Sylas wrote
Quote:
Not even close. You are being asked to answer some excruciatingly simple questions about YOUR interaction. Citations to other pages which do not describe your interaction are yet another irrelevant distraction; the very thing the BA is complaining about.
This citation is to a page about oscillations of an electron in an oscillating field. That is completely irrelevant to your alleged absorption reaction, in which a photon is absorbed. When the photon is absorbed, its oscillating fields are GONE. This has been pointed out before, and you've merely ignored it.
|
Not even close? It is
spot on. What is light if it is not an oscillating field? The first line on page one tells you
Quote:
|
When a charged particle (of mass m and charge e) interacts with a linearly polarized plane wave ....
|
It also states that it will ignore the recoil, i don't and get the redshift.
The paper tells you how a wave with longitudinal momentum can give the particle transverse momentum,
something you said was impossible.
It then goes on , on page 6, to say that the oscillating electron radiates the energy and states:
the mechanical energy of the charge must be decreasing
That is it re-emits the energy absorbed.
Quote:
|
Another discrepancy is the frequency of oscillation while the photon is still engaged in the interaction is around 600 Terahertz; whereas you've previously invoked plasma oscillations of around 6 Hz or so. Which is it? Each interaction involves errors in basic physics. In the one case confusing motions of one electron with density waves in a whole plasma; and in the other case confusing oscillations driven while the electromagnetic wave is present with effects remaining after absorption of the wave.
|
Wrong yet again. Have you read any of my posts? Do you not have resonance in Australia?
The natural frequency of oscillation of an electron in IG space is 6Hz. If a photon were to come in with this freqency the electron will be set into oscillation, resonance will take place and the whole of the plasma will be set into oscillation. The energy will be dispersed and not given back in a single photon. However the frequencies involved in redshift are far higher than this so this situation does not apply.
For frequencies of light far higher than 6 Hz ie 6x10^14Hz (typical) resonance does not occur. The energy is retained by that electron and not dispersed within the plasma. It is re-radiated as a single photon.
Quote:
And in none of these red herrings do we EVER get a simple balanced energy momentum budget for the Lyndon effect.
Your absorption reaction, as described in your paper, is a violation of the conservation laws of energy and momentum. You are being asked to give a balanced energy momentum budget, in which energy and momentum in states before and after the alleged photon absorption are quantified and shown to be in balance.
|
What happens is described in the paper cited above. The only problem left is for yourself and others to listen. This is what happens in life, in experiment in the laboratory and yet you insist that it cannot happen. I have given you the maths and the observations. QED.
Quote:
I sympathize to some extent, because the question is impossible to answer. Photo absorption by electrons as you describe it is well known to be impossible due to inevitable violations of energy momentum conservation.
Cheers -- Sylas
|
No Sylas, it is I who sympathize with you. For most of these pages you have insisted that a photon with longitudinal momentum cannot give transverse momentum to an electron. I have shown you to be wrong.
In fact, I like others have lost patience with both yours and Papageno's complaints.
You have had the maths you were wrong.
All that is left is for yourself and Papageno to put fingers to the keyboard and type an apology,
Lyndon you were correct , we were wrong.
I won't hold my breath.
However, as far as I am concerned this point is now finished. I have given ample proof. Those of you who are in denial can ignore it if you wish but the Tired Light theory stands.
Cheers,
Lyndon