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.

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

What he did was simply applying the conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy, or are you claiming that Compton scattering also assumes a longitudinal photon?

Your treatment of the conservation problem appears to be that you balance the momentum, and then assume that the excess energy (no more and no less) is taken up by the rest of the plasma. You have not shown mathematically that this is so.

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.


You have been dishonest, and it is plain sight to see for everybody.


Yes. Do it and show the full calculations.



Yes, you prefer deleting the post where you did the mistake, rather than admitting to it.



And you still have not done so. Not even in this post.


Even more if you deal with aerials and plasma oscillations.


Yet you do not provide quantitative estimates to support your "argument".



Where are the calculations you do not want to repeat?


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?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

I already explained that the electric field you attribute to the photon is internal to the scattering event.

Where are the calculations?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

So you are saying that Sylas' mistake is that he has done his sums on the wrong interaction?
Cheers,
Lyndon

Where is the mistake? Sylas wasn't working out the 'escape velocity' between two electrons. Or do you seriously not understand the point he is making? I'll be nice and assume you don't (rather than assume the more likely; that you understand his point and how it puts another nail in your theory's coffin), and explain it: he is showing that the acceleration caused by the repulsive force between electrons ~1 metre away is negligable compared to the normal velocity of electrons in the IG plasma, in suprisingly similar ratios to the effect of gravitational forces between billiard balls and their normal velocities, in my original analogy. Where is the flaw in this argument?

I will also ask you again to tell us the period of time between photon absorbtion and red-shifted photon emission, because you still haven't answered that most basic question, after countless requests from countless people.

Finally, I will ask you again: how is energy diffused throughout a system of electrons then 'undiffused' back into a single photon, and why isn't this an illegal entropy reduction? Where does the photon emit from, in relation to the system of electrons? How does the system as a whole know which direction to fire the electron, to avoid scatter?

Appeals to 'basic physics' will not do: simply state the mechanics behind the effects, in your own words.

Edit: to clarify Lyndon's misconception that Sylas was calculating the escape velocity of two electrons.

Except that you don't balance momentum at the same time.

Let me make sure I've got this right. You're saying that when a photon interacts with a charged particle, momentum is not conserved?

Not at all, just that by your logic, the standard treatment of Compton scattering must assume longitudinal photon.

By the way, you still haven't shown mathematically that exactly the correct amount of energy is taken up by the rest of the plasma. (And if the plasma is included to conserve energy, then why can it also not carry some of the momentum?)

[edited to improve ropy grammar ]

It is if you take universe into account.
Cheers,
Lyndon

What we must all remember here gentlemen and Papageno, is that I am in a defensive position here. I did not post my theory on this site looking for advertisement. I did not post this thread. Papageno followed by Sylas attacked the theory. I am defending it. It is sufficient in these circumstances to defend by showing what utter tripe these two are suggesting. I will continue to do so. I have shown time and time again what nonsense they are talking about. That is all that is needed. I do want to talk about other things, but until I have put down this revolt we cannot do so. Whilst the theory is attacked I will defend.
Simple as that.

prove it.

What other changes happen in the rest of the universe to balance the transverse momentum change in the charged particle you're proposing?

Again, this one was edited before anyone responded, and it's not because you have been proven to remove posts where you make errors so blatant even you cannot deny them, that you can wildly accuse everyone else of doing the same. That's a very poor tactic, but desperate times call for desperate means, I suppose?
And you did post your theory in this site. You didn't start this thread, but you started the longer one. And you haven't shown anywhere that those two (and everyone else, I suppose) are suggesting utter tripe, although I can imagine they would be willing to suggest that as the title of your paper, if they were allowed that by the board rules and common standards of politeness.
They are talking about nonsense, but for some reason the creator of that nonsense, i.e. you, doesn't understand what this is all about, and refuses to back up anything with decent calculations, probably because he is unable to.
You are despicable.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Just argue the ideas. Leave it to the audience to gauge the particpants' characters.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Fair enough, but justifying how you manage to balance both the momentum and energy would be part of a sensible defence. If you could demonstrate that, then you would blow a lot of the opposition out of the water. Unfortunately you don't seem to have done this. For example, you only transfer momentum to a single electron, but then assume that any energy balance is taken up by the plasma. If the plasma can carry away energy, then why can't it carry away momentum as well?
The problem is that (apart from what appear to be typos) a lot of what they are saying makes a lot of sense, whereas you don't seem to be able to demonstrate the mechanism by which the conservation laws can be made to work in your theory. I find it hard to believe that you now say that
"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."
Surely the equation that you use to calculate the energy lost to recoil, assumes conservation of momentum? If momentum isn't conserved for the electron-photon system, then presumably your equation is inappropriate?
Except that they make a lot more sense than you attribute to them.
Fair enough, but as I said you still haven't convincingly answered the weakness in your model regarding the conservation laws. You appear to be inconsistent in the way that you treat them. Until you are able to provide a better (or more rigorous) answer, people will continue to poke at this.
Hmmm. Unless there is a history file somewhere, this is rather hard to do. Is there something contentious in what I changed?

I believe that, having been called on essentially removing a post with an error in it, Lyndon is making an effort to point out any posts that anyone else edits in any way, perhaps hoping that might exonerate his own attempt at revisionism.

The correct way to handle the rest of the universe is to quantify forces.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means, for example, that if a photon pushes an electron sideways, which indeed it does, then the electron equally pushes the photon sideways, and by the same amount. This is why momentum is conserved.

It is also why photons are always scattered at an angle. You can even calculate the angle given how hard the electron was pushed.

If there is any other particle in the universe getting some momentum or energy, then it does so by being pushed. You should quantify the forces, because the forces apply locally as well.

If either the photon or the electron pushes on anything else, then there is a corresponding energy and momentum transfer. But a real energy momentum analysis quantifies this and includes it in the balance. If this is not done, then you cannot claim to have an energy momentum analysis.

Another simple principle is that light particles get the lion's share of energy, and heavy ones get the lion's share of momentum. You can quantify this as well by using conservation rules.

Lyndon's paper gives the electron 0.00024% of the photon's energy. It is going to be tough to give the remaining energy to the rest of the universe! In real physics, the local particles take up nearly all the energy, and it is momentum picked up by other more massive objects. This applies, for example, in the Mossbauer effect. Momentum is taken up by many atoms in a rigid crystal lattice, while a locally excited atom, and subsequently a re-emitted photon, takes up almost exactly the energy of the original photon.

Cheers -- Sylas

PS. This is not an "attack" in some aggresive personal sense. It is just review of a theory. The response needs to address the actual criticism or defect being raised. In this case, the proper response is to go ahead and quantify the energy momentum involvement of all particles relevant to the alledged process. It is an simple thing to do, which can be done for any other particle interaction in physics, including those that involve "the rest of the universe" like the Mossbauer effect.

So don't take offence; just go ahead and give a quantified energy momentum balance, including both energy and momentum terms that add up and balance both before and after the interaction.

True. My apologies, Lyndon and audience. I stand behind the rest of my post, but I shouldn't have posted that, as that was ad hominem instead of referring to actual content of posts and ideas. Sorry, got carried away by boiling blood.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Sorry Sylas but intentionally or not, this whole thing has developed into an attack. One only needs to look at the 'terms of endearment' adddressed at myself, not to mention Somebody's false claims of my removing a post after they had shown it to be wrong.
I am going to get my CMB page back up and running - something I was doing before all this started (take a day or so) . In the meantime, whilst you are sitting in the Library, get hold of a copy of "Quantum Electrodynamics" R. P. Feynman, Advanced books classics, perseus books reading, Mass. 1991, 1998 and turn to page 96.
Here you will find your Compton effect. The momenta of photon and electron are shown as p and q.
Didn't you show that this was impossible?
Cheers,
Lyndon

I was thinkin gthis might have gotten lost, given the recent messages, but I'd really like to hear your response to this, so I'm asking again.

Once you have answered Grey's questions, could you please answer mine too. I am asking them for the fourth time. They are very basic problems spotted by someone who wouldn't even consider themselves an armchair physicist, so you shouldn't have any trouble addressing the issues...

Lyndon, here is a quote from Paul Marmet's paper (referenced on another thread, "solar limb redshift", by Jens): Redshift of Spectral lines in the Sun's Chromosphere.
So it looks like there may be two separate effects involving light redshift, that of relativistic or quantum effect versus the electrodynamiic effect. Though this paper deals with solar redshift, an anomalous and possibly non-Doppler effect, it may also apply to where your quest is taking you. I only offer it here as a piece of additional information. The rest of the paper goes into greater mathematical detail. My personal bias is that I find an inflationary Big Bang philosophically untenable, a something from nothing, which leads to the ingenuous idea that cosmic light redshift is due to an expanding universe Doppler effect. I suspect another cause, yet to be fully indentified. Good luck.

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

No; I most certainly did not.

I did not refer to Feynman diagrams, and Feynman diagrams are not evaluated at intermediate points as Lyndon appears to suggest. What would be impossible is an interaction described by half that diagram; and there is no such case in any of Feynman's books.

I don't have the book in front of me; but I am familiar with it, and was reading it last week. This is a Feynman diagram; a very handy technique for particle reactions in quantum physics. Here is an on-line reference from Stanford that people may like to refer to, in order to confirm my remarks.

• Lines contained within the diagram are "virtual" particles, and cannot be observed.
• The lines for virtual particles are associated with energy and momentum, and energy and momentum must balance at every vertex; but the virtual particles themselves don't have to satisfy the rules for relating energy, momentum and rest mass for real particles.
• The lines for particles leaving the diagram do have to satisfy the rules relating energy, momentum and rest mass for real particles.
• A physical real world process is actually described by a sum of many such diagrams; not one diagram. There are many diagrams required for proper analysis of the Compton effect.
• The diagrams are essentially a calculation method; not a description of a simple sequence of events.

If Lyndon wants to use Feynman diagrams to explain his process, that would be great! But they have their own rules as well. If Lyndon does not use Feynman diagrams, then all of this is another red herring. We could spend a few more pages pointing out what a Feynman diagram represents, and how energy momentum is applied to such diagrams, and why it is incorrect to think of midpoints in the diagram representing observable states that might impact on other particles outside the diagram, and so on; and we would still be no nearer having a proper energy momentum analysis for Lyndon's process.

Lyndon proposes not a Compton scattering reaction; but a photo-absorption, in which the electron absorbs a photon, and then is subsequently decelerated within the plasma to emit a CMB photon, and then emits a redshifted photon along the same line as the initial photon, and then is decelerated again to emit another CMB photon.

The initial photo-absorption gives a small boost to an electron to match the initial momentum, and gives energy of Q^2/2mc^2 to the electron. This leaves most of the energy unaccounted for. This is not analogous to virtual particles in the middle of a Feynman diagram, and my arguments don't carry over to virtual particles in the middle of a Feynman diagram. To even make the comparison is yet another error in basic physics, this time in understanding Feynman diagrams.

What Lyndon requires is a plain description of his own process, considering both momentum and energy. If Lyndon wants to invoke intermediate stages in which energy and momentum are not able to be balanced, then he needs to get into quantum physics. For example, I would be fine with a balanced energy momentum analysis, in which there was a very short intermediate state in which the balance is lost. The maximum duration of such stages is given by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

For example, he could use ΔEΔt <= h/4pi. The description in Lyndon's paper of an electron absorbing a 500nm photon has an energy imbalance of about 4e-19 J, and h/4pi is about 5e-35. The time gap before balance must be restored with the re-emitted photon and the two CMB photons is no more than:
Δt <= h/4piΔE = 1.25e-16 seconds

At different times, Lyndon has proposed a number of possible solutions, all of which would fail to pass review in any credible science journal.

• Lyndon has suggested that the energy is maintained in an excited state of the electron. Unfortunately, there is no such thing.
• Lyndon has suggested oscillations of the electron. As we saw in the example of three electrons and two nails, this tends to violate momentum conservation.
• Lyndon has suggested that the energy ends up in the rest of the plasma. No mechanism for this has been given; and it has the additional problem of getting all the energy back to power re-emission of the electron.
• Lyndon has suggested that the "rest of the universe" can account for the balance. This is pretty much the same as the "rest of the plasma". This should be quantified, with forces and mechanisms identified. Unfortunately, this approach works very poorly for making up an energy imbalance. With very stiff forces as in a rigid crystal lattice, it can be possible to make up momentum imbalance; but energy is invariably ends up mostly in the light weight particles of the immediate reaction.
• This latest post seems to suggest that a temporary imbalance in energy occurs. There is a strong limit of the duration of any such imbalance, by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which means there can be no more than about 1.25e-16 seconds before re-emission. This is inconsistent with Lyndon's paper in which an electron has time between absorption and emission to decelerate under the influence of forces in the plasma and emit the CMB photon as bremsstrahlung.

The real problem is that Lyndon fails to pick an approach and stick to it, and never gives a quantified description of any of them sufficient to show consistency with energy momentum conservation.

The solution of having everything happening as part of the one interaction is essentially what I proposed in my analysis a couple of pages back, here.

Cheers -- Sylas

For real particles this is impossible, though for a virtual particle this can happen. You can also look up Mandl and Shaw (Quantum Field Theory, p 153) and see that the momentum and energy of the incoming and outgoing states are conserved, and that the energy loss due to recoil for the photon is zero for the case that you have been talking about. If you are able to show, using QED, how your case works, you're more than welcome to give it a go.

Wrong.
You proposed a "theory" alternative to the established theories.
In the other thread, other posters and I pointed out numeorous problems that undermine the validity of your "theory".
Whether you are trying to "defend" your "theory" or prove us wrong, the burden of proof is still yours.
And so far you have failed.

Where are the full calculations that support the basic mechanism of your "theory"?

Let's be honest.
You are not able to address the problems of your "theory" to your satisfaction, so you try to divert the attention to something else.
Your "theory" has been proven wrong in so many ways that is not even funny, but you cannot accept it.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

The simple energy momentum analysis is a basic technique that can be used to give a sanity check on any proposed physical process.

The technique works. It is a valid way to show when descriptions of a process are inadequate. If before and after states of an alleged interaction don't balance, then the process is not physically possible.

"Defences" that appeal to subtle properties of an alleged process are red herrings. Those details are immaterial; what is required is a plain description of where energy and momentum ends up.

"Defences" that appeal to quantum principles in which brief conservation violations can occur are also not responsive. They can be useful for calculating details of how a process occurs, like rates or cross sections or durations; but any "violation" of conservation laws is virtual, or transitory, and does not remove the responsibility for finding a balance of energy and momentum as part of the complete electron-photon interaction.

Lyndon has said repeatedly that my analysis assumes longitudinal waves. This is emphatically false. No such assumptions were used or required. Simply add up energy and momentum based on final states as described in Lyndon's paper, and this analysis remains totally unaffected by details of how we get from the initial state to the final state. The problem is simply that energy and momentum don't add up.

If someone proposes a new theory in which photons perform triple Mossbauer backflip with reverse M-brane pike and two virtual gluons to manage the absorption, the argument I have given will still apply. A new theory could propose a photon transforms briefly into a bowl of petunias, within the time constraints of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle; and that the electron reacts to beauty or charm for the instant of their existence. My argument is unchanged. Someone may well note -- correctly -- that classical wave analysis requires a transverse push to the electron. This makes no difference to the simple observation that initial and final states don't balance.

From the transverse nature of the electromagnetic wave, it follows that absorption by an electron is impossible; because the photon must be scattered to balance the sideways push on the electron. But we know it is impossible already by the energy and momentum analysis made independently of the nature of the wave.

To do an energy momentum analysis, just add up energy terms and momentum terms, before and after the interaction. This is what Lyndon still needs to do, but he's stuck because the interaction is necessarily imbalanced.

The three electrons and two nails was not such an analysis. It neglected to consider momentum. Lyndon gave the electron a kinetic energy of about 4e-19 J to balance energy, but this required momentum 612 times greater than the original momentum, and in the wrong direction. No other momentum terms were identified. It is not the responsibility of readers to guess such things. Lyndon needs to account for momentum explicitly himself.

Lyndon's paper does not give such an analysis; it fails to balance energy. The paper uses standard formulae based on momentum conservation to give the electron kinetic energy of about 1e-24 J, leaving 99.99976% of the energy unaccounted for.

Lyndon has spoken vaguely of other particles. A real energy momentum analysis must quantify where the momentum and energy ends up. Potential energy involves displacing particles in the field to new locations. Kinetic energy involves a particle velocity. Both require forces that can be calculated. Oscillation is not a separate energy term; it merely refers to cyclical exchanges of kinetic and potential energy with two or more particles and restoring forces.

Recently, we've had mention of Feynman diagrams, suggesting that intermediate states of the diagram are unbalanced. So they are; but they don't describe the end state of an interaction. A related red herring is the uncertainty principle. These quantum based ideas are sophisticated ways to calculate the details of a process; but they don't give a license to ignore energy momentum conservation for the conclusion. The good old high school level energy momentum analysis continues to be valid when applied to the consequences of an interaction, even when the full power of quantum mechanics is applied to spell out how the interaction proceeds.

Cheers -- Sylas

PS. Thanks Grey. I did indeed say "longitude" in one place where I meant "transverse", but the rest of the context makes clear what I meant. I spoke of a sideways push. The matter of "escape velocity" for two electrons is poor wording, but the number still reflects correctly the magnitude of the forces. In the case of repulsive forces between like charges, it is the velocity attained in the limit by a particle starting from rest and driven to a distance where it escapes further influence. If Lyndon is unwilling to deal with the substantive issues from someone who occasionally makes such slips, I don't mind in the least. But it's a bit hypocritical to make a big deal about this, and just keep mousy quiet about his own acceleration provided for an electron by another electron at one meter difference, which was out by a factor of ten. These kinds of minor defects are not significant, for either side.

Even though you didn't assume longitudinal waves, there is an irony in Lyndon's accusation. He is now trying to justify his model by appealing to the QED picture, with its virtual particles. Oddly enough, QED is probably one of the very few places that you may come across longitudinally polarised (virtual) photons.

I can't even figure out what that means. Can you expand please?

Cheers -- Sylas

I'll try to say something a little more coherent later on, but if you want,you can have a quick look at this page.

Thanks... also useful is the link I gave above from SLAC; though it does not mention polarization. A virtual photon can have mass, apparently; and I think this may be associated with the possibility of strange polarizations. Does that makes sense? I'm just starting out on this, however. Here are SLAC's pages on Feynman diagrams, and Real and Virtual Particles.

Your reference is especially relevant for this thread, since right at the start it speaks of the emission of a photon by an electron, and explains that this is impossible due to the requirements of energy momentum conservation. Deja vu!

Cheers -- Sylas

Time for me to step in again.

I'll note that despite numerous posts asking for a full-up quantitative calculation on the part of lyndonashmore, none has been given.

Is this calculation available on the web page you said was no longer online, lyndonashmore? If so, put it online and describe it, or post it here.

This is an extremely reasonable request, given that it appears to me that you have been obfuscating and avoiding answering questions for weeks now. When people argue for theories that are against the mainstream, I give them plenty of leeway (or rope, if you prefer that metaphor). But my patience is now up.

It's time to sit still, lyndonashmore, and answer the questions.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com