My former post was ill conceived.

Photon wavelength? And Maxwell's single ray of EM radiation?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/IXjwXwjT5bk

I tried to connect Maxwell's planar waves with Planck's E=hf, just to explore
if I could find a relationship between the energy of a single EM ray with hf.
I assumed, and was a futile attempt, that the same formula (widely used) for
a monopole antenna could be used at quantum levels (atoms and below) to
get a value of the electric field of a SINGLE monochromatic wave that reaches
the atom and causes absorption of light.

I assumed a certain duration τ for the wave to be absorpted, which gave
absurd values for the E field.

Persevering on this attempt to find relationships between Maxwell and Planck in modern times, I've drop any assumption (I did two) and I'm
using now exact data from technical sites, using a CCD receiver as an
antenna. I gathered data from Hubble telescope and high-tech companies
like Marconi and its CCD47-10 1024x1024 pixel array, which is aimed to
be used in Spectroscopy, Scientific Imaging, Star Tracking, Medical Imaging, etc.

But first, a couple of statements:

1) I don't deny photons nor the vast photonic industry and scientific
theories on this subject.
2) I have an understanding that, in quantum physics, Maxwell's theory
is only considered as the explanation for quantum level events that
involve photons, and that such theory is considered as the upper
statistical behavior of zillions of photons, which behavior can be
explained by classic methods of continuum (with discreetness).
3) I believe that it's impossible to isolate a SINGLE PHOTON, because
of the un-observability of such infinitesimally small and fast "blob"
of energy.

Now, to the points.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the analog/digital applicability of CCD devices to the capture of
light (while was conceived in 1969 in the search of a memory which could
replace magnetic storage based on bubbles within mercury), its applicability rapidly expanded from digital ring memories to analog delay
lines and, very soon and coupled of semiconductors photosensitivity, to
pixelated sensors with increasing sensitivity to capture photons in a solid
state array of photon detectors.

Marconi's CCD47-10 1024x1024 pixels sensor, a VLSI chip, can be used
at spatial telescopes to capture the faintest source of visible and IR light.
Its quantum efficiency is close to 95% at about 550 nm, when the CCD is
coated for "midband capture".

I quote this explanation:
"The quantum efficiency of a charge-coupled device (CCD) is a property
of the photovoltaic response defined as the number of electron-hole pairs
created and successfully read out by the device for each incoming photon.
"
The idea behind is explained at this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device

from which I use this excerpt:
"In a CCD image sensor, pixels are represented by p-doped metal–oxide–semiconductor (MOS) capacitors. These MOS capacitors, the basic building blocks of a CCD,[1] are biased above the threshold for inversion when image acquisition begins, allowing the conversion of incoming photons into electron charges at the semiconductor-oxide interface; the CCD is then used to read out these charges."

So, photons come and ionize specific atoms in each pixel, liberating
electrons which are stored in a temporary pit at each capacitor, which
is emptied by CCD mechanism and stored in memory when the
capacitor trap reaches certain charge, say 1,000 electrons. Later, the
charge account (integer numberts of e-) is accumulated in a cell of
the matrix, to which further amounts can be added, as charges are
generated on the emptied pit by a new flux of photons.

Each pixel has an active area of 13x13 µm² and, discarding noisy components, it can store up to 100,000 e- charges per pixel. As the noise
is valued around +/- 2e- rms, a valid capture has to be well above this
uncertainty. Each round of capture is amplified with a sensitivity of
4.5 µV/stored electron, and stored as a digital value per pixel once a
valid amplification in the range of tens of mV is achieved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, trying to marry EM waves with photon's capture:

Having a capture area of 169 µm², and considering that ionization and
capture of electrons in the visible range of light wavelengths requires
an average energy of 2.2 eV, to capture a flux of 100 photons/sec, it is
equivalent to an EM radiation of 3.6.10^-11 µWatts.

These values are linked, and you can try this here:

https://www.kmlabs.com/en/wavelength-to-photon-energy-calculator

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, given the involved power at reception, now classic formulae for
EM planar waves can be used, like this one:

Iavg = c.εo.Eo²/2 (Watts/m²)

where c is the speed of light, εo is the permittivity of free space, and Eo is the maximum electric field strength; intensity, as always, is power per unit area (in W/m2).

And, having an "antenna" with an effective area of 169 µm², the avg. power
received at each pixel is:

Pavg = 169.10^-12.c.εo.Eo²/2 (Watts)

Being εo = 8.69.10^-12 Farad/mt and rounding c as 3.10^8 mt/sec, the
equation is:

Pavg = 2.24.10^-13. Vo²(Watts)

Vo (Volts) is the peak Voltage of Eo across the pixel.

-----------------------------------------------

Finally, the flux of 100 photons/sec, having an equivalent to an EM radiation of 3.6.10^-11 µWatts is equated to the power of an EM wave:

3.6.10^-17 W = 2.24.10^-13. Vo² W

So, Vo² = 160 µV² and Vo = 12.65 µV

So, with this, to produce a flux of 100 photons/sec over a single pixel
of the CCD sensor at wavelengths around 550 nm (visible light), each
one with an energy of 2.25 eV, an EM wave with peak voltage of
12.65 µV across a single pixel of the array is needed.

Knowing Vo, the values of Eo and Ho can be calculated for such EM wave,
in terms of Maxwell's equations for planar waves in free space.

Even when I'm not doing it, the value of Eo for a single photon/sec could
be calculated, but it would be invalid due to noise errors of +/-2e-.

And this is what can be achieved with THIS Marconi device, which SNR put it as a state of the art achievement in INDUSTRIAL production.

More sensitive devices could be designed by requirement, but at high cost.

Finally, the famous 1995 picture obtained by the Hubble Deep Field
project took 10 days and more than 100 hours of exposure to collect
photons from faint galaxies almost at the edge of visible universe.

https://esahubble.org/science/deep_fields/

Today, this resolution has been increased several times, with new technologies.

It's said that a rate of 1 photon/minute was detected then. The final
picture required a huge amount of postprocessing.

And from NASA:

https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/hubble_UDF.html

I quote:

"Photons of light from the very faintest objects arrived at a trickle of one photon per minute, compared with millions of photons per minute from nearer galaxies."

ONE PHOTON PER MINUTE? And the noise? Ultra heavy post-processing.

Op 15-aug.-2021 om 08:33 schreef Richard Hertz:
> My former post was ill conceived.

Yes, and they carefully explained to you what went wrong.
So now you can spout a new batch of crap that, thanks to
the new jargon you picked up there, again will be slightly
better disguised.
It's a well known process here. Crackpots come here to
learn how to use the proper jargon to formulate nonsense.
You're being served very well and you're doing very well,
so don't go away too soon.

Dirk Vdm

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 10:19:07 AM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

<snip>

> Op 15-aug.-2021 om 08:33 schreef Richard Hertz:
> > My former post was ill conceived.
> Yes, and they carefully explained to you what went wrong.
> So now you can spout a new batch of crap that, thanks to
> the new jargon you picked up there, again will be slightly
> better disguised.

Listen, J.T. Kirk: I don't give a flying fuck about what you and others think about me.

I don't know how old are you, but I guess that you are close to 60 (due to your long stance here).
I'm well past 60 and never in my life I had to pick "new jargon" from anyone, thanks to God.

I've read enough of technical and scientific material for 50 years, and I have had a good career
in classrooms (as student and a teacher) and in my professional field. I can absorpt information
at a fast pace and also enjoy of a good and deep memory, which I marry with my intellectual
abilities to perform whatever it takes.

I decided, around 2016, to use my spare time to study fields of physics (as a hobby) and, also,
to read biographies about the most relevant scientists in the last 400 years (including Einstein).
So far, I've read and digested more than 200 books in history of science, physics and cosmology,
which entertains me. ME only, not involving any of you.

Sometimes I post here to troll relativists (easy target, because are indoctrinated reactionaries),
and I find pleasure in showing them blatant contradictions on concepts in SR, GR or QM but,
specially when I wag Einstein. The highly biased soldiers of relativism come to the scene in full force,
in particular when I insinuate or present proofs of Einstein plagiarism.

But I have a limit about the time spent on some topics or activities (like coming here to debate or whatever)
and about a month or two ago, I was fed up with my readings, so I gave a chance to come back here after two
years of absence. This comeback was a last chance that I gave myself on the topics I've mentioned, before
turning into something else as an intellectual ability.

I CAN'T UNDERSTAND how come a human being can be at this forum for 10, 15 or 20 years, and always around
a very narrow field of interests. I become bored short after while, so I choose another HOBBY (in the field of
knowledge).

> It's a well known process here. Crackpots come here to
> learn how to use the proper jargon to formulate nonsense.
> You're being served very well and you're doing very well,
> so don't go away too soon.

I have no post any theory of my own here, nor now neither in the two
years (2017-2019) that I spent before. I only try to post with humor, wit
and knowledge of my own. Also, I use this to perfect my English, which
is not my native tongue.

And, as I have almost nothing to hide, when I become aware of misconceptions or just plain errors
in what I wrote, I have no problems to admit it and try to correct them (as I did in the second try on
the Maxwell-Planck photon's stuff).

Finally, I wrote here MOSTLY to myself. I like to read a good post of mine, appreciate its logical consistence,
and observe and react upon other forist's comments. I also find amusing to post funny things (according to
my sense of humor) but I regret that very few here is in possession of such virtue (VERY FEW).

But copy anyone? Absorb or clone jargon or ideas? No way, Sir. I left it TO EINSTEIN and his worshippers,
which always find a convenient explanation for data to fit theory or the inverse.

> Dirk Vdm

Now, in other order of things, what do you think about my post?

I know that conclusions are floppy and the post is incomplete.

To my understanding, the conclusions are unsatisfactory TO ME, as I couldn't reach a connecting point between
Maxwell and photonics at the smallest level of matter, so I had to stop at the spatial size of a pixel surface of an
advanced CCD sensor, like those used since after 1995.

My problem is that, going down to a lower space than the surface of a pixel, the things have to turn to statistical
analysis. In particular, applying the industry accepted measurement of quantum efficiency.

Even when considering that it is a bunch of short and elementary EM waves what hits the surface, to generate the
adopted value of 100 photons/sec, I have to deal with Avogadro Number to quantify how many atoms are in the
pixel of the CCD.

Using data from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant
and using an arbitrary atom that occupy 30 A³ (30.10^-30 m³), I find that a perfect solid state surface of 169 µm²
and just one atom thick, has 563 million of atoms (much more as I augment thickness).

So, the case that 100 photons/sec are generated on this amount of atoms, when the physical pixel is shunned by
a radiating EM wave having 3.6.10^-17 Watts is puzzling me. specially if I try to find out what really is the quantum
efficiency of photodetectors in the pixel. No match between waves and photons is found by me.

563 millions of atoms in a perfect physical pixel in the CCD sensor, and only 100 photons/sec?

On 8/15/2021 12:09 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

>
> 563 millions of atoms in a perfect physical pixel in the CCD sensor, and only 100 photons/sec?
>

That's how weak the light is. Assuming 50% efficiency, only 200
photons/second impinge on the sensor area.

Also why such long exposure time. You need lots of photons to get a
decent image out of the noise.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> My former post was ill conceived.
>
> Photon wavelength? And Maxwell's single ray of EM radiation?
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/IXjwXwjT5bk
>
> I tried to connect Maxwell's planar waves with Planck's E=hf, just to explore
> if I could find a relationship between the energy of a single EM ray with hf.
> I assumed, and was a futile attempt, that the same formula (widely used) for
> a monopole antenna could be used at quantum levels (atoms and below) to
> get a value of the electric field of a SINGLE monochromatic wave that reaches
> the atom and causes absorption of light.
>
> I assumed a certain duration τ for the wave to be absorpted, which gave
> absurd values for the E field.

And in fact, you are still missing the point. The wave theory is what says
that energy is deposited over an interval of time. This in turn says that
if you tune down the intensity of light in a photoelectric cell setup, then
the promptness of the ejected electrons should be delayed, with a linear
dependence on that intensity. But this is not what’s seen. The emission is
both immediately prompt and does not depend on the intensity of the light.
The photon model, which says that the energy transfer is ALL AT ONCE,
accurately matches that behavior.

>
> Persevering on this attempt to find relationships between Maxwell and
> Planck in modern times, I've drop any assumption (I did two) and I'm
> using now exact data from technical sites, using a CCD receiver as an
> antenna. I gathered data from Hubble telescope and high-tech companies
> like Marconi and its CCD47-10 1024x1024 pixel array, which is aimed to
> be used in Spectroscopy, Scientific Imaging, Star Tracking, Medical Imaging, etc.
>
> But first, a couple of statements:
>
> 1) I don't deny photons nor the vast photonic industry and scientific
> theories on this subject.
> 2) I have an understanding that, in quantum physics, Maxwell's theory
> is only considered as the explanation for quantum level events that
> involve photons, and that such theory is considered as the upper
> statistical behavior of zillions of photons, which behavior can be
> explained by classic methods of continuum (with discreetness).
> 3) I believe that it's impossible to isolate a SINGLE PHOTON, because
> of the un-observability of such infinitesimally small and fast "blob"
> of energy.
>
> Now, to the points.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Due to the analog/digital applicability of CCD devices to the capture of
> light (while was conceived in 1969 in the search of a memory which could
> replace magnetic storage based on bubbles within mercury), its
> applicability rapidly expanded from digital ring memories to analog delay
> lines and, very soon and coupled of semiconductors photosensitivity, to
> pixelated sensors with increasing sensitivity to capture photons in a solid
> state array of photon detectors.
>
> Marconi's CCD47-10 1024x1024 pixels sensor, a VLSI chip, can be used
> at spatial telescopes to capture the faintest source of visible and IR light.
> Its quantum efficiency is close to 95% at about 550 nm, when the CCD is
> coated for "midband capture".
>
> I quote this explanation:
> "The quantum efficiency of a charge-coupled device (CCD) is a property
> of the photovoltaic response defined as the number of electron-hole pairs
> created and successfully read out by the device for each incoming photon.
> "
> The idea behind is explained at this link:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device
>
> from which I use this excerpt:
> "In a CCD image sensor, pixels are represented by p-doped
> metal–oxide–semiconductor (MOS) capacitors. These MOS capacitors, the
> basic building blocks of a CCD,[1] are biased above the threshold for
> inversion when image acquisition begins, allowing the conversion of
> incoming photons into electron charges at the semiconductor-oxide
> interface; the CCD is then used to read out these charges."
>
> So, photons come and ionize specific atoms in each pixel, liberating
> electrons which are stored in a temporary pit at each capacitor, which
> is emptied by CCD mechanism and stored in memory when the
> capacitor trap reaches certain charge, say 1,000 electrons. Later, the
> charge account (integer numberts of e-) is accumulated in a cell of
> the matrix, to which further amounts can be added, as charges are
> generated on the emptied pit by a new flux of photons.
>
> Each pixel has an active area of 13x13 µm² and, discarding noisy
> components, it can store up to 100,000 e- charges per pixel. As the noise
> is valued around +/- 2e- rms, a valid capture has to be well above this
> uncertainty. Each round of capture is amplified with a sensitivity of
> 4.5 µV/stored electron, and stored as a digital value per pixel once a
> valid amplification in the range of tens of mV is achieved.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now, trying to marry EM waves with photon's capture:
>
> Having a capture area of 169 µm², and considering that ionization and
> capture of electrons in the visible range of light wavelengths requires
> an average energy of 2.2 eV, to capture a flux of 100 photons/sec, it is
> equivalent to an EM radiation of 3.6.10^-11 µWatts.
>
> These values are linked, and you can try this here:
>
> https://www.kmlabs.com/en/wavelength-to-photon-energy-calculator
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now, given the involved power at reception, now classic formulae for
> EM planar waves can be used, like this one:
>
> Iavg = c.εo.Eo²/2 (Watts/m²)
>
> where c is the speed of light, εo is the permittivity of free space, and
> Eo is the maximum electric field strength; intensity, as always, is power
> per unit area (in W/m2).
>
> And, having an "antenna" with an effective area of 169 µm², the avg. power
> received at each pixel is:
>
> Pavg = 169.10^-12.c.εo.Eo²/2 (Watts)
>
> Being εo = 8.69.10^-12 Farad/mt and rounding c as 3.10^8 mt/sec, the
> equation is:
>
> Pavg = 2.24.10^-13. Vo²(Watts)
>
> Vo (Volts) is the peak Voltage of Eo across the pixel.
>
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Finally, the flux of 100 photons/sec, having an equivalent to an EM
> radiation of 3.6.10^-11 µWatts is equated to the power of an EM wave:
>
> 3.6.10^-17 W = 2.24.10^-13. Vo² W
>
> So, Vo² = 160 µV² and Vo = 12.65 µV
>
> So, with this, to produce a flux of 100 photons/sec over a single pixel
> of the CCD sensor at wavelengths around 550 nm (visible light), each
> one with an energy of 2.25 eV, an EM wave with peak voltage of
> 12.65 µV across a single pixel of the array is needed.
>
> Knowing Vo, the values of Eo and Ho can be calculated for such EM wave,
> in terms of Maxwell's equations for planar waves in free space.
>
> Even when I'm not doing it, the value of Eo for a single photon/sec could
> be calculated, but it would be invalid due to noise errors of +/-2e-.
>
> And this is what can be achieved with THIS Marconi device, which SNR put
> it as a state of the art achievement in INDUSTRIAL production.
>
> More sensitive devices could be designed by requirement, but at high cost.
>
> Finally, the famous 1995 picture obtained by the Hubble Deep Field
> project took 10 days and more than 100 hours of exposure to collect
> photons from faint galaxies almost at the edge of visible universe.
>
> https://esahubble.org/science/deep_fields/
>
> Today, this resolution has been increased several times, with new technologies.
>
> It's said that a rate of 1 photon/minute was detected then. The final
> picture required a huge amount of postprocessing.
>
> And from NASA:
>
> https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/hubble_UDF.html
>
> I quote:
>
> "Photons of light from the very faintest objects arrived at a trickle of
> one photon per minute, compared with millions of photons per minute from nearer galaxies."
>
> ONE PHOTON PER MINUTE? And the noise? Ultra heavy post-processing.
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
> Op 15-aug.-2021 om 08:33 schreef Richard Hertz:
>> My former post was ill conceived.
>
> Yes, and they carefully explained to you what went wrong.
> So now you can spout a new batch of crap that, thanks to
> the new jargon you picked up there, again will be slightly
> better disguised.
> It's a well known process here. Crackpots come here to
> learn how to use the proper jargon to formulate nonsense.
> You're being served very well and you're doing very well,
> so don't go away too soon.
>
> Dirk Vdm
>

“I will learn relativity by starting with nothing and making a lot of bad
guesses on a discussion group. It should only take me 180 years.”

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 3:49:43 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> > I tried to connect Maxwell's planar waves with Planck's E=hf, just to explore
> > if I could find a relationship between the energy of a single EM ray with hf.
.....
> > I assumed a certain duration τ for the wave to be absorpted, which gave absurd values for the E field.
.....

> And in fact, you are still missing the point. The wave theory is what says
> that energy is deposited over an interval of time. This in turn says that
> if you tune down the intensity of light in a photoelectric cell setup, then
> the promptness of the ejected electrons should be delayed, with a linear
> dependence on that intensity. But this is not what’s seen. The emission is
> both immediately prompt and does not depend on the intensity of the light..
> The photon model, which says that the energy transfer is ALL AT ONCE,
> accurately matches that behavior.

I'm not missing ANY point at all.

Starting with 1901 Planck (there were many failed attempts by him on BBCR,
until 1896 Wien's paper hit his nerves badly, and he invested the next 4 years
to literally kill Wien theory, wich was good for higher frequencies than IR).

Both of them thought on Maxwellian EM waves.

When Planck, in the last 6 months of 1900 get closer to the solution for the BBCR,
he was still thinking in EM waves within a BBC at thermal equilibrium, and with his
resonators emitting and absorbing EM waves (as radiation that filled the cavity).

His conclusions were: "Radiation travels as EM waves (Maxwell) within the BBC, but
are emitted or absorbed in discrete amounts having N.h.f energy, being h a quantum
of action".

Here is a link for a blog I wrote two years ago, just to post the history of such discovery
since 1860 and Kirchoff's theorem to be solved by future generations, as he said.
This is the only experiment done by me to publish something, as I'm not interested on it.
It was a proof for myself, and never pushed for it to be known (except once, here):

https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html

You have to understand that the energy E = h.f = h/T is not delivered instantaneously. As it is
clearly at plain sight in such a formula, the quantum of action h takes a time T to be delivered.

Some thing COULD happen with an EM single wave (just a ray of light), being that in both cases
the formula c = λ.f = λ/T is the same for both theories.

Even when is almost impossible to measure the time length for the atomic process of emission
of absorption of photon in a SINGLE ATOM, as it happens with many, many atoms at the same time,
I know of figures that put such duration in the range of 1 to 100 picoseconds (a wide dispersion).

So, the energy is not delivered instantaneously nor by a photon, neither by an EM wave captured by
a military radar in the X band (or similar with IR waves and detectors used in missiles).

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 10:19:07 AM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Op 15-aug.-2021 om 08:33 schreef Richard Hertz:
>>> My former post was ill conceived.
>> Yes, and they carefully explained to you what went wrong.
>> So now you can spout a new batch of crap that, thanks to
>> the new jargon you picked up there, again will be slightly
>> better disguised.
>
> Listen, J.T. Kirk: I don't give a flying fuck about what you and others think about me.
>
> I don't know how old are you, but I guess that you are close to 60 (due
> to your long stance here).
> I'm well past 60 and never in my life I had to pick "new jargon" from
> anyone, thanks to God.
>
> I've read enough of technical and scientific material for 50 years, and I
> have had a good career
> in classrooms (as student and a teacher) and in my professional field. I
> can absorpt information
> at a fast pace and also enjoy of a good and deep memory, which I marry with my intellectual
> abilities to perform whatever it takes.
>
> I decided, around 2016, to use my spare time to study fields of physics
> (as a hobby) and, also,
> to read biographies about the most relevant scientists in the last 400
> years (including Einstein).
> So far, I've read and digested more than 200 books in history of science,
> physics and cosmology,
> which entertains me. ME only, not involving any of you.
>
> Sometimes I post here to troll relativists (easy target, because are
> indoctrinated reactionaries),
> and I find pleasure in showing them blatant contradictions on concepts in SR, GR or QM but,
> specially when I wag Einstein. The highly biased soldiers of relativism
> come to the scene in full force,
> in particular when I insinuate or present proofs of Einstein plagiarism.
>
> But I have a limit about the time spent on some topics or activities
> (like coming here to debate or whatever)
> and about a month or two ago, I was fed up with my readings, so I gave a
> chance to come back here after two
> years of absence. This comeback was a last chance that I gave myself on
> the topics I've mentioned, before
> turning into something else as an intellectual ability.
>
> I CAN'T UNDERSTAND how come a human being can be at this forum for 10, 15
> or 20 years, and always around
> a very narrow field of interests. I become bored short after while, so I
> choose another HOBBY (in the field of
> knowledge).

Richard, look. This forum is ABOUT a very narrow field of interest. NO ONE
is saying that one’s full range of interests should be contained to a
single discussion forum. You should of course use MANY discussion forums to
discuss your MANY areas of interest. And if you are no longer interested in
relativity and want to get into other areas of interest to you, then stop
dwelling here and find a place more suited to your new interest. Isn’t that
obvious?

>
>> It's a well known process here. Crackpots come here to
>> learn how to use the proper jargon to formulate nonsense.
>> You're being served very well and you're doing very well,
>> so don't go away too soon.
>
> I have no post any theory of my own here, nor now neither in the two
> years (2017-2019) that I spent before. I only try to post with humor, wit
> and knowledge of my own. Also, I use this to perfect my English, which
> is not my native tongue.
>
> And, as I have almost nothing to hide, when I become aware of
> misconceptions or just plain errors
> in what I wrote, I have no problems to admit it and try to correct them
> (as I did in the second try on
> the Maxwell-Planck photon's stuff).
>
> Finally, I wrote here MOSTLY to myself. I like to read a good post of
> mine, appreciate its logical consistence,
> and observe and react upon other forist's comments. I also find amusing
> to post funny things (according to
> my sense of humor) but I regret that very few here is in possession of
> such virtue (VERY FEW).

And so, since this isn’t a place where people of a certain STYLE congregate
to talk about many things, but is instead a place where people of many
styles congregate to talk about one thing, you should not be at all
surprised that your hoped-for outcomes did not arrive as expected.

>
> But copy anyone? Absorb or clone jargon or ideas? No way, Sir. I left it
> TO EINSTEIN and his worshippers,
> which always find a convenient explanation for data to fit theory or the inverse.
>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Now, in other order of things, what do you think about my post?
>
> I know that conclusions are floppy and the post is incomplete.
>
> To my understanding, the conclusions are unsatisfactory TO ME, as I
> couldn't reach a connecting point between
> Maxwell and photonics at the smallest level of matter, so I had to stop
> at the spatial size of a pixel surface of an
> advanced CCD sensor, like those used since after 1995.
>
> My problem is that, going down to a lower space than the surface of a
> pixel, the things have to turn to statistical
> analysis. In particular, applying the industry accepted measurement of quantum efficiency.
>
> Even when considering that it is a bunch of short and elementary EM waves
> what hits the surface, to generate the
> adopted value of 100 photons/sec, I have to deal with Avogadro Number to
> quantify how many atoms are in the
> pixel of the CCD.
>
> Using data from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant
> and using an arbitrary atom that occupy 30 A³ (30.10^-30 m³), I find that
> a perfect solid state surface of 169 µm²
> and just one atom thick, has 563 million of atoms (much more as I augment thickness).
>
> So, the case that 100 photons/sec are generated on this amount of atoms,
> when the physical pixel is shunned by
> a radiating EM wave having 3.6.10^-17 Watts is puzzling me. specially if
> I try to find out what really is the quantum
> efficiency of photodetectors in the pixel. No match between waves and
> photons is found by me.
>
> 563 millions of atoms in a perfect physical pixel in the CCD sensor, and
> only 100 photons/sec?
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 3:49:43 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I tried to connect Maxwell's planar waves with Planck's E=hf, just to explore
>>> if I could find a relationship between the energy of a single EM ray with hf.
> ....
>>> I assumed a certain duration τ for the wave to be absorpted, which gave
>>> absurd values for the E field.
> ....
>
>> And in fact, you are still missing the point. The wave theory is what says
>> that energy is deposited over an interval of time. This in turn says that
>> if you tune down the intensity of light in a photoelectric cell setup, then
>> the promptness of the ejected electrons should be delayed, with a linear
>> dependence on that intensity. But this is not what’s seen. The emission is
>> both immediately prompt and does not depend on the intensity of the light.
>> The photon model, which says that the energy transfer is ALL AT ONCE,
>> accurately matches that behavior.
>
> I'm not missing ANY point at all.
>
> Starting with 1901 Planck (there were many failed attempts by him on BBCR,
> until 1896 Wien's paper hit his nerves badly, and he invested the next 4 years
> to literally kill Wien theory, wich was good for higher frequencies than IR).
>
> Both of them thought on Maxwellian EM waves.
>
> When Planck, in the last 6 months of 1900 get closer to the solution for the BBCR,
> he was still thinking in EM waves within a BBC at thermal equilibrium, and with his
> resonators emitting and absorbing EM waves (as radiation that filled the cavity).
>
> His conclusions were: "Radiation travels as EM waves (Maxwell) within the BBC, but
> are emitted or absorbed in discrete amounts having N.h.f energy, being h a quantum
> of action".

That’s what Planck thought alright. I said that already.
Einstein was the one who pushed it further and said that the traveling
light carried the light NOT as a wave but as a chunk of energy and
momentum.

Note that the Planck model for light traveling as a wave would not explain
either the promptness of the photoelectric emission nor the independence of
that promptness on intensity. Nor for that matter with a cutoff wavelength.
Einstein’s additional assertion did explain it.

>
> Here is a link for a blog I wrote two years ago, just to post the history of such discovery
> since 1860 and Kirchoff's theorem to be solved by future generations, as he said.
> This is the only experiment done by me to publish something, as I'm not interested on it.
> It was a proof for myself, and never pushed for it to be known (except once, here):
>
> https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html
>
> You have to understand that the energy E = h.f = h/T is not delivered
> instantaneously. As it is
> clearly at plain sight in such a formula, the quantum of action h takes a
> time T to be delivered.

Nope, that’s incorrect. The energy is delivered on a time scale shorter
than the period of an oscillation. I get that you can’t see how that’s
possible. It is nevertheless experimentally true, no matter how many
formulae you wag a finger at.

>
> Some thing COULD happen with an EM single wave (just a ray of light),
> being that in both cases
> the formula c = λ.f = λ/T is the same for both theories.
>
> Even when is almost impossible to measure the time length for the atomic
> process of emission
> of absorption of photon in a SINGLE ATOM, as it
> happens with many, many atoms at the same time,
> I know of figures that put such duration in the range of 1 to 100
> picoseconds (a wide dispersion).
>
> So, the energy is not delivered instantaneously nor by a photon, neither
> by an EM wave captured by
> a military radar in the X band (or similar with IR waves and detectors used in missiles).
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 4:41:39 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Note that the Planck model for light traveling as a wave would not explain
> either the promptness of the photoelectric emission nor the independence of
> that promptness on intensity. Nor for that matter with a cutoff wavelength.
> Einstein’s additional assertion did explain it.
> >
> > Here is a link for a blog I wrote two years ago, just to post the history of such discovery
> > since 1860 and Kirchoff's theorem to be solved by future generations, as he said.
> > This is the only experiment done by me to publish something, as I'm not interested on it.
> > It was a proof for myself, and never pushed for it to be known (except once, here):
> >
> > https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html
> >
> > You have to understand that the energy E = h.f = h/T is not delivered instantaneously. As it is clearly
> > at plain sight in such a formula, the quantum of action h takes a time T to be delivered.

> Nope, that’s incorrect. The energy is delivered on a time scale shorter
> than the period of an oscillation. I get that you can’t see how that’s
> possible. It is nevertheless experimentally true, no matter how many
> formulae you wag a finger at.
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Nope, you're wrong once again. You just made an statement without any reference.
I'll give one to you:

53 attoseconds: Research produces shortest light pulse ever developed

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-attoseconds-shortest-pulse.html

They used X-rays with 568 eV energetic photons (using your dear "photon° denomination).

Some elementary math, from E = h.f = h/T and c = λ.f = λ/T

Pulse duration τ = 53.10^-18 sec

λ = 2.18.10^-9 sec
f = 1.38.10^17 Htz
T = 1/f = 7.27.10^-18 sec

τ/T = 7.2936 ≈ 7 (rounded to integer, due to the lack of exact values from the experiment)

So there you have: the most expensive experiment to achieve ultra-short pulses of light can't
be below this result in the last four years (I assume that it will be gotten a new record in the future).

But I am absolutely convinced that a lower threshold of τ/T = 2 will never be achieved, ever.
And the idea of getting τ/T ≤ 1 is yet more absurd.

Why? Because, as shown by Planck theory, 120 years ago (and still unchallenged) E = h.f IS and WILL BE
ALWAYS the smallest packet of energy carried by an EM wave with frequency f.. Plain and simple.

Admit that such current values are against your statement about energy delivered IN A FRACTION of the
duration of a photon, a quanta of energy, a single period of an EM wave or whatever you choose to call it.

And, of course, delays involved in the experiment remain unaccounted. There is always a delay or causalty is broken
because instantaneous event (zero duration) are involved, and such a thing has no physical explanation (or justification).

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 7:25:57 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> λ = 2.18.10^-9 sec

Wrong, should say λ = 2.18.10^-9 nm

Crank Richard Hertz wrote:
....
> I decided, around 2016, to use my spare time to study fields of physics (as a hobby) and, also,
> to read biographies about the most relevant scientists in the last 400 years (including Einstein).
> So far, I've read and digested more than 200 books in history of science, physics and cosmology,
> which entertains me. ME only, not involving any of you.

And you failed. Sad, but quite common for your kind of person.

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 8:01:58 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:

<snip>

> Crank Richard Hertz wrote:
> ...
> > I decided, around 2016, to use my spare time to study fields of physics (as a hobby) and, also,
> > to read biographies about the most relevant scientists in the last 400 years (including Einstein).
> > So far, I've read and digested more than 200 books in history of science, physics and cosmology,
> > which entertains me. ME only, not involving any of you.
> And you failed. Sad, but quite common for your kind of person.

Python, I've been an EE for about 45 years, with two Master Degrees.

When I wrote about 2016, I meant that I began to regain knowledgment on diverse fields that I'd study
on physics, math and others.

Don't be so preposterous to ignore such background, plus the fact that I never stop learning.

Do you want to discuss about any particular field in EE or physics? What about radioactivity, fractal antennae,
neutrinos or anti-electrons original proposals and some experimental confirmations, AEGIS systems, missiles,
space sondes, Hubble telescope and others, cosmology, the birth of QM in the 1920 decade, or the same for
thermodynamics, or the one for electromagnetism, or the whole development of microelectronics since day 1,
or the development of consumer and computer industry in the whole XX century, or the development of the
spatial science, or the development of the theory of information, or the development of nuclear physics, or
the birth and development of radio communications, or the development of modern instruments since the
galvanometer in 1830, or the development of relativistic theories, or the development of newtonian mechanics
since XVIII century, or the development of statistical mechanics since Maxwell, or the developments in software
since mid XX century, or the development of digital communications along XX century since its birth, or the
developments in codecs for voice and video since day 1, or the pre-Hubble conceptions of the Universe, or the
birth of astrophysics, or the development of applied nuclear reactors, or the pre-newtonian physics, or some
developments on integral and differential calculus, or the development of statistics as a field, or the history of
civilization in the last 5,000 years, or advances in chemistry in the last 200 years, etc.

When you be able to cover every single topic of the list, without resourcing to Google, then come and try.

Meanwhile, be careful and educated with people of whom you don't know a fucking thing.

And stop believing that you are some kind of big shot here, to have such behavior because, as I could find out
searching here, you are a pathetic opinionated moron.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/XcH_m5v78Ts/m/31LDYLtxAwAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/-yJQaLwCj3c/m/KW7iimJ_AgAJ

Or, in particular, this old one, always a fucking resented person, insulting, mocking or downplaying people.
Who do you think you are, when you didn't show here even a shadow of intelligence? Crawl back to under the rock where you live, idiot!

[Pool] Who is the most proeminent village idiot of sci.physics.relativity?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/BzLe719IxXA/m/UuCW2E6yAAAJ

This one, engaging with Dono, is a classic show of your behavior every single time (2016, when you started to appear here).
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/MRPApP3tZWA/m/XG0C1adIBQAJ

I wonder what nickname had you in 2015 and before, because a character like yours is a "die hard" creature.

Op 15-aug.-2021 om 18:09 schreef Richard Hertz:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 10:19:07 AM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Op 15-aug.-2021 om 08:33 schreef Richard Hertz:
>>> My former post was ill conceived.
>> Yes, and they carefully explained to you what went wrong.
>> So now you can spout a new batch of crap that, thanks to
>> the new jargon you picked up there, again will be slightly
>> better disguised.
>
> Listen, J.T. Kirk: I don't give a flying fuck about what you and others think about me.

Liar.
If you don't give a fuck, you don't reply.

[snip unread]

Dirk Vdm

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 4:41:39 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Note that the Planck model for light traveling as a wave would not explain
>> either the promptness of the photoelectric emission nor the independence of
>> that promptness on intensity. Nor for that matter with a cutoff wavelength.
>> Einstein’s additional assertion did explain it.
>>>
>>> Here is a link for a blog I wrote two years ago, just to post the
>>> history of such discovery
>>> since 1860 and Kirchoff's theorem to be solved by future generations, as he said.
>>> This is the only experiment done by me to publish something, as I'm not
>>> interested on it.
>>> It was a proof for myself, and never pushed for
>>> it to be known (except once, here):
>>>
>>> https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html
>>>
>>> You have to understand that the energy E = h.f = h/T is not delivered
>>> instantaneously. As it is clearly
>>> at plain sight in such a formula, the quantum of action h takes a time T to be delivered.
>
>
>> Nope, that’s incorrect. The energy is delivered on a time scale shorter
>> than the period of an oscillation. I get that you can’t see how that’s
>> possible. It is nevertheless experimentally true, no matter how many
>> formulae you wag a finger at.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Nope, you're wrong once again. You just made an statement without any reference.
> I'll give one to you:
>
> 53 attoseconds: Research produces shortest light pulse ever developed

The duration of a manufactured light pulse has NOTHING to do with the
promptness of an electron emission from onset of light impact. Nothing
whatsoever. Do you not recall what the conundrum the photoelectric effects
features were back in the beginning of the 20th century?

>
> https://phys.org/news/2017-10-attoseconds-shortest-pulse.html
>
> They used X-rays with 568 eV energetic photons (using your dear "photon° denomination).
>
> Some elementary math, from E = h.f = h/T and c = λ.f = λ/T
>
>
>
> Pulse duration τ = 53.10^-18 sec
>
> λ = 2.18.10^-9 sec
> f = 1.38.10^17 Htz
> T = 1/f = 7.27.10^-18 sec
>
> τ/T = 7.2936 ≈ 7 (rounded to integer, due to the lack of exact values
> from the experiment)
>
>
> So there you have: the most expensive experiment to achieve ultra-short
> pulses of light can't
> be below this result in the last four years (I assume that it will be
> gotten a new record in the future).
>
> But I am absolutely convinced that a lower threshold of τ/T = 2 will
> never be achieved, ever.
> And the idea of getting τ/T ≤ 1 is yet more absurd.
>
> Why? Because, as shown by Planck theory, 120 years ago (and still
> unchallenged) E = h.f IS and WILL BE
> ALWAYS the smallest packet of energy carried by an EM wave with frequency
> f. Plain and simple.
>
> Admit that such current values are against your statement about energy
> delivered IN A FRACTION of the
> duration of a photon, a quanta of energy, a single period of an EM wave
> or whatever you choose to call it.
>
> And, of course, delays involved in the experiment remain unaccounted.
> There is always a delay or causalty is broken
> because instantaneous event (zero duration) are involved, and such a
> thing has no physical explanation (or justification).
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 8:01:58 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Crank Richard Hertz wrote:
>> ...
>>> I decided, around 2016, to use my spare time to study fields of physics
>>> (as a hobby) and, also,
>>> to read biographies about the most relevant scientists in the last 400
>>> years (including Einstein).
>>> So far, I've read and digested more than 200 books in history of
>>> science, physics and cosmology,
>>> which entertains me. ME only, not involving any of you.
>> And you failed. Sad, but quite common for your kind of person.
>
> Python, I've been an EE for about 45 years, with two Master Degrees.
>
> When I wrote about 2016, I meant that I began to regain knowledgment on
> diverse fields that I'd study
> on physics, math and others.
>
> Don't be so preposterous to ignore such background, plus the fact that I
> never stop learning.
>
> Do you want to discuss about any particular field in EE or physics? What
> about radioactivity, fractal antennae,
> neutrinos or anti-electrons original proposals and some experimental
> confirmations, AEGIS systems, missiles,
> space sondes, Hubble telescope and others, cosmology, the birth of QM in
> the 1920 decade, or the same for
> thermodynamics, or the one for electromagnetism, or the whole development
> of microelectronics since day 1,
> or the development of consumer and computer industry in the whole XX
> century, or the development of the
> spatial science, or the development of the theory of information, or the
> development of nuclear physics, or
> the birth and development of radio communications, or the development of
> modern instruments since the
> galvanometer in 1830, or the development of relativistic theories, or the
> development of newtonian mechanics
> since XVIII century, or the development of statistical mechanics since
> Maxwell, or the developments in software
> since mid XX century, or the development of digital communications along
> XX century since its birth, or the
> developments in codecs for voice and video since day 1, or the pre-Hubble
> conceptions of the Universe, or the
> birth of astrophysics, or the development of applied nuclear reactors, or
> the pre-newtonian physics, or some
> developments on integral and differential calculus, or the development of
> statistics as a field, or the history of
> civilization in the last 5,000 years, or advances in chemistry in the last 200 years, etc.

All fine topics for a completely different discussion group. Take it there.

>
> When you be able to cover every single topic of the list, without
> resourcing to Google, then come and try.
>
> Meanwhile, be careful and educated with people of whom you don't know a fucking thing.
>
> And stop believing that you are some kind of big shot here, to have such
> behavior because, as I could find out
> searching here, you are a pathetic opinionated moron.
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/XcH_m5v78Ts/m/31LDYLtxAwAJ
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/-yJQaLwCj3c/m/KW7iimJ_AgAJ
>
> Or, in particular, this old one, always a fucking resented person,
> insulting, mocking or downplaying people.
> Who do you think you are, when you didn't show here even a shadow of
> intelligence? Crawl back to under the rock where you live, idiot!
>
> [Pool] Who is the most proeminent village idiot of sci.physics.relativity?
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/BzLe719IxXA/m/UuCW2E6yAAAJ
>
> This one, engaging with Dono, is a classic show of your behavior every
> single time (2016, when you started to appear here).
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/MRPApP3tZWA/m/XG0C1adIBQAJ
>
> I wonder what nickname had you in 2015 and before, because a character
> like yours is a "die hard" creature.
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 10:59:49 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> > 53 attoseconds: Research produces shortest light pulse ever developed

> The duration of a manufactured light pulse has NOTHING to do with the
> promptness of an electron emission from onset of light impact. Nothing
> whatsoever. Do you not recall what the conundrum the photoelectric effects
> features were back in the beginning of the 20th century?

It has everything to do with duration of electron emission.
Results show that emission of radiation is based on INTEGER number of wavelengths.

No single wavelength photon and even less, fractional wavelength photons.

The emission process is explained by a burst of EM waves (a integer number)..

At the beginning of 20th century, only Bohr provided an approximation to quantum leaps done
by electrons (he didn't believe in photons until he converted to a believer around 1925).

But his model had a lot of flaws, even when it was revolutionary.
It's worth to read the article on this link, as well as Bohr's original paper.

Niels Bohr’s First 1913 Paper: Still Relevant, Still Exciting, Still Puzzling
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.5064553

Excerpt:

-----------------------------------------------
Quantum jumps
This idea can be regarded in either of two ways. Either it is one of Bohr’s truly revolutionary postulates, or it is merely assigning to an individual atom what Planck had already postulated for emission of radiation in general. Those favoring its revolutionary character may have the stronger argument, since, in Planck’s theory, there is no suggestion that an oscillator changes its frequency of oscillation when it radiates. Bohr asserted, for the first time, that the frequency of emitted light is not equal to the frequency of mechanical motion either before or after the emission, but is determined only by the energy difference of the initial and final states.

Energy conservation
In this paper Bohr seems to regard energy conservation at the atomic level as “obvious,” but in fact energy conservation had, until that time, been demonstrated only at the macroscopic level, never at the atomic level. So the idea deserves to be singled out as an important postulate. It is used by Bohr beginning on page 3 of his paper. (Let it be noted that years later, in the 1920s, Bohr was willing to entertain the idea that in atomic and nuclear processes, energy conservation might hold only statistically over many events, not in individual events.5)
-----------------------------------------------

No advances were done on this matter until 1925. WWI may had have an impact on this.
And yet, early QM models had several flaws and failed to explain the
processes of emission and absorption, so such a search was abandoned
favoring observable behaviors and statistical explanations, with no
place for quantum leaps or its duration.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 10:59:49 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> 53 attoseconds: Research produces shortest light pulse ever developed
>
>> The duration of a manufactured light pulse has NOTHING to do with the
>> promptness of an electron emission from onset of light impact. Nothing
>> whatsoever. Do you not recall what the conundrum the photoelectric effects
>> features were back in the beginning of the 20th century?
>
> It has everything to do with duration of electron emission.
> Results show that emission of radiation is based on INTEGER number of wavelengths.

That’s complete nonsense, Richard.

Moreover, the promptness of photoelectron emission is about the ABSORPTION
of energy, not the EMISSION of light energy.

I can’t believe you don’t understand the key aspects of the photoelectric
effect.

>
> No single wavelength photon and even less, fractional wavelength photons.
>
> The emission process is explained by a burst of EM waves (a integer number).
>
> At the beginning of 20th century, only Bohr provided an approximation to quantum leaps done
> by electrons (he didn't believe in photons until he converted to a believer around 1925).
>
> But his model had a lot of flaws, even when it was revolutionary.
> It's worth to read the article on this link, as well as Bohr's original paper.
>
>
> Niels Bohr’s First 1913 Paper: Still Relevant, Still Exciting, Still Puzzling
> https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.5064553
>
> Excerpt:
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> Quantum jumps
> This idea can be regarded in either of two ways. Either it is one of
> Bohr’s truly revolutionary postulates, or it is merely assigning to an
> individual atom what Planck had already postulated for emission of
> radiation in general. Those favoring its revolutionary character may have
> the stronger argument, since, in Planck’s theory, there is no suggestion
> that an oscillator changes its frequency of oscillation when it radiates.
> Bohr asserted, for the first time, that the frequency of emitted light is
> not equal to the frequency of mechanical motion either before or after
> the emission, but is determined only by the energy difference of the
> initial and final states.
>
>
> Energy conservation
> In this paper Bohr seems to regard energy conservation at the atomic
> level as “obvious,” but in fact energy conservation had, until that time,
> been demonstrated only at the macroscopic level, never at the atomic
> level. So the idea deserves to be singled out as an important postulate.
> It is used by Bohr beginning on page 3 of his paper. (Let it be noted
> that years later, in the 1920s, Bohr was willing to entertain the idea
> that in atomic and nuclear processes, energy conservation might hold only
> statistically over many events, not in individual events.5)
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> No advances were done on this matter until 1925. WWI may had have an impact on this.
> And yet, early QM models had several flaws and failed to explain the
> processes of emission and absorption, so such a search was abandoned
> favoring observable behaviors and statistical explanations, with no
> place for quantum leaps or its duration.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 3:06:35 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> I can’t believe you don’t understand the key aspects of the photoelectric effect.

I do, very well so far.
And also "photo-emission": lamps. LED, sparks, etc.

You don't want to accept that such phenomena are closely related.

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 4:51:48 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>
> > I can’t believe you don’t understand the key aspects of the photoelectric effect.
> I do, very well so far.
> And also "photo-emission": lamps. LED, sparks, etc.
>
> You don't want to accept that such phenomena are closely related.

Bodkin, I have to apologize to you. You're almost right with the photoelectric effect because I
misunderstood why you mentioned it. I, without thinking any further, just took it as EXACTLY
the same topic in the OP of this thread: In my mind, you was talking about photon's detection
in a CCD sensor, and its conversion to an electron stored into the MOS capacitor.

You can mock me at will because, stubbornly, I kept reading PHOTON DETECTION.

I was offline when, all of a sudden, the truth hit me.

You was talking about the 1/2.m.v² = h.f - W Einstein's formula in his 1905 paper, which involves
the ejection of an electron from one atom, being accelerated under a potential, which is a completely
different matter than in my OP here.

Then, I come to the computer to write this apology.

Not using it as an excuse, but still it's unrelated to a single photon absorption, causing the electron to be free.
The time involved in this process is still unknown for a single atom (not statistically), and such time was the
topic under discussion. For me, the photon is absorpted entirely before the ejection process start, so it can
take 1/f = T seconds or more.

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 11:33:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> My former post was ill conceived.
>
> Photon wavelength? And Maxwell's single ray of EM radiation?
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/IXjwXwjT5bk
>
> I tried to connect Maxwell's planar waves with Planck's E=hf, just to explore
> if I could find a relationship between the energy of a single EM ray with hf.

This is an interesting idea but you are about 100 years too late.
First of all, there are no rays in Maxwell's theory, only waves. If you want
rays, you need to switch to the geometric optics approximation which
uses something called the eikonal equation instead of the wave equation
implied by Maxwell's equations.

> I assumed, and was a futile attempt, that the same formula (widely used) for
> a monopole antenna could be used at quantum levels (atoms and below) to
> get a value of the electric field of a SINGLE monochromatic wave that reaches
> the atom and causes absorption of light.

You should stop wasting time fantasising and study physics instead. All you've
mentioned so far has been done already and is well understood.

--
Jan

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 9:57:29 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> > I tried to connect Maxwell's planar waves with Planck's E=hf, just to explore
> > if I could find a relationship between the energy of a single EM ray with hf.

> This is an interesting idea but you are about 100 years too late.
> First of all, there are no rays in Maxwell's theory, only waves.

JanPB, I´m an Electronic Engineer and I studied and applied Maxwell's equations
for several years, almost 50 years ago, in the areas or radars and microwave links.
Maxwell's equations are so complex, when applied to the real world that what I
learned and used by then is almost obsolete.

Their applications to modern devices (like your smartphone or multi-target phased array radars)
are so complex and vast that, almost every year, new solutions appear and the use of computer
for the required models is mandatory, as well as extensive lab and field proofs.
Their use, even for Hertz dipoles, are increasingly challenging as the applications extend to
X band and beyond 80 Ghz, and their use in science to study EM activities in the microworld is
permanently updated.

Years ago, I got this book, to actualize my understanding about them and how they are used today:

Foundations for Radio Frequency Engineering
Wen Geyi (631 pages)

In the section "7.2.2.1 Infinitesimal Electric Dipole" you can read this excerpt (also the solutions):

"An infinitesimal dipole or a Hertzian dipole is obtained when the length of the dipole approach to zero
while the charges are increased to infinity so that the dipole moment remains finite. To fully understand
how the dipole radiates, one should go to the time domain. In spherical coordinate system, the
electromagnetic fields generated by an infinitesimal dipole in time domain can be easily obtained as follows"

And then, the solutions. For instance, it's applied to two elemental charges (could be two electrons, maybe?)

"Two charges +q and −q, located at the origin of the coordinate system, are suddenly separated by a distance
l at t = 0. The dipole moment is then given by.."

So, in the last 100 years (almost precisely when radio comm. took off), the developments guided by Maxwell's
equations solutions increased several orders of magnitude and, with the advent of digital comm. it went even further.
Today, the complete set of equations that cover fields at distances 1/r, 1/r² and 1/r³ require the use of computers
for radiation, air transmission (c is not used, but a true lower value in atmosphere) and reception.

New mathematical models keep being developed to study EM fields, which are Maxwell compliant.
So, my idea of an infinitesimal monopole (actually a virtual dipole) was based on these premises. But I got the idea
in a wrong way, as I simplified the complex fields using the equations for planar waves in free space (WRONG!).

> If you want rays, you need to switch to the geometric optics approximation which uses something
> called the eikonal equation instead of the wave equation implied by Maxwell's equations.

I don´t master English. By using EM ray I meant an elementary EM wave, very weak. I didn't know that this is a term
used in optics, of which I know barely nothing.

I read something about "eikonal equation", as suggested by you here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eikonal_equation
and here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WKB_approximation

and the subject is FAR AWAY from what I pretended.

As it says in these excerpts at the first link:
------------------------------------------
"The eikonal equation is a non-linear partial differential equation encountered in problems of wave propagation, when
the wave equation is approximated using the WKB theory. It is derivable from Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism,
and provides a link between physical (wave) optics and geometric (ray) optics.

Applications

- A concrete application is the computation of radiowave attenuation in the atmosphere.
- Finding the shape from shading in computer vision.
- Geometric optics
- Continuous shortest path problems
- Image segmentation
- Study of the shape for a solid propellant rocket grain
----------------------------------------

And in the second link:
-------------------------------------------------
"In mathematical physics, the WKB approximation or WKB method is a method for finding approximate solutions to linear differential equations with spatially varying coefficients. It is typically used for a semiclassical calculation in quantum mechanics in which the wavefunction is recast as an exponential function, semiclassically expanded, and then either the amplitude or the phase is taken to be changing slowly."
------------------------------------------------

So, the eikonal equation is a reformulation of Maxwell's equations in quantum physics. Thanks, but it's not necessary. There are
plenty of new mathematical theories being applied for now in RF engineering.. Maybe in the future.

> You should stop wasting time fantasising and study physics instead. All you've
> mentioned so far has been done already and is well understood.

Once again, this is an appropriate comment. You should stop patronizing and downplaying people over here,
to satisfy some insane feeling of inferiority that you have. Be a modest person. Life is too short to expend it
portraying a cretin, which I think you're not, in the bottom of you. I can feel that you are a sensible person, but
such defect of your character makes me angry.

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 9:18:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 9:57:29 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > I tried to connect Maxwell's planar waves with Planck's E=hf, just to explore
> > > if I could find a relationship between the energy of a single EM ray with hf.
>
> > This is an interesting idea but you are about 100 years too late.
> > First of all, there are no rays in Maxwell's theory, only waves.
> JanPB, I´m an Electronic Engineer

Ah, I should have known. Yet another EE on this NG. Sigh. This pattern NEVER lets up.

> and I studied and applied Maxwell's equations
> for several years, almost 50 years ago, in the areas or radars and microwave links.
> Maxwell's equations are so complex, when applied to the real world that what I
> learned and used by then is almost obsolete.

Not sure what you are saying here. Looks like an edited version of an earlier comment that
got garbled?

> > If you want rays, you need to switch to the geometric optics approximation which uses something
> > called the eikonal equation instead of the wave equation implied by Maxwell's equations.
> I don´t master English. By using EM ray I meant an elementary EM wave, very weak. I didn't know that this is a term
> used in optics, of which I know barely nothing.

OK.

> I read something about "eikonal equation", as suggested by you here
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eikonal_equation
> and here
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WKB_approximation
>
> and the subject is FAR AWAY from what I pretended.
>
> As it says in these excerpts at the first link:
> ------------------------------------------
> "The eikonal equation is a non-linear partial differential equation encountered in problems of wave propagation, when
> the wave equation is approximated using the WKB theory. It is derivable from Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism,
> and provides a link between physical (wave) optics and geometric (ray) optics.
>
> Applications
>
> - A concrete application is the computation of radiowave attenuation in the atmosphere.
> - Finding the shape from shading in computer vision.
> - Geometric optics
> - Continuous shortest path problems
> - Image segmentation
> - Study of the shape for a solid propellant rocket grain
> ----------------------------------------
>
> And in the second link:
> -------------------------------------------------
> "In mathematical physics, the WKB approximation or WKB method is a method for finding approximate solutions to linear differential equations with spatially varying coefficients. It is typically used for a semiclassical calculation in quantum mechanics in which the wavefunction is recast as an exponential function, semiclassically expanded, and then either the amplitude or the phase is taken to be changing slowly."
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> So, the eikonal equation is a reformulation of Maxwell's equations in quantum physics.

No, it's a geometrical-optics limit of Maxwell's theory. So it's exactly a move in the direction that's
OPPOSITE to quantum, a move in which the wave length of the radiation is neglected. But I can see how
the general idea of letting some sort of wavelength go to zero can be applied in a quantum concept.

In fact, such a "geometrical optics" limit applied to Schroedinger's equation yields the Hamilton-Jacobi
equation of *classical* mechanics.

And in geometrical optics you can define rays which is something you need for, say, lens design,
raytracing, and a multitude of other applications.

> Thanks, but it's not necessary.

Eikonal equation has nothing to do with quantum theory.

> There are
> plenty of new mathematical theories being applied for now in RF engineering. Maybe in the future.
> > You should stop wasting time fantasising and study physics instead. All you've
> > mentioned so far has been done already and is well understood.
> Once again, this is an appropriate comment. You should stop patronizing and downplaying people over here,

No. You make your bed, you sleep in it. I've seen your kind of nonsense here for 20+ years, full
of offensive idiocies directed at all honest and very hard-working people.

--
Jan

Am 15.08.2021 um 18:09 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> To my understanding, the conclusions are unsatisfactory TO ME, as I couldn't reach a connecting point between
> Maxwell and photonics at the smallest level of matter, so I had to stop at the spatial size of a pixel surface of an
> advanced CCD sensor, like those used since after 1995.
>
> My problem is that, going down to a lower space than the surface of a pixel, the things have to turn to statistical
> analysis. In particular, applying the industry accepted measurement of quantum efficiency.
>
> Even when considering that it is a bunch of short and elementary EM waves what hits the surface, to generate the
> adopted value of 100 photons/sec, I have to deal with Avogadro Number to quantify how many atoms are in the
> pixel of the CCD.
>
> Using data from here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant
> and using an arbitrary atom that occupy 30 A³ (30.10^-30 m³), I find that a perfect solid state surface of 169 µm²
> and just one atom thick, has 563 million of atoms (much more as I augment thickness).
>
> So, the case that 100 photons/sec are generated on this amount of atoms, when the physical pixel is shunned by
> a radiating EM wave having 3.6.10^-17 Watts is puzzling me. specially if I try to find out what really is the quantum
> efficiency of photodetectors in the pixel. No match between waves and photons is found by me.
>
> 563 millions of atoms in a perfect physical pixel in the CCD sensor, and only 100 photons/sec?

This is a very good example, that 'photons' are not real things.

The main problem I see in modern physics is what I would call 'materialism':

If you cut the world in half and call the one part 'space' and the other
'stuff', then modern materialism is concerned mainly with stuff.

But the photons are not 'stuff', but a certain aspect of something,
which is actually a property of space.

This is like wave-crests on the ocean, if you take the water as
equivalent to space.

TH

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 6:36:08 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

Going back on track, after my misunderstanding of Bodkin post and my due apology (for his use of Einstein's formula
1/2.m.v² = h.f - W in his 1905 paper, referring it as a photoelectric effect) while I misread his comment), I simplify this
topic with something more modern and even more elementary than a CCD sensor: a photodiode detector, coupled with
a laser diode emitter.

The whole industry of laser photonics, for consumer, industrial and scientific applications, is mostly based on two
basic solid-state devices, where a modern concept of photoelectric effect is used:

- A photodiode detector (PIN or more sensitive APD diode, to receive and convert photons into electrons).
- A laser diode emitter (used in communications, CD/DVD players, instrumentation, etc.).

While I showed a very advanced CCD sensor (1000x1000 pixels), and worked with a single pixel active area of 169 µm²
with almost 95% of quantum efficiency (electrons per photon), I should have used a PIN photodiode detector instead,
which is simpler. An example is the FDS015 from Thorlabs: indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) photodiode, active area
of 0.018 mm², 35 ps rise time, 400 - 1100 nm wavelength range, low Noise Equivalent Power (NEP) of 8.6 femtoW/√Hz),
able to work above to 20 Gbps, and inexpensive.

More advanced photodiodes can work (today) at rates of 400 Gbps or 1 Tbps (under industrial production), with a bandwidth
of 70 Ghz to be applied in fiber optics networks (u2t Photonics, 2013).

Two values are widely used in photodiode specs:

Quantum efficiency η: the ratio of the number of electron-hole (e-h) pairs generated to the number of incident photons.
Photodiode responsivity R(λ): the ratio of generated current I (A/cm²) to incident radiant power P (W/cm²), in A/W, which
value is

R(λ) = I/P = e.η/(h.f) = e.η.λ/(h.c) = η.λ/1.24 (A/W)

For this formula, P = r.h.f, where r is the photon flux (photons/sec) and e is the charge of an electron.

So, in photo-convertion of a radiant power flux (with INTEGER number of photons/sec at frequency f) generate an INTEGER
number of electrons with charge e-, which depends on the quantum efficiency η of the photodetector at the PEAK wavelenght
where η gets its maximum value.

Given the HUGE number of electrons and INTEGER wavelenghts involved (from the incoming radiant power), the adopted standard
R(λ) by the industry has decimal values.

Next to this is to equate an integer number of maxwellian wavelenghts (bursts of EM waves) to the power P = r.h.f

This is how the wave-photon (or "particle") is conciliated: By CONSENT, according to the branch of the industry: Photons for the
photonic industry and waves in the RF industry (up to the range of 300 Ghz), as I showed in this book:

Foundations for Radio Frequency Engineering
Wen Geyi (631 pages)

which I recommended to JanPB to read, after he wrote that Maxwell's equations were left 100 years behind.

And, by the way, the measurement of CMB was done in maxwellian terms, with antennae like those in this book and
bolometers like those in this book. No photon jargon involved with COBE or WMAP projects.

This can continue, as I dig further.