Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
momentum is only conserved if there are no external forces acting. In "physics according to Sylas volume 1" he expects momentum to be conserved, but we don't.
The momentum of the electron in a direction perpendicular to that in which the photon was originally travelling is not conserved because there is an external force acting on it - due to the oscillating electric fields of the photon. This is why it gains energy and momentum in this direction.
|
For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are not confusing -- again -- macroscopic EM waves with a single photon.
Those "oscillating electric fields of the photon" would not be an external force: their would be the internal force responsible for the electron-photon scattering.
The only external force in the scattering of the electron and the photon is the Coulomb interaction with the other charged particles in the plasma.
You have mto show that the time interval in which the electron-photon scattering occurs, is long enough for the external forces to have any effect on the system. |
This is just perfectly normal absorption of a photon. Are you saying that photons are never absorbed? |
Obfuscation.
Address the point: show that the time interval in which the electron-photon scattering occurs, is long enough for the external forces to have any effect on the system.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
But lets look at things in more detail. I seem to be cast as the 'bad guy' in all this (which is totally untrue 'cos I am quite nice)...
|
You have been dishonest, and it is plain sight to see for everybody.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
...so lets have a look at some of Sylas' sums that you all seem to agree with.
On page 20 Sylas said:
Quote:
|
Now consider electrons in the IGM, a meter apart. The force is about 2.3e-28 N, and the potential energy is 2.3e-28 J. The corresponding velocity for an electron is 22 m/s. Electrons in the IGM are at temperatures of around million degrees or even more, and hence have velocities of something like 6e6 m/s; about 300,000 times faster than the escape velocity.
|
Do you agree with this piece of Mathematics? Here Sylas works out the escape velocity for two electrons. Do you really expect me to respond to this sort of nonsense? |
Yes. Do it and show the full calculations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
However, I did point out his mistake and received no response from Sylas. Anyone can make a silly mistake but to actually go ahead and calculate an escape velocity between two repulsive electrons is a a bit more than a ‘silly mistake’
|
Yes, you prefer deleting the post where you did the mistake, rather than admitting to it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
On page 22 we have,
Quote:
Here is an example of a quantified energy momentum analysis.
Values for speed of light, Planck's constant, electron charge and mass:
c = 3.00e8 m/s
h = 6.63e-34 kg.m^2/s
e = 1.60e-19 C
m = 9.11e-31 kg
Initial photon, wavelength, energy, and momentum:
λ = 5.00e-7 m
Q = 3.97e-19 J (Q = hc/λ)
p = 1.325e-27 kg.m/s (p = h/λ)
This is the energy and momentum that must remain balanced. If numbers are not given adding up to these values, both for energy and momentum, then the balance has not been shown.
Recoil electron with kinetic energy K after absorbing momentum p
v = 1.46e3 m/s (v = p/m)
K = 9.64e-25 J (K = mv^2/2)
At this point in the analysis, we can balance the momentum, but (1-K/Q) = 99.99976% of the energy is still unaccounted for.
If this energy transfers to the rest of the plasma, then it will require over 400,000 more electrons with the same amount of energy to make up the balance (Q/K = 4.12e5). Energy transfers to the rest of the plasma occur as an electron moves through the electric fields; but the electron cannot transfer more than the energy K of its own motion. The photon is allegedly absorbed; it can't go on and interact with 400,000 more electrons itself.
Thus there is no possibility of energy balance at this point in the interactions.
In real physics, the energy of photo-absorption is actually taken up by excitation of an atom to a new energy level. This is how it occurs in French, and in every published source we have considered on photo-absorption. This is why photo-absorption in real science is for electrons bound to atoms; never for ionized electrons a meter or so away from any other particle.
|
This looks impressive doesn’t it? This is the sort of thing you are all asking me to do as well! |
And you still have not done so. Not even in this post.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
Do we all agree with this piece of mathematics? Hands up those who think it is correct? Well it is total nonsense. Here Sylas says that to absorb a photon of light of wavelength 5e-7m will require 400,000 electrons to balance his energy budget. I did it with three electrons and two nails.
But wait a minute, 400,000 electrons to absorb a single photon of light?
|
Even more if you deal with aerials and plasma oscillations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
Hydrogen atoms can not only absorb certain wavelengths of light of this order but they can absorb photons with much more momentum and energy in the UV - and do it individually as atoms in a gas. Hydrogen atom has a mass of about 2000 electrons so why does Sylas need the equivalent of 400,000 electrons to absorb a single photon of light. Rubbish.
|
Yet you do not provide quantitative estimates to support your "argument".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
He is saying that unless you have 200 Hydrogen atoms the momentum/ energy ‘budget’ doesn’t work when a hydrogen atom is excited by a single photon.
I have explained were he is going wrong but the guy won't listen.
I have no intention of trying to repeat this sort of nonsense.
|
Where are the calculations you do not want to repeat?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
Quote:
I urge you again to take the BA's warning seriously, and address the point: provide your full calculations in support of the basic mechanism for your "theory".
Stop hand-waving and tap-dancing around the issue. Your broken-record tactic does not equal addressing the point.
|
Ah! I see your plan. If you can't prove the theory wrong.... |
Plan?
You have not acknowledged criticism to your "theory" since the beginning of the first thread.
You just repeat the same disproven claims over and over.
What is the point of your posts?
Your "theory" has been proven wrong: deal with it.
EDIT to add: Maybe you have a plan. Faced with people that can actually disprove your "theory", are you trying to get banned, so that you can claim that the BA censored your against-the-mainstream ideas?