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/
"Seeking to know is only too often learning to doubt." -- Antoinette du
Ligier de la Garde Deshoulieres (1638-1694), French poet

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.

See Grangier, Roger, Aspect "Experimental evidence for Photon
Anti-correlation effect on a beam splitter" Europhys Lett. pp 173-179,
volume 1.

Photons exist. It is strange that the photoelectric effect measurements
of themsleves did not demonstrate completely that photons exist, but
only that classical waves could not account for the effect. It is only
relatively recently the incontravertable evidence for photons is at hand.

Bob Kolker

"Robert J. Kolker" 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.
|
| See Grangier, Roger, Aspect "Experimental evidence for Photon
| Anti-correlation effect on a beam splitter" Europhys Lett. pp 173-179,
| volume 1.

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?

http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/Suggestions/suggestions.htm

|
| Photons exist. It is strange that the photoelectric effect measurements
| of themsleves did not demonstrate completely that photons exist . . .

Not at all, not so long as there is another more logical explanation for the
phenomenon and for the calculations which contrary to common scuttlebutt can
account for it in terms of classical wave mechanics--given a more astute
conception of wave characteristics.

| but
| only that classical waves could not account for the effect.

That's the scuttlebutt of bilge that was sloshing around the physics
department when you walked in as a student and took to be the necessary
state of things, based purely.on what would appear still to be a student's
unquestioning faith in scholarly authority.

| It is only
| relatively recently the incontravertable evidence for photons is at hand.

Not. Try reading the whole article before diving overboard--that is, less
overboard than down through the hatch. It never does to automatically
presume the validity of a foregone conviction before noting to the full any
evidence that may be here to blow it out of the water . . .
--

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/
"Seeking to know is only too often learning to doubt." -- Antoinette du
Ligier de la Garde Deshoulieres (1638-1694), French poet

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****. This was a vetted and reproduced experiment. There are others,
more recent, but I have not yet had time to look them up. Photons are
real, or as real as atoms. Thompson is a crackpotess.

In the meantime, the photon hypothesis has produced virtually -all- of
modern electronic technology. Classical Maxwellian waves do not deal
with electric fields in the small adequately, but only the average
behaviour of such fields in the large.

The classical approach sucks lemons and would have gotten us -nowhere-
technologically. Petr Beckmann, who was not a crackpot but dead wrong,
got us nowhere. Classical physics is history. Get used to it. The world
is Lorentzian not Galilean and energy comes in lumps.

Bob Kolker

"Seymour Grass" wrote in message ...

"Robert J. Kolker" 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.
|
| See Grangier, Roger, Aspect "Experimental evidence for Photon
| Anti-correlation effect on a beam splitter" Europhys Lett. pp 173-179,
| volume 1.

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?

http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/Suggestions/suggestions.htm

If you go Thompson, you go Demeo as well:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22c...mes+demeo%2 2
and then you go Wilhelm Reich:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22james+demeo%22+reich
and you go ether-based cloudbusters:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ja...22+cloudbuster
in short, you go full blown crookery:
http://www.orgonelab.org/research.htm

Dirk Vdm

"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?

- Randy

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

| If you go Thompson, you go Demeo as well:
|
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22c...mes+demeo%2 2
| and then you go Wilhelm Reich:
| http://www.google.com/search?q=%22james+demeo%22+reich
| and you go ether-based cloudbusters:
| http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ja...22+cloudbuster
| in short, you go full blown crookery:
| http://www.orgonelab.org/research.htm

Yes, yes, yes, yes (one for each link) but then you might go to

http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc....htm&no=1&tt=1

And here you will see a photo of the nice lady, and a bio which describes
her career at Cambridge, and following upon that a stint at . . .

"Reading University to gain the qualifications (an MSc in Biometry) for a
post as statistician at East Malling Research Station,"

There's something to be said about that highly practical end of science,
just as there are many who say that except for the time Einstein did in the
Swiss patent office, he might never have gained the sort of nuts and bolts
perspective of things so necessary to the job of forging a working
relationship between theory and facts. Ms Thompson has a Master of Science
degree in the study of the tricks that can be pulled with statistics and
logic, and she is expert on the subject of how people (yes, even
scientists)--if only unconsciously--bias their experimental results to suit
the theory, and how this can be done well enough to fool not only themselves
but anyone who is not studied in the science of those tricks. Experimental
results whether goosed by intent of the experimenter or not, are one thing,
their interpretation is quite another.

All I can say as to Ms Thompson is that nothing can be more clear than the
extraordinary quality of her intelligence, and whether she is right or wrong
as to this or that area of her studies, of one thing there can be no
doubt--she is one incredibly intuitive and amazingly astute lady. I don't
know about others around here, but damn it to hell! I have a great deal of
respect for people who can think with the kind of elegance that this lady
does, and I have *no* respect for those who have no recognition of that kind
of elegance. Indeed, more generally, I tend to think that people who have
never learned to think for themselves are precisely the sort who most often
have the imprecation "crank" crossing their slavering lips in reference to
people who can so think. And why are they like that? Well, anybody who can
think, doesn't have to think for long to think up the answer to that. ;-)

--
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*

"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?

The clearest evidence that one's critic is merely hopping about without a
leg to stand on, trying to hold on to both his painful shins at once, is the
way he will never address the specifics of the issue. And why? Because he
can't. He can only howl and keep on hopping, hoping, calling for a friendly
shoulder to lean on. ;-)

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

"They held even this, thus: namely, True Nature is that which does not
mislead another. And Wisdom is that which does not mislead itself. And
Conscientiousness is that which when it recognizes virtue, performs it." --
Zoroaster




|
| - Randy

"Seymour Grass" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

| If you go Thompson, you go Demeo as well:
|
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22c...mes+demeo%2 2
| and then you go Wilhelm Reich:
| http://www.google.com/search?q=%22james+demeo%22+reich
| and you go ether-based cloudbusters:
| http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ja...22+cloudbuster
| in short, you go full blown crookery:
| http://www.orgonelab.org/research.htm

Yes, yes, yes, yes

That says enough.
You are lost, this is sci.physics[.relativity] here, not alt.quack

Dirk Vdm

"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 ;-)

Dirk Vdm