Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grey
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
I have shown my working many times over.
|
Not once in this thread have you shown a full treatment showing conservation of both energy and momentum.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
Conservation of energy and momentum is BUILT IN TO MY CALCULATIONS I work out how much momentum and hence energy the electron gains assuming conservation of momentum. I assume conservation of energy and deduct the energy gained by the recoiling electron from that of the incident photon to get the redshift. They have to apply because I have built them in to my calaculations.
|
You use conservation of momentum to calculate how much energy the electron gains in the direction of the photon's travel. But then you just assume that the rest of the energy is taken up by transverse oscillations and you completely ignore the momentum involved in those transverse oscillations, so your treatment does not conserve momentum. |
Momentum is not coserved for the electron since it has an external force acting on it - the electric field of the photon. This is why it gains energy and momentum in this direction.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
The matter is settled, lets move on. Light is transverse - trust me.
|
The issue is not whether light is a transverse oscillation. The issue is that you have, in spite of repeated requests, failed to show conservation of energy and momentum. The matter won't be settled until you give a quantitative treatment showing that.
|
You are wrong here, see my above reply to Papageno. Sylas has treated a photon as longitudinal in that he has assumed that the only way the electron can gain the energy of the photon is through the recoil interaction. Hence he is wrong - 400,000 electrons to absorb one photon of light - How do we get those absorbtion spectra in the first place!
Cheers,
Lyndon