In a footnote of a recent book co-authored by Joel Primack, a
contributer to the standard model and originator of the cold dark
matter theory, I read,

"When electrons are changing energy levels they oscillate between the
levels, radiating light, until the transition is complete. The
oscillation frequency corresponds to the frequency of the light radiated."

I've never seen this quantum level oscillation idea before but it
seems a good explanation for the photon since oscillating electrons
generate EM fields according to Maxwell. Is this oscillation
mechanism the generally accepted explanation for atomic light emission?

There is a scene in one of Feynman's books where he fails in his
attempt to explain to his father where the photon comes from in atomic
emission and I'm sure Joel's explanation would have done the job.
Feynman is not likely to have missed something like this if it's accurate.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

On a sunny day (Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:09:18 -0700) it happened Bob Cain
wrote in
:


In a footnote of a recent book co-authored by Joel Primack, a
contributer to the standard model and originator of the cold dark
matter theory, I read,

"When electrons are changing energy levels they oscillate between the
levels, radiating light, until the transition is complete. The
oscillation frequency corresponds to the frequency of the light radiated."

The oscillation is obvious from a wave perspective,

I've never seen this quantum level oscillation idea before but it
seems a good explanation for the photon since oscillating electrons
generate EM fields according to Maxwell. Is this oscillation
mechanism the generally accepted explanation for atomic light emission?

'Photon' is just a mathematical concept, : multiply Planck's constant
with frequency.
It has no real meaning whatsoever.


There is a scene in one of Feynman's books where he fails in his
attempt to explain to his father where the photon comes from in atomic
emission and I'm sure Joel's explanation would have done the job.
Feynman is not likely to have missed something like this if it's accurate.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...243faebec10b01

It is simple.

But too complicated for Einstein.

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...

In a footnote of a recent book co-authored by Joel Primack, a
contributer to the standard model and originator of the cold dark
matter theory, I read,

"When electrons are changing energy levels they oscillate between the
levels, radiating light, until the transition is complete. The
oscillation frequency corresponds to the frequency of the light radiated."

I've never seen this quantum level oscillation idea before but it
seems a good explanation for the photon since oscillating electrons
generate EM fields according to Maxwell. Is this oscillation
mechanism the generally accepted explanation for atomic light emission?

There is a scene in one of Feynman's books where he fails in his
attempt to explain to his father where the photon comes from in atomic
emission and I'm sure Joel's explanation would have done the job.
Feynman is not likely to have missed something like this if it's accurate.

http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/...Pub.html#ref16

http://www.falstad.com/qmatomrad/

--
rb

Bob Cain wrote:
In a footnote of a recent book co-authored by Joel Primack, a
contributer to the standard model and originator of the cold dark
matter theory, I read,

"When electrons are changing energy levels they oscillate between the
levels, radiating light, until the transition is complete. The
oscillation frequency corresponds to the frequency of the light radiated."

Not only that, the polarization has a correpondence
too. It is eliptical or circular. A fact that many photon-spin
magicians
conveniently ignore with their polarizer 'magic'.

I've never seen this quantum level oscillation idea before but it
seems a good explanation for the photon since oscillating electrons
generate EM fields according to Maxwell. Is this oscillation
mechanism the generally accepted explanation for atomic light emission?

You Bet:
The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...ong/index.html

Visualizations
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...ight/index.htm
Course Work
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching.html


There is a scene in one of Feynman's books where he fails in his
attempt to explain to his father where the photon comes from in atomic
emission and I'm sure Joel's explanation would have done the job.
Feynman is not likely to have missed something like this if it's accurate.

Sure it is accurate and Feynman didn't miss it:
It was just that when you shook one charge, another
would shake later. There was a direct interaction between
charges, albeit with a delay. The law of force connecting
the motion of one charge with another would just involve a
delay. Shake this one, that one shakes later. The sun atom
shakes; my eye electron shakes eight minutes later,
because of a direct interaction across.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...n-lecture.html

Sue...



Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

Sue has no one read my post of the structure of an electron cloud
theory? Bert

Bob Cain a écrit :
In a footnote of a recent book co-authored by Joel Primack, a
contributer to the standard model and originator of the cold dark
matter theory, I read,

"When electrons are changing energy levels they oscillate between the
levels, radiating light, until the transition is complete. The
oscillation frequency corresponds to the frequency of the light radiated."

What of when electrons absorb energy from incoming radiation. Did he
also propose a mechanics for this other aspect of the question ?

I've never seen this quantum level oscillation idea before but it
seems a good explanation for the photon since oscillating electrons
generate EM fields according to Maxwell. Is this oscillation
mechanism the generally accepted explanation for atomic light emission?

There is a scene in one of Feynman's books where he fails in his
attempt to explain to his father where the photon comes from in atomic
emission and I'm sure Joel's explanation would have done the job.
Feynman is not likely to have missed something like this if it's accurate.


Bob

André Michaud

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:

"Bob Cain" wrote:

In a footnote of a recent book co-authored by Joel Primack, a
contributer to the standard model and originator of the cold dark
matter theory, I read,

"When electrons are changing energy levels they oscillate between the
levels, radiating light, until the transition is complete. The
oscillation frequency corresponds to the frequency of the light radiated."

I've never seen this quantum level oscillation idea before but it
seems a good explanation for the photon since oscillating electrons
generate EM fields according to Maxwell. Is this oscillation
mechanism the generally accepted explanation for atomic light emission?

Note carefully what oscillates: the wavefunction of the electron. This
does not mean that the electron is oscillating.

Consider a plane polarised TEM mode in a waveguide (eg an optical fibre)
with a single photon, with a source at one end, and a detector at the
other end. The electromagnetic fields oscillate, but the photon
does not. If you look at the energy density of the fields, you'll get a
sequence of little blobs, 2 per cycle. The blobs move along at the phase
speed in the waveguide. When one of them hits the detector at the end, the
detector will click.

A Schroedingerite might well say that the photon is present in one of
those blobs, but you don't know in which one it is until you detect it.

Assume the source was a single atom. Since there are times when the
detector can click, and times when it won't, the probability that the
electron is found in the lower state must oscillate, and this oscillation
frequency must equal the optical frequency. Again, a Schroedingerite might
well say that the electron dropped to the lower level at the time that the
particular blob of light containing it departed the atom.

There is a scene in one of Feynman's books where he fails in his
attempt to explain to his father where the photon comes from in atomic
emission and I'm sure Joel's explanation would have done the job.
Feynman is not likely to have missed something like this if it's accurate.

http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/...Pub.html#ref16

http://www.falstad.com/qmatomrad/

Thanks, I was trying to find where I'd left these details after you posted
them in our earlier discussion of this.

To the OP, this is recommended reading.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Sue has no one read my post of the structure of an electron cloud
theory? Bert

I don't think I have the right security clearance to find out
what people are reading. Are they spying on that too?


This looks pretty cloudy.
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/...Pub.html#ref16
....but it is admitedly idealised so doesn't discuss recoil or
polarization.

Did you post it on a regular web page like:
http://geocities.yahoo.com/


Sue...

"Timo Nieminen" wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0607210844370.27543-100000@localhost...
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:

"Bob Cain" wrote:

In a footnote of a recent book co-authored by Joel Primack, a
contributer to the standard model and originator of the cold dark
matter theory, I read,

"When electrons are changing energy levels they oscillate between the
levels, radiating light, until the transition is complete. The
oscillation frequency corresponds to the frequency of the light
radiated."

I've never seen this quantum level oscillation idea before but it
seems a good explanation for the photon since oscillating electrons
generate EM fields according to Maxwell. Is this oscillation
mechanism the generally accepted explanation for atomic light emission?

Note carefully what oscillates: the wavefunction of the electron. This
does not mean that the electron is oscillating.

I presume you are piggybacking and responding to the
OP but I'll toss my $.02 in here.

How can "the electron" be distinct from "the wave function
of the electron"?


Consider a plane polarised TEM mode in a waveguide (eg an optical fibre)
with a single photon, with a source at one end, and a detector at the
other end. The electromagnetic fields oscillate, but the photon
does not. If you look at the energy density of the fields, you'll get a
sequence of little blobs, 2 per cycle. The blobs move along at the phase
speed in the waveguide. When one of them hits the detector at the end, the
detector will click.

A Schroedingerite might well say that the photon is present in one of
those blobs, but you don't know in which one it is until you detect it.

Assume the source was a single atom. Since there are times when the
detector can click, and times when it won't, the probability that the
electron is found in the lower state must oscillate, and this oscillation
frequency must equal the optical frequency. Again, a Schroedingerite might
well say that the electron dropped to the lower level at the time that the
particular blob of light containing it departed the atom.

Hmm. So are you a Schroedingerite? Or are you argueing
against the instantaneous quantom leap? Agnostic?


There is a scene in one of Feynman's books where he fails in his
attempt to explain to his father where the photon comes from in atomic
emission and I'm sure Joel's explanation would have done the job.
Feynman is not likely to have missed something like this if it's
accurate.

http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/...Pub.html#ref16

http://www.falstad.com/qmatomrad/

Thanks, I was trying to find where I'd left these details after you posted
them in our earlier discussion of this.

To the OP, this is recommended reading.

Thanks. I take that as a compliment.


--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

--
rb

Hmmm, I beg to differ in the claim made below that the photon is a
"mathematical concept". In a physics lab its possible to do double slit
experiments one photon at a time, and you see the photons build up on
the screen. This is just one example of many. Photons are physically
real objects.

David McMahon
http://www.quantumphysicshelp.com/



Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:09:18 -0700) it happened Bob Cain
wrote in
:


In a footnote of a recent book co-authored by Joel Primack, a
contributer to the standard model and originator of the cold dark
matter theory, I read,

"When electrons are changing energy levels they oscillate between the
levels, radiating light, until the transition is complete. The
oscillation frequency corresponds to the frequency of the light radiated."

The oscillation is obvious from a wave perspective,

I've never seen this quantum level oscillation idea before but it
seems a good explanation for the photon since oscillating electrons
generate EM fields according to Maxwell. Is this oscillation
mechanism the generally accepted explanation for atomic light emission?

'Photon' is just a mathematical concept, : multiply Planck's constant
with frequency.
It has no real meaning whatsoever.


There is a scene in one of Feynman's books where he fails in his
attempt to explain to his father where the photon comes from in atomic
emission and I'm sure Joel's explanation would have done the job.
Feynman is not likely to have missed something like this if it's accurate.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...243faebec10b01

It is simple.

But too complicated for Einstein.