me a specific scenario, and I will try to answer IF it deals with my concept "as presented". I am NOT going to argue with you over theory.



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to origin post #45, re: ?

I never wrote that "all of QM is voodoo". I DID and still will write that MANY of the suppositional "frames-of-condition" supported by QM factors are false...the "voodoo" factor.

"Wormholes" "Blackholes" and their associated properties are suppositional states that are "voodoo", in my opinion.

......


Autos and telephones existed far in advance of QM theory...and attempting to "show me different" will not work. As for my computer and T.V.? You are painting with a VERY huge

brush here! QM theory "supports a supposition", such as "if we make this "thing", will it work? QM is excellent for this.


(if you think you are going to "trip me up" with your references, think again. It WILL NOT work)



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[krash661]

(if you think you are going to "trip me up" with your references, think again. It WILL NOT work)

, it already has.

 

[origin]

In reply to origin post #45, re: ?

I never wrote that "all of QM is voodoo". I DID and still will write that MANY of the suppositional "frames-of-condition" supported by QM factors are false...the "voodoo" factor. "Wormholes" "Blackholes" and their associated properties are suppositional states that are "voodoo", in my opinion.

As far as I know Wormholes and blackholes have nothing to do with quantum mechanics they came about as a result of your idol Einstein and his theory of GR not QM.

Autos and telephones existed far in advance of QM theory...and attempting to "show me different" will not work.

Yes they did exist before QM, but now all of these devices have processor chips in them which is a result of QM. Take out the chip and the cars and the phones won't work. It is too bad that you are so bull headed that even though you have been, "shown different" you claim it makes no difference. How do you expect to learn anything if your mind is already made up?

As for my computer and T.V.? You are painting with a VERY huge brush here! QM theory "supports a supposition", such as "if we make this "thing", will it work? QM is excellent for this.

No it is much more specific than that, all of those have electronics have processors and transistors in them which means that they work because of QM.

(if you think you are going to "trip me up" with your references, think again. It WILL NOT work)

So you consider me to be "tripping you up" by exposing you to reality. Really?:shrug:

 

[origin]

Your "photon" question? Give me a specific scenario, and I will try to answer IF it deals with my concept "as presented". I am NOT going to argue with you over theory.

Einstein wrote the photoelectric effect is due to photons being absorbed by electrons and the electrons being ejected from certain metals. His reasoning was that even with very low intensity of light electrons would still be ejected, so it must be that even though the overall intesity was low the indivudual photons interatced with individual electrons. The energy of the photons is depended on it's wavelength (or frequency) in the relationship E = hf.

How does your idea that photons don't exist 'jibe' with the photoelectic effect given that even a very small intensity of light can still eject an electron from a specific metal?

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to all the current posters on my "thread" (not including the "bot")

If any of you have something to say regarding my Topic, or the addendum, please write it as it pertains to WHAT I WROTE, not what someone else wrote! The exception to this

is Einstein and Relativity posits as he wrote them...NOT someone else's "interpretations". I will not respond to replies with emoticons/smilies attached.


(Thanks for reading!)

 

[krash661]

(not including the "bot")
is Einstein and Relativity posits as he wrote them...NOT someone else's "interpretations".

as obvious as it is,it appears it's you who is trying to do interpretations.
no one else.

 

[origin]

In reply to all the current posters on my "thread" (not including the "bot") If any of you have something to say regarding my Topic, or the addendum, please write it as it pertains to WHAT I WROTE, not what someone else wrote! The exception to this is Einstein and Relativity posits as he wrote them...NOT someone else's "interpretations". I will not respond to replies with emoticons/smilies attached.

Here is an english translation of Einsteins original paper on the photoelectric effect. Pay particular attention to pages 13 - 15. I agree with Einsteins explanation of the photoelectric effect, which says that individual quanta of light interact with electrons imparting kenetic energy to the electrons allowing them to be emitted from the body.

What does your idea say about the photoelectric effect?

If you do not trust the translation I can get you the original paper in german, it says the same thing.

 

[paddoboy]

Here is an english translation of Einsteins original paper on the photoelectric effect. Pay particular attention to pages 13 - 15. I agree with Einsteins explanation of the photoelectric effect, which says that individual quanta of light interact with electrons imparting kenetic energy to the electrons allowing them to be emitted from the body.

What does your idea say about the photoelectric effect?

If you do not trust the translation I can get you the original paper in german, it says the same thing.

That has been put to him from the early posts... :shrug:
He does not want to here or even talk about it!
Speaking of talking to brick walls!!

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to posts #53 and #54, re: photo-electric effect. (since #53 complied with what I asked, I will answer it)

I will try to answer this, as it pertains to my concepts.

(1) I have NO argument, nor am I disputing the RESULTS of the "energy into a metal rod will result in the emission of energy as light". (energy in equals energy "out")

(2) My only contention with the experiment is that "discrete packets of energy" are MOVING, that the "photons" are being emitted from a source as if they were separated

components of metal rods' original electrons...in my concept, there is no conversion into a "moving" energy state.(the photons)

(3) If my assumption is correct, that "radiant energy exists as a "potential", a metric of itself...then the metal-rod is ALWAYS at a state of absolute potential, as is every atom in

the Universe. In this instance, every atom of the metal-rod is always "full" and cannot "hold more energy". (this complies with Lorentz)

(4) The energy applied to the metal-rod was greater than it's maximum quotient of energy and the energy was/is manifested as light, as well as heat...the "effect".

(5) The potential of light became manifest as visible light, as dictated by the amount of energy applied to the rod. (this complies with "energy equals mass)

The greater the amount of energy applied to the "rod", the greater the manifestation of light energy.


......

But what of the photons? Something had to "move", to radiate from the source.

My answer? Something did move...the molecular structure of the metal-rod expanded in direct proportion to the amount of energy applied, not the energy itself.

In my concept, energy has NO MATTER and thus no mechanism for movement exists. No matter-of-self "rules out" inertia and momentum.

Light is manifested as a "wave-frequency", not as a "collective" of individual packets-of-energy. (no photons, no "speed")

......

So...am I confirming or denying the premises of the "photo-electric effect?" In a sense, yes...in regard to photon "emission".

Does "energy=mass" still hold true? YES. And I believe my concept is equally valid...mass=energy.

Energy cannot manifest ITSELF. Only the mechanisms of matter can enable the potential of energy to become manifest, to become "present" as an actual factor such as light.

......

As a side issue, I think my concept explains why "light" is never observed as "fits and stutters" or just "ray" effects, greater in some areas and lesser in others.

No matter the frame, light manifests as being "there" or not "there" at all times. The intensity or amplitude may vary, but not the light itself.




(Thanks for reading!)

 

[paddoboy]

In reply to posts #53 and #54, re: photo-electric effect. (since #53 complied with what I asked, I will answer it)

I will try to answer this, as it pertains to my concepts.

http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/sciences/physics/compton.html


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
from origin's link......

8. Concerning the Emission of Cathode Rays
Through Illumination of Solid Bodies
The usual conception that the energy of light is continuously distributed over
the space through which it propagates, encounters very serious difficulties
when one attempts to explain the photoelectric phenomena, as has been
pointed out in Herr Lenard’s pioneering paper.7
According to the concept that the incident light consists of energy quanta
of magnitude Rβν/N, however, one can conceive of the ejection of electrons
by light in the following way. Energy quanta penetrate into the surface
layer of the body, and their energy is transformed, at least in part, into
kinetic energy of electrons. The simplest way to imagine this is that a light
quantum delivers its entire energy to a single electron: we shall assume that
this is what happens. The possibility should not be excluded, however, that
electrons might receive their energy only in part from the light quantum.
An electron to which kinetic energy has been imparted in the interior of
the body will have lost some of this energy by the time it reaches the surface.
Furthermore, we shall assume that in leaving the body each electron must
perform an amount of work P characteristic of the substance. The ejected
electrons leaving the body with the largest normal velocity will be those that
were directly at the surface. The kinetic energy of such electrons is given by
R βν/N −P.
In the body is charged to a positive potential Π and is surrounded by
conductors at zero potential, and if Π is just large enough to prevent loss of
electricity by the body, if follows that:
Π² = Rβν/N −P
where ² denotes the electronic charge, or
ΠE = Rβν −P0
where E is the charge of a gram equivalent of a monovalent ion and P0 is
the potential of this quantity of negative electricity relative to the body.8
7P. Lenard, Ann. Phys., 8, 169, 170 ( 1902).
8If one assumes that the individual electron is detached from a neutral molecule by
light with the performance of a certain amount of work, nothing in the relation derived
above need be changed; one can simply consider P0 as the sum of two terms
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Your refutation/summation just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

As far back as Planck, it was showed that the very structure of nature is "discontinuous", and finally Einstein came along in 1905 and Interpreted the observation, receiving the Nobel for his work, which lead to the final development of quantum theory.

In effect, you are disputing 100 and more years of data from many experiments and observations, although at times it appears you are denying that.
Sorry, again, I just don't buy it.

 

[paddoboy]

Also you have denied the existence of quarks, and other subatomic particles, that have in fact been observed in many particle accelerators around the world.
You seem to be in effect, trying to rewrite particle physics, just because we lack the technology to see these things in isolation.
The most beautiful thing about the disciplines of SR, GR and particle physics, along with the BB, is that they do seem to blend in with each other.
Again, you seem to be denying many many years of experimental data.
And again, I just don't buy it.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to paddoboy, re: your #56 and #57 replies.

Nice responses, thank you.

As far as theoretical particle-states go...no, I have little faith in such observations. Or BB theory. Yes, I absolutely deny the existence of theoretically "observed?" particle such as

"quarks". These are suppositional states of matter, without proof. (as I see it) Can I be "wrong" in my rejection of much of QM speculation that is supported only by increasingly

complex equations of calculus...sure, I can be wrong. I could also be right.

.....

"Trying to re-write all of particle physics?" No, I hardly think so...at least not with regard to atoms and their constituents. For instance, do I reject the concepts of

of "charged particles" or the assumptions of "rest states" and "hyper-excited" states? No, I don't reject them at all.

.....

If you really "don't get" anything out of my concepts as "workable theories", then it is my fault for not writing them out correctly. Sorry.

I know what they mean does not automatically translate to "others will understand this concept".

......

Please re-read the wording of the quoted paper with regard to paragraph #8..."if one assumes that an individual electron is detached".

It leaves a small amount of "wiggle room", yes?

Einstein's logic is flawless (well, 99.99% anyway) and I see no true "error" in the paper in that respect...my argument is with the emission process as a "packet of energy".

I believe I have an alternative process that "explains more" with regard to the energy ITSELF.

.....

"Well Done, paddoboy!" with your #56/#57 replies...this is a proper rebuttal!



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[paddoboy]

I believe I have an alternative process that "explains more" with regard to the energy ITSELF.

Yes, that's obvious. I believe though you are deluding yourself.

"Well Done, paddoboy!" with your #56/#57 replies...this is a proper rebuttal!

:shrug: It's near the exact manner I have been refuting you from post [1]

Anyway, you go for your life. As far as I am concerned, I've offered plenty to show the error of your stuff, to no avail.
I won't be taking part any more.

 

[James R]

Hello Gerry,

Is possible that some error in judgment occurred over a century ago with regard to theoretical particle states? In that, in a valid and reasonable manner, too many assumptions were made with assigning a "pseudo-particle" conditions to radiant energy. I believe so. There was a rush to enumerate the basically mysterious existence of light energy and electrical energy, to give them particle status and in this concept make it possible to mathematically assign values of "amounts", such as voltage and amperage.

You have your history muddled there.

Electromagnetic theory was already well developed before Einstein came along with the photon theory of light.

The assigning of particulate status has an additional vital feature...how to explain movement from a source.

That wasn't a problem. The wave model of light explains movement from a source quite adequately.

If radiant energy is thought of as "packets of energy", it would then follow that the energy-packets would conform to the empirical reality presented by molecular structures, even though the energy-packets were many orders of magnitude smaller than any molecule! I.E., if molecules can be induced to move, then it follows that energy-packets may also move, no matter how small or insignificant as a singular entity. (an individual molecule of water may not be seen to move, but many of them as a coalition can form a wave)

Actually, in a water wave the individual water molecules don't move horizontally very much at all. A wave is a pulse of energy through the water, not mass movement of molecules from one place to another.

Yet when I look for answers as to "how does light move as a photon without degradation of speed or energy?" the standard models of answers seem to break down into vague concepts of what seem to be "ghost" particles that are not subject to degradation, due to the special nature of being energy packets do not yield to time and distance factors, as matter particles do...photons exist outside the directives that apply to matter.

Photons are massless particles. Theory predicts that all massless particles must move at the speed of light, always.

Bringing things right up to date, photons do not feel the Higgs field so they are free to move at the speed of light, whereas particles with mass experience a kind of drag due to their interactions with that field.

After thinking of photons as energy for several years, and being unconvinced of the "rightness" of radiant energy theory, I began to focus solely on the aspect of energy itself, as in "what is radiant energy of itself, it's intrinsic nature independent of matter?"

In my attempts to answer my own questions, I separated the aspects of matter/energy/time/distance/and speed into quadrant factors, each worthy of it's own aspect.

After a great deal of examining each aspect, I could not arrive at anything I considered a true answer...but I noticed that the question of the energy itself was the one I kept returning to. Matter could be explained, as well as time and distance, but I could not resolve the light energy coupled with speed question.

I kept thinking..."energy of itself, as itself, energy is"...and finally thought "energy is itself" and this thought "stuck". Energy IS itself.

The rest, or least the main contentions of the idea that "energy is itself", are already on my first Topic.

I haven't seen your first topic.

If readers want to debate on "how wrong your thinking is", I will not answer.

Why are you posting on a discussion forum if you don't want discussion?

Are you just advertising your ideas, then?

Also quoting standard texts will not get a reply. (I know the fundaments of the texts already, and disagree with much of what is presented as "facts".

If you can show me with logic where I "went wrong"...this I WILL answer. As best as I am able.

So let me get this straight.

We're supposed to show you why you're wrong, but without reference to accepted science?

You have the onus of proof backwards. If you want to upset standard science, it's you who needs to show why the accepted theories are wrong. And if you have an alternative, you need to convince the scientific establishment that you're right.

(Thanks for reading!)

No worries. I hope that at some stage you'll have more to offer than this.