photons and reflection

[BURT]

A mirror is an example that dispoves quantum mechanics. The reflection
is absorption and emmision taking place accross all visual
frequencies. Quantum mechanics is wrong about quantization of energy
levels for a mirror's atoms. It doesn't work. The broader truth is not
quantization and quantum mechanics needs to be corrected.

Mitch Raemsch

 

[Louis Boyd]

BURT wrote:

A mirror is an example that dispoves quantum mechanics. The reflection
is absorption and emmision taking place accross all visual
frequencies. Quantum mechanics is wrong about quantization of energy
levels for a mirror's atoms. It doesn't work. The broader truth is not
quantization and quantum mechanics needs to be corrected.

Misapplying a theory to an observation then claiming you've disproved

the theory is just silly. Quantum mechanics is useful. QM is useful
when describing the interaction of light and matter at a sub molecular
level If QM was expanded to explain all wave phenomena it would be too
cumbersome to use. What's so difficult about just applying wave and QM
when they're needed? Most people never need either theory. You can sit
on a couch and watch football games on TV without any knowledge of
either theory. Theories are simply tools. If a hammer works and a
screwdriver doesn't then use the hammer. You could make a tool with a
hammer on one end an a screwdriver on the other but it wouldn't be as
useful as two separate tools.

 

[Jamie]

BURT wrote:

On Dec 9, 2:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 9, 3:34 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:






On Dec 8, 8:26 pm, Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:

BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8b79ee65-5af0-44a2-bf00-
a67ed367a...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

The truth is meant to be known. Quantization is the lesser concept
than full ranges of energy.

So then, what is the truth? If quantization is 'less correct', then
what is 'more correct'. If you're going to tell us we're wrong, then
tell us what's right. We're listening.

Brian
--http://www.skywise711.com-Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ:http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions":http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Quantization only applies to stimulated emmision.

Oh dear.




Opaque objects have to absorb all frequencies.

Quantum Mechanics is wrong.

Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Perhaps you have something to say?

Mitch Raemsch
:-

 

[BURT]

On Dec 10, 2:35 pm, Louis Boyd <b...@apt0.sao.arizona.edu> wrote:

BURT wrote:
A mirror is an example that dispoves quantum mechanics. The reflection
is absorption and emmision taking place accross all visual
frequencies. Quantum mechanics is wrong about quantization of energy
levels for a mirror's atoms. It doesn't work. The broader truth is not
quantization and quantum mechanics needs to be corrected.

Misapplying a theory to an observation then claiming you've disproved
the theory is just silly.   Quantum mechanics is useful.  QM is useful
when describing the interaction of light and matter at a sub molecular
level   If QM was expanded to explain all wave phenomena it would be too
cumbersome to use.  What's so difficult about just applying wave and QM
when they're needed?   Most people never need either theory. You can sit
on a  couch and watch football games on TV without any knowledge of
either theory.   Theories are simply  tools.  If a hammer works and a
screwdriver  doesn't then use the hammer.  You could make a tool with a
hammer on one end an a screwdriver on the other but it wouldn't be as
useful as two separate tools.

Einstein said that Quantum Mechanics was wrong because God did not
play dice with the universe.
Evidently it is also wrong for a mirror.

Mitch Raemsch

 

[BURT]

On Dec 10, 6:11 pm, whit3rd <whit...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 10, 11:40 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

A mirror is an example that dispoves quantum mechanics. The reflection
is absorption and emmision taking place accross all visual
frequencies. Quantum mechanics is wrong about quantization of energy
levels for a mirror's atoms. It doesn't work.

The mirror reflects only if the light incoming is under the plasma
frequency of the free electrons in the metallic reflector layer (there
are other reflection mechanisms for nonmetals).  The reflection is
equal to the incoming light, so there is NO 'transition' between
energy states required in any particle.

No absorption.  No emission.  

The mirror wouldn't work if that is true.

The metallic bonding
of the atoms in the mirror's silver layer acts to free the electrons
from those atomic energy-level rules, in this case.  You can't
make a normal mirror from un-attached atoms (gases) because
the electrons are bound and not free.

They're bound to their shell and quantum jump. Of course you are a
moron.

Mitch Raemsch

 

[whit3rd]

On Dec 10, 11:40 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

A mirror is an example that dispoves quantum mechanics. The reflection
is absorption and emmision taking place accross all visual
frequencies. Quantum mechanics is wrong about quantization of energy
levels for a mirror's atoms. It doesn't work.

The mirror reflects only if the light incoming is under the plasma
frequency of the free electrons in the metallic reflector layer (there
are other reflection mechanisms for nonmetals). The reflection is
equal to the incoming light, so there is NO 'transition' between
energy states required in any particle.

No absorption. No emission. The metallic bonding
of the atoms in the mirror's silver layer acts to free the electrons
from those atomic energy-level rules, in this case. You can't
make a normal mirror from un-attached atoms (gases) because
the electrons are bound and not free.

 

[Skywise]

BURT <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in news:c581b031-362b-4b21-a413-
df5644b6ab30@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

Quantum Mechanics is wrong.

Prove it. I'm listening.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

 

[Skywise]

BURT <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in news:43c0344b-f497-4beb-bc9b-
7bd8f0037845@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

A mirror is an example that dispoves quantum mechanics. The reflection
is absorption and emmision taking place accross all visual
frequencies. Quantum mechanics is wrong about quantization of energy
levels for a mirror's atoms. It doesn't work. The broader truth is not
quantization and quantum mechanics needs to be corrected.

Thermodynamics.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

 

[whit3rd]

On Dec 10, 6:23 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Dec 10, 6:11 pm, whit3rd <whit...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 10, 11:40 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

... there is NO 'transition' between
energy states required in any particle.

No absorption.  No emission.  

The mirror wouldn't work if that is true.

The interaction of light and matter is not exclusively by atomic
absorption
and emission. Neither atomic absorption nor emission is necessary to
model a mirror's action.

The metallic bonding
of the atoms in the mirror's silver layer acts to free the electrons

They're bound to their shell and quantum jump.

Shells are for atoms. In solid or liquid metals, it's 'energy bands'.
Because the conduction band of conductive metals is not full of
electrons, an
individual electron can accelerate while remaining inside the band.
That's why free electrons are important. Conduction of electricity
and
reflection of light both require those free electrons in a wide
energy band.

 

[Bob Masta]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:40:26 -0800 (PST), BURT
<macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:

A mirror is an example that dispoves quantum mechanics. The reflection
is absorption and emmision taking place accross all visual
frequencies. Quantum mechanics is wrong about quantization of energy
levels for a mirror's atoms. It doesn't work. The broader truth is not
quantization and quantum mechanics needs to be corrected.

So, according to your hypothesis, if a mirror is
absorbing and re-emitting, what cause the emission
to have a particular angle?

Just curious...



Bob Masta

DAQARTA v5.00
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
DaqMusic - FREE MUSIC, Forever!
(Some assembly required)
Science (and fun!) with your sound card!

 

[BURT]

On Dec 10, 9:18 pm, whit3rd <whit...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 10, 6:23 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Dec 10, 6:11 pm, whit3rd <whit...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 10, 11:40 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
... there is NO 'transition' between
energy states required in any particle.

No absorption.  No emission.  

The mirror wouldn't work if that is true.

The interaction of light and matter is not exclusively by atomic
absorption
and emission.  Neither atomic absorption nor emission is necessary to
model a mirror's action.



The metallic bonding
of the atoms in the mirror's silver layer acts to free the electrons
They're bound to their shell and quantum jump.

Shells are for atoms.  In solid or liquid metals, it's 'energy bands'.
Because the conduction band of conductive metals is not full of
electrons, an
individual electron can accelerate while remaining inside the band.
That's why free electrons are important.  Conduction of electricity
and
reflection of light both require those free electrons in a wide
energy band.

You're dumb.

Mitch Raemsch

 

[BURT]

On Dec 11, 5:02 am, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:40:26 -0800 (PST), BURT

macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
A mirror is an example that dispoves quantum mechanics. The reflection
is absorption and emmision taking place accross all visual
frequencies. Quantum mechanics is wrong about quantization of energy
levels for a mirror's atoms. It doesn't work. The broader truth is not
quantization and quantum mechanics needs to be corrected.

So, according to your hypothesis, if a mirror is
absorbing and re-emitting, what cause the emission
to have a particular angle?

Just curious...

Bob Masta

              DAQARTA  v5.00
   Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
             www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
    Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
           Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
         DaqMusic - FREE MUSIC, Forever!
             (Some assembly required)
     Science (and fun!) with your sound card!

Quantization is violated.

Mitch Raemsch

 

[Skywise]

BURT <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in news:e9749752-39a5-411f-b626-
b2dc1dbeeccf@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

You're dumb.

You're a crank.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

 

[BURT]

On Dec 11, 2:24 pm, Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:

BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:e9749752-39a5-411f-b626-
b2dc1dbee...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

You're dumb.

You're a crank.

Brian
--http://www.skywise711.com- Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ:http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions":http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Show me where I am wrong Brian and how you are right in
thermodynamics.

Mitch Raemsch

 

[Anti Vigilante]

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:34:35 -0800, BURT wrote:

On Dec 8, 8:26 pm, Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8b79ee65-5af0-44a2-bf00-
a67ed367a...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

The truth is meant to be known. Quantization is the lesser concept
than full ranges of energy.

So then, what is the truth? If quantization is 'less correct', then
what is 'more correct'. If you're going to tell us we're wrong, then
tell us what's right. We're listening.

Brian
--http://www.skywise711.com- Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ:http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html Quake
"predictions":http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html Sed quis
custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Quantization only applies to stimulated emmision. Opaque objects have to
absorb all frequencies.

Um, uh huh. No! Objects must reflect or allow through what they cannot
receive.

They cannot receive that which has no room to be contained.

They cannot receive half or 1 and half of a full cycle from its point of
view because they would remain perturbed and the perturbation would snap
back and spit out the radiation.

Quantum Mechanics is wrong.

Mitch Raemsch

--
Fuck the Enlightenment! Viva la Renaissance!

 

[Skywise]

BURT <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3a7407c1-d14a-4d33-8a67-
7c526dbc6218@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

On Dec 11, 2:24 pm, Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:e9749752-39a5-411f-b626-
b2dc1dbee...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

You're dumb.

You're a crank.

Brian
--http://www.skywise711.com- Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ:http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions":http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Show me where I am wrong Brian and how you are right in
thermodynamics.

I climbed Mount Everest. Prove I didn't.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

 

[Autymn D. C.]

On Dec 8, 12:54 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Dec 8, 3:39 am, p.kins...@ic.ac.uk wrote:

BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The truth is meant to be known. Quantization is the lesser
concept than full ranges of energy.

The process of quantization doesn't require discrete, countable
sets of EM mode functions (although that may well make the
mathematics easier). Quantization doesn't necessarily restrict
the allowed energies.

Quantization is defined as making energy transitions discrete for the
electron.
It does not accomadate a mirror.

Show me where I am wrong.

A networkling or molecular band material has finite bodies and finite
lifetime; therefore it has finite transitions. Continvum radiation is
a figure of speech for a spectrum's thorouhness and there's no
threshhold where a spectrum becomes sheer--"sheer" also a relative
term.

 

[Autymn D. C.]

On Dec 8, 1:44 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:

"George Herold" <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bc2be262-2a4f-4ba9-ab61-2140c09aa064@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 8, 11:16 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
"George Herold" <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0497f18c-647c-4792-a268-197905b5f01d@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Hi Androcles. I use to like this analogy too. Until I learned a few
years ago that in E-M radiation the E and B are in phase!

used
You mean in near-field?

==========================================> > Then you should unlearn it immediately. If E and B were in phase
both would be zero simultaneously and that violates the first law of
thermodynamics, you'd create energy from nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
But anyway, Maxwell's equations never did claim E and B were in phase,
what you've "learnt" is a rumour spread by the incompetent.
==========================================
If both voltage and currend are at nouht then presumably there are

diaelčctric and diamagnetic bodies in medium to offset them such thas
their potential yields somewise.

At first I
thought there was a mistake... but then discovered that the mistake
was mine. (Your link shows correctly the in phase behavior so I
realize I'm not telling you anything you don't know.)

Anyway the analogy can lead to false conclusions. (At least for me.)

So now I see that the E field at some time was 'created' by some B
field at a previous time....

E, D, B, H -> S; D -> E, H -> B, D -> B, H -> E

===========================================> > Any spark will start the process. A flame is a chemical reaction
whereby the electrons of the atoms are rearranged to build a different
molecule. 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O.
===========================================
Which starts to 'weird' me out if think
too hard. All of a sudden I picture 'photons' travelling in both
directions.

George H.

==========================================> > Androcles' third law: For every photon there is an equal and
opposite rephoton.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rephoton.gif
(It's Newton's third law applied to E-M waves and allows
for light to travel in beams -- quite simple, really.)

What a mutt--anafotňn. Two fotňns meet and make a plasmonic beam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

There is a picture if you scroll down a bit.

George H.
================================================> Wackypedia is written by both incompetent kooks and the wise.
Kooks outnumber the wise by at least 100:1, perhaps a 1000:1.
Wackypedia has it wrong. See the discussion page, there are a set of
tabs labelled "article", "discussion", "edit this page" and "history"
at the top.
YOU can edit the page, I refuse to have anything to do with it.

How would you know the ratio of writers?

Faraday wrote E =  -dB/dt.
He did not write E = B, he did not write dE/dt = -dB/dt and
he did experiment.  A CHANGING magnetic field produces
an electric field. Ask any generator designer.

None of them show fasis or hýsteresis.

-Aut

 

[Autymn D. C.]

Berkeley
spatial
vice versa

Nescientist Androcles, the medium is the charge, not nothing.

 

[Autymn D. C.]

On Dec 2, 9:03 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:

"Bill Taylor" <w.tay...@math.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message

news:cdf336a9-30f5-4657-9322-d6f248be477d@z35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

The nature of light is   "?"  .

The upper part represents the wave aspect;
the lower part represents the particle aspect.

--  Befuddled Bill

** They travel as waves but arrive as photons.

The upper part is the magnetic aspect;
the lower part is the electric aspect.

 http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm

If a rotating magnet turns another magnet then there is
an energy transfer across empty space. One rotation
corresponds to one photon.
That's the nature of light.

empty as in not moot? http://google.com/groups?q=%22Comparisons+for+the+illiterate%22
(update: find|leave, cleave|clive, meld|sunder, meet|split)

Some purists want that to read curl E = -dB/dt but really the electric field is wherever the conductors take it. In this motor is parallel with the shaft, curling around the iron, but also across the brushes. "Curl" is misleading.

Yes, "curling". If the loop were infinite, there'd be no reaction.
So it's "E o( -B,/t,", where o( is proports.

When we do that we say we have a dielectric and a diamagnetic material that can affect the operation, but it is not a requirement for the process to occur. Thus the vast reaches of space across which light reaches us in packets of energy from individual atoms need contain no aether with properties of permittivity or permeability, these are properties of matter and not a requirement for the transmission of energy. All that is necessary and sufficient is that magnetic and electric fields must exist in the vacuum of space..

The vacvum is still a material medium, the far-field of the radiant
body--namely, its charges. There is no transmission without matter:
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+-autumn+sun+bird.

The "wave" nature of the photon is simply a misinterpretation of such concepts as "wavelength", for the wave shown above is a wave not in space, but in time. "Now" is shown by the black vertical line and as time passes the trace shows the voltage and gaussage* as it once was, not how it is now. It doesn't actually exist "now", but it did "then". There is no wave"length", only wave duration. The horizontal axis is the time axis, not a distance axis. The "poles" of the photon are it's centre and the surface of a sphere at infinity, for there is no electric or magnetic field except between poles.

its
Length is in time. A wave (especially in condensed matter) has bobble
(room) and ripple (time) componends: wavearm (stride) and wavestint
(tide) in near-field/pole and wavespan (stride) and wavelength (tide)
in far-field/group; plasmňns do them all. And there is no infinity
for the univers isn't infinitely eld.

-Aut