photons and reflection
in [Basics]
|
Prev: Question about common-collector circuits.
Next: Absolutly Free Lectures on C++ by MIT Studied Professor
From: Louis Boyd on 1 Dec 2009 11:30 George Herold wrote: > On Nov 29, 5:12 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> > "> No. There is no particle of light. It is easily demostratable as a >>question that cannot be answered." > > > What? You haven't heard of a PMT? (Photomultiplier tube) or the > photoelectric effect? > Neither wave or QM theory does a thorough job of explaining the observed effects of electromagnetic energy interacting with matter. Wave theory is generally more useful when dealing with propagation, refraction, reflection and diffraction through and around material objects. QM is generally more useful when electromagnetic energy interacts with matter and energy is exchanged. They're both incomplete models of what happens in nature. Use the one which works best to explain a given phenomena. Or come up with more complete unified model if you can. Lots of luck. It's not like others haven't tried with varying degrees of success but the results are generally are too cumbersome to be useful.
From: Darwin123 on 1 Dec 2009 12:48 On Nov 29, 4:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 29, 1:22 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 27, 7:24 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:>As I understand it (big qualifier > Einstein questioned his photon and said he could never reconcile it > with the wave. > He questioned what he won the Nobel Prize for. > What wave is the particle of light in? the electric opr magnetic wave? > Mitch Raemsch I would like to hear you discuss photoluminescence and Raman scattering!
From: Helpful person on 1 Dec 2009 12:55 On Dec 1, 11:30 am, Louis Boyd <b...(a)apt0.sao.arizona.edu> wrote: > > Neither wave or QM theory does a thorough job of explaining the observed > effects of electromagnetic energy interacting with matter. Wave theory > is generally more useful when dealing with propagation, refraction, > reflection and diffraction through and around material objects. > QM is generally more useful when electromagnetic energy interacts with > matter and energy is exchanged. They're both incomplete models of what > happens in nature. Use the one which works best to explain a given > phenomena. Or come up with more complete unified model if you can. > Lots of luck. It's not like others haven't tried with varying degrees > of success but the results are generally are too cumbersome to be useful. Thanks for the words of sanity! www.richardfisher.com
From: nuny on 1 Dec 2009 14:26 On Nov 30, 6:33 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 30, 6:25 pm, Salmon Egg <Salmon...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > In article <pan.2009.11.30.19.59.55.233...(a)example.net>, > > Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> wrote: > > > > Look at a piece of aluminum foil. One side is mirror-smooth, such that > > > you could see your reflection, if you could make it flat enough. The other > > > side is matte, and doesn't give a mirror-like reflection. Does help at all? > > > Use X-band sensitive eyes! > > > Bill > > > -- > > An old man would be better off never having been born. > > There is no way light can be quantized in energy comming out of the > atom is it produces a full spectrum of energy levels. Well, that explains lasers. No, wait, it doesn't. > Mitch Raemsch - Still in the aether of time Too bad you refuse to enter the real world. Mark L. Fergerson
From: Rich Grise on 1 Dec 2009 16:39
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:25:06 -0800, Salmon Egg wrote: > -- > An old man would be better off never having been born. So, when do you plan to eat the golden bullet? 'Cause otherwise, you're going to be one one day. Good Luck! Rich |