🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 2, 4:55 pm, xxe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 2, 1:43 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 11:38 am, John J <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/extremelaser/
>
> > > I don't know if the above has yet been cited. Perhaps it is relevant to
> > > this thread.
>
> > It's relevant to past discussions of the photoelectric effect, but it
> > has nothing to do with phase waves and superluminal velocities.
>
> > Some time back during the course of a discussion about the
> > photoelectric effect I predicted that an extremely high intensity beam
> > would cause photoelectron ejection, even though the frequency of the
> > beam was below the cutoff frequency for the metal surface. This was
> > based upon a complex wave model of the photoelectric effect. Briefly,
> > the theory is that at any given moment any atom is subject to em waves
> > from a virtually infinite number of sources (charges). Ordinarily we
> > call this the thermal radiation background. This background noise is
> > usually incoherent, and thus tends to do no more than to transfer heat
> > energy, which is of course why it's called thermal radiation.
> > However, heat energy is internal kinetic energy, and for the metal
> > surface this involves an amplification or "pumping" of the orbital
> > electron's energies.  On average, at normal room temps, these energies
> > are below the work function of the metal surface. Even so, because of
> > the chaos, electrons will evaporate from the surface, just as
> > molecules evaporate from the surface of a liquid. The velocity
> > distribution fits a Bell curve. So in the real world (as opposed to
> > the modified forms of reality presented in some texts), there are
> > electrons being ejected from the surface even before we shine a light
> > beam on it. These evaporated electrons form a "space charge", which,
> > because of the lack of a direct source of light above the cutoff
> > frequency, already seem defy the photoelectric theory of Einstein's.
> > Well, the theory isn't defeated just yet. Thermal radiation is a
> > spread spectrum, of which the infrared region just happens to be the
> > peak. So there is already light impinging on the surface at
> > frequencies above the cutoff frequency.  Now by the wave theory, this
> > means that the surface is pumped. For every electron within the
> > surface that is ejected by thermal radiation, there are electrons who
> > came just a fraction short of gaining enough KE to break free. It is
> > this percentage of the electrons that starts to be ejected when a
> > light beam strikes the surface. Each gains just enough extra energy to
> > go ahead and jump off the surface. These electrons do not absorb an
> > entire photons worth of energy, but just sufficient energy, added to
> > the energy that they already had, to break free.  The remainder of the
> > photons worth of energy emitted by the light source becomes just that
> > much more heat energy in the surface, barring the amount of it that is
> > reemitted as em radiation.  The energy of the photoelectrons
> > corresponds to the energy of the source photons only because
> > conservation of energy requires it. If these didn't match, then energy
> > will have been lost from or gained by the system. It's just
> > conservation of energy.
> > Now the reason for the frequency dependence is this, the electron in
> > the surface is oscillating wrt positive protons, and what is required
> > is a boost in it's KE of a sufficiently short interval. Longer
> > wavelengths of radiation would tend to accelerate both charges
> > together, in the same direction, or in other words tend to only jiggle
> > the atoms as a whole. Higher frequencies are required to produce
> > opposing forces on these charges, i.e. to split them apart.  It's a
> > time limiting contstraint moreso than an energy limiting constraint.
> > For this reason, a very intense beam of coherent radiation of a
> > frequency below the cutoff frequency could still produce sufficient
> > separating forces between these charges. And apparently this has been
> > verified by the experiment that you mention.
>
> xxein:  I figured/found most of this out in the late 80's.  Your
> version carries as much weight as mine.  We differ very little, but we
> do.  Nothing worthy of discussion at this time.  This was my second
> confirmation that Einstein was climbing on the wrong branch.
> Sloughing the Lorentzian was the first (I did create it from scratch
> just like Lorentz did.  I had a mission.).
>
> I was able to carry out this mission to include a notion of gravity,
> so I was wondering what you think of gravity since we seem to think
> alike.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The metrical approach of Einstein's is correct in principle, but
incorrect in its execution.  The same metrical approach can be applied
to electromagnetic interactions. Consider point charges A and B.  Each
is considered to influence the other both electromagnetically and
gravitationally with a delay r/c. If A jiggles, then B jiggles in
response. B feels only one force, it has only one acceleration, and in
simple form F is just ma. That is, forces don't have types, and so it
is an error in logic to attempt to produce different types of it and
incorporate them into theory. Force is actually quite redundant, there
is in reality only the acceleration and the matter being accelerated.
Force is a mathematical concept only.

In the case of ordinary collisions between neutral masses, the
accelerations are all produced via electromagnetic interactions
between the charged particles of which the masses are composed.  If we
provide for long range electromagnetic repulsive forces between these
masses, then the accelerating forces are all still electromagnetic in
origin.  But in the former case, since the masses are neutral, we
cannot distinguish these inertial accelerations from a localized
gravitational field. This is because when we take the objects as a
whole it is easy to overlook the complex series of electromagetic
interactions that are actually responsible. In my estimation precisely
this same error is commited in the case of the gravitational
interactions that we observe. If a complexity of electromagnetic
interactions can cause neutral objects to repel each other (ordinary
collisions), then it must also be possible for a similar complexity of
electromagnetic interactions to cause neutral masses to attract one
another. And indeed, in the case of oppositly charged masses, they do
attract, not just the charges of opposite sign, but the entire neutral
mass to which these charges are bound. Once again, in order for
particles of charge of both signs to be accelerated, a complex series
of electromagnetic interactions is required, exactly as in the case of
collision between neutral masses.  So here is an example of where the
Coulomb force can be regarded as equivalent to a gravitational force.
I am not saying that Coulomb forces are responsible for gravitational
interactions between charge neutral masses however. As it so happens
charges also exert lorentz forces, and these are dependent upon the
relative speeds of the charges wrt each other.  Because of these,
there really are no "neutral" masses. The positive and negative
charges within ordinary matter do not have equal average speeds, but
there is an assymetry between them due to their differences in mass.

This imbalance in lorentz forces can lead to net attractions, and I
have at one point provided the math to that end.