"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Seymour Grass wrote:
| Ah, but are you hip to the critique of British physicist Caroline
Thompson
| who is able to blow such experimentally tautological results totally
away
| with a single wave of her logical little finger?
|
| Bull****.

Tut, tut.

| This was a vetted and reproduced experiment.

Doesn't matter, if other interpretations of the data may be made. There are
other explanations for Einstein's results in the photoelectric paper.

snip

| Photons are
| real, or as real as atoms. Thompson is a crackpotess.

I would regard both those statements as being about equal in probative
value.

|
| In the meantime, the photon hypothesis has produced virtually -all- of
| modern electronic technology.

Just as there was much valid data that could be derived with the epicycles
of Ptolemy. Note that right at the beginning of this article is a statement
about the "helpful myth" of photon theory?

| Classical Maxwellian waves do not deal
| with electric fields in the small adequately, but only the average
| behaviour of such fields in the large.

That is only because you have not yet described those waves in the necessary
perspective. See the discussion about the "ultra-violet diamondback" as to
whether you look at him head on or from the side.

|
| The classical approach sucks lemons and would have gotten us -nowhere-
| technologically.

I don't know why you assume that classical mechanics as a status quo is what
I'm talking about. If it should be suggested that Einstein's photon theory
is inadequate to describe the mechanics of what's really going on in a solar
cell, this is in no way to deny the essentially unrelated elements of
Relativity which I accepted years ago.

Why aren't you dealing with the specific points of this thesis, instead of
bellowing like a bull with his balls caught in electric barb-wire? Instead
of howling in pain why aren't you thinking? I gave you a wonderful problem
to contemplate in the paradox between Planck's theory and that of Einstein,
to wit: How can photoelectric emission be described as an electron changing
from a quantum state of higher to lower energy after impact with a photon?
Get it? If the photon collides with and is absorbed by the electron, how
can that be described as changing from a state of higher to lower
energy--except what this article suggests is true?

| Petr Beckmann, who was not a crackpot but dead wrong,

Have you as yet quantized that fine distinction? If so, you should publish
the experimental results that we may know what are the controlling
variables.

| got us nowhere. Classical physics is history. Get used to it.

I don't know what block of wood you are hollering at, man, but by and large
that has been my opinion for years.

| The world
| is Lorentzian not Galilean . . .

Quite so.

| and energy comes in lumps.

Yes, and those are most properly called *quanta* not "photons".


--
JP David http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/

"Nothing can be more contemptible than to suppose Public Records to be True.
Read them & judge, if you are not a Fool," -- William Blake, *Marginalia*

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...
| Yes, yes, yes, yes
|
| That says enough.
| You are lost, this is sci.physics[.relativity] here, not alt.quack

The New Godwin's Law: "No sooner do you say the word "quack" than you might
as well be talking about the Holocaust--it's all over."

But just in case anyone should desire to get back down to brass tacks and
address the points of this article, here it is again . . .

So long as Einstein's helpful little myth of the 'photon' continues to be
the model for theoretical speculation about solar energy, progress toward
the discovery of a more efficient design for solar cells must remain
essentially at a stand-still.

For all intents and purposes, the solar cell is nothing but a diode, an
abysmally inefficient one at that, and never mind current researches into
various organic compounds, the use of indium and gallium, arseno-pyrite,
because thus far, nothing so economically feasible as silicon has yet come
to be produced as a reasonable replacement.

Physicists and chemists are stymied because they are hobbled by theoretical
mythologies about "hole-flow" and the particle superstition attaching to an
understanding of electromagnic radiation whether of light or electric
current.

A working hypothesis must go back to a state of understanding which precedes
all contemporary contradiction of particle/wave paradoxes, to Planck's
earliest assumptions which yet remain unaltered by Einstein's photoelectric
theory. What is required is nothing more than a critique of the logical
inconsistencies that presently plague the understandings of science in order
that by their exposure, they may, by the same dialectical process, be
resolved into the conclusions which obvious logical antitheses would reveal.

FROM THE BEGINNING
It was Planck's constant which proved his case that, generally speaking,
when a photosensitive element is exposed to light, an excitation occurs
which causes an electron in the outer shell of the atom to transmute from a
condition of higher energy to a lower.

It is standard in the practice of science to describe this phenomenon in the
parlance of the presently accepted mythology such as to say, "an electron is
emitted". Thus, according to myth, a hungry little fuzzy ball of material
substance of "negative charge" when impacted by another little ghost ball of
no charge, somehow that "photon", is then gobbled up by that little electron
entire, so that having now this extra energy, it is then moved to leap out
of its orbit and go a-wandering whither it will.

The trouble with this thesis is that it doesn't take Planck's mechanics at
face value which requires that the 'electron' be reduced, not increased in
its energy. On the face of it, and most literally considered, it would seem
that Quantum Theory as Planck introduced it would require a completely
opposite view of the nature of light energy.

THE ANTITHESIS
If light is viewed in lieu of all contemporary materialistic trappings as
being entirely without substance, as ought to seem most fundamentally
obvious to the intuition, and if it may be seen as having negative motion
such as one finds at the eye of a hurricane or going through an automotive
vacuum line, if it may be thought that electromagnetic radiation is
negatively propagated with the effect of a siphon, it may then be seen as
completely in comportment with Planck's view of what really happens to a
supposed orphan electron in a phosphorus doped silicon crystal--precisely
nothing much.

What happens? The electron is 'excited' by the light ray or wave (same
thing depending on which angle the wave is looked at, either you're seeing
the snake straight-on or from the side. If it's an ultra-violet diamondback
coming straight on, the undulations are so fine and of such high frequency
that you won't hardly know the thing was wiggling at all--what you see is
the ray and not the wave, and the head of the thing is the 'photon'--or let
us say the 'tail'.

Whenever something is being consumed by heat, it draws fuel and oxygen to
itself. Any campfire warms the air around the fire-ring not because some
storm of heat-rays and waves are coming out of the fire, but because the
thermal vortex is sucking everything around the ring into the fire--the air,
the earth, the skin molecules on faces of the cowboys singing "Oh, Bury Me
Not . . ." Anything and everything near or far from that campfire is being
excited into motion as energy being drawn toward the fire. Those cowboys
experience that excitation as heat because they are exposed to the fierce
cyclone of imploding quantum motion feeding the light energy in the fire.

Light makes the whole world visible to us because it excites the molecules
in everything so that the atoms glow in everything, the electrons in
everything are being excited into quantum motion. It's like your blood is
blue until being exposed to oxygen, it turns to red. Light energy to the
world is like oxygen to all the blue blood in it. It is not the light
energy which shines, it's everything else that shines being put into a state
of excitation by that luminal force.

Light is a negative force, like a tornado: There is no ejection of
electrons, there is only a depletion of energy in an electron; no electron
leaves its orbit, only the energy of the electron does that being drawn
away, as beach sand in an undertow of the ocean, by electromagnetic waves.

Now you can argue with this thesis till you're blue in the face talking
about ionization but you will never be able to produce a single one to look
at since every ion only exists theoretically as a model of what's really
the wave packets, quanta. Face it: matter is matter, and energy is
energy. The material model for the quanta of energy must now be put away in
favor of something a little more illustrative of what's really there.

--
John http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/ http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/

"In the upbringing of the Herd, humanity's almost boundless suggestivity
will be scientifically exploited." --Aldous Huxley in *Crome Yellow*

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...
|
| "Randy Poe" wrote in message
om...
| "Seymour Grass" wrote in message
...
| [snip]
|
| Somebody please tell me this was a satirical piece making
| fun of book-length crackpot posts. Nobody can simultaneously
| hold so many misconceptions in so many different subjects,
| can they?
|
| Even C. Thomson can ;-)

My hunch is that her I.Q. is probably ten points at least above yours,
judging by the intensity of your "wit" by comparison to hers. But since
mine has never been anything to brag about, you shouldn't let that make you
feel too bad that she is clearly much smarter than you are. I've put up
with that disgrace all these years, let's see if you're tough enough for it.


|
| Dirk Vdm
|
|

"Seymour Grass" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...
| Yes, yes, yes, yes
|
| That says enough.
| You are lost, this is sci.physics[.relativity] here, not alt.quack

The New Godwin's Law:

"No sooner do you sign your message with a pointer to
J.P.David's site http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/ than
you might as well be talking about the Holocaust--it's all over."

Dirk Vdm

"Seymour Grass" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...
|
| "Randy Poe" wrote in message
om...
| "Seymour Grass" wrote in message
...
| [snip]
|
| Somebody please tell me this was a satirical piece making
| fun of book-length crackpot posts. Nobody can simultaneously
| hold so many misconceptions in so many different subjects,
| can they?
|
| Even C. Thomson can ;-)

My hunch is that her I.Q. is probably ten points at least above yours,
judging by the intensity of your "wit" by comparison to hers. But since
mine has never been anything to brag about, you shouldn't let that make you
feel too bad that she is clearly much smarter than you are. I've put up
with that disgrace all these years, let's see if you're tough enough for it.

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/frank-zappa/56813.html

Dirk Vdm

Seymour Grass wrote:

So long as Einstein's helpful little myth of the 'photon' continues to be
the model for theoretical speculation about solar energy, progress toward
the discovery of a more efficient design for solar cells must remain
essentially at a stand-still.

http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

Solar cells are constrained by solid state physics (incompatible with
General Relativity) and thermodynamics (irrelevant to General
Relativity).

[snip]

Light is a negative force, like a tornado:

Ha ha ha. You could have at least said "circularly polarized light"
to include helicity in your wholly unjustified simile.

[snip]

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...
| My hunch is that her I.Q. is probably ten points at least above yours,
| judging by the intensity of your "wit" by comparison to hers. But since
| mine has never been anything to brag about, you shouldn't let that make
you
| feel too bad. I've put up
| with that disgrace all these years, let's see if you're tough enough for
it.
|
| http://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/frank-zappa/56813.html
|
Ah. I see. That does hurt your feelings because you know all about it, and
find that it's just such a big bummer to be reminded of it occasionally.
Yes, well the thing is that she is smarter than you and she's smarter than
me. Ain't that a bitch? Shall we both have a big cry over it?

Not. So dig it, Dood: she's a damn smart cookie and it's pretty sad to see
no light of admiration of that fact in the eyes of the likes of you. How
dull, dark and dreary to be like that, always to be so petty and envious of
somebody else's smarts instead of being hip enough to groove on it. How
childish.

Back to the issue: I believe that we may be on the verge of a valuable and
world-shaking discovery in the way of a nearly 100% efficient solar cell. I
didn't go into what that means. As I have spent many hours of late studying
the technology behind the design and manufacture of solar cells, I find a
number of reasons for the present inefficiency that plagues the technology,
as e.g. this: the idea that there is a migration of "holes" in the boron
doped p-silicon is a myth.

As I find the time for it, I will set out in more detail why I see this to
be the case. Obviously, if I should prove to be right, not only will the
result be a greatly improved technology for solar cells but for all
semi-conductors.

Since there would be fortunes to made *if I am right*, then it clearly
behooves anyone who has the true heart of an adventuring scientist, or even
so much as the petty normal mind of a normal greedy *******, then such a one
as the latter or the former should not to be so quick to snort and squeal
and make noises such as y'all been doing before all the facts are in? Think
twice before you should, due to a childish nature, cut yourself out of
something that might be worth a try.

--
John P David http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/

"No less amusing was it to envisage the inevitable pack of crooks and
ninnies abusing the smiling marble, and ill with envy, maddened by their own
mediocrity, rushing in pattering hordes to the lemming's doom." Vladimir
Nabokov: _Look at the Harlequins_

"Seymour Grass" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...
| My hunch is that her I.Q. is probably ten points at least above yours,
| judging by the intensity of your "wit" by comparison to hers. But since
| mine has never been anything to brag about, you shouldn't let that make
you
| feel too bad. I've put up
| with that disgrace all these years, let's see if you're tough enough for
it.
|
| http://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/frank-zappa/56813.html
|
Ah. I see.

You don't.
There was a specific reason why I chose this one.
You didn't spot the reason.
Caroline would have spotted the reason.

Dirk Vdm

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
| Seymour Grass wrote:
|
| So long as Einstein's helpful little myth of the 'photon' continues to
be
| the model for theoretical speculation about solar energy, progress
toward
| the discovery of a more efficient design for solar cells must remain
| essentially at a stand-still.
|
| http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
| http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
|
| Solar cells are constrained by solid state physics

Nope. Only by the present state of understanding in sold state physics.

| (incompatible with
| General Relativity)

Eh?

| and thermodynamics (irrelevant to General
| Relativity).

If you're talking about the tendency for infra-red and ultra-violet
radiation to heat the cell and reduce the efficiency overall; if you're
talking about the lack of any capacity of the cell to convert high frequency
radiation to electromotive force then you know why a new design is what
we're talking about.

|
| [snip]
|
| Light is a negative force, like a tornado:
|
| Ha ha ha. You could have at least said "circularly polarized light"
| to include helicity in your wholly unjustified simile.

Perhaps not so unjustified as you suggest. Believe it or not, (and it
shouldn't be so hard considering the context of hurricanes, cyclones and
tornados) I almost did include the phrase "helical vortices of light" but
since it had only just then dawned on me as I was writing this, it needs
more thought, as I am very slow in that way, low as my I.Q. is--I have to
get used to an idea, muse over it, check it for holes before I'm willing to
run it up out there like a Jolly Roger on front street.

I'll check out those links.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Ben Franklin

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...
| Ah. I see.
|
| You don't.
| There was a specific reason why I chose this one.
| You didn't spot the reason.
| Caroline would have spotted the reason.

No doubt about it.

She did have dinner with Roger Penrose once but from the sound of it, by the
time the wine was being served, he had the distinct sense that in the
presence of such a mind, he was disappearing into a singularity--he hurried
back to Oxford to his more accustomed black hole in Hawking's study.

|
--
John http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
"Seeking to know is only too often learning to doubt." -- Antoinette du
Ligier de la Garde Deshoulieres (1638-1694), French poet