Posted on 03/12/2003 9:21:09 AM PST by gomaaa
These aren't rules for scientists; they're rules for judges and ordinary citizens. Judges and voters aren't responsible for deciding what the accepted scientific orthodoxy should be. They're responsible for making reasonable decisions from the bench and in the ballot box, but too often they aren't even minimally equipped to do that.
Many scientific breakthroughs have been put forward by those who did not have formal credentials within a given scientific discipline.
I wouldn't say many. These are the exception rather than the rule, and it's not unreasonable for them to face higher hurdles than ideas from those who are conversant with the mistakes that have been made before. But in the final analysis, any idea is going to stand or fall in the laboratory. No amount of resistance can hold back the truth for long.
What you have said is true, however this article is more of a list of generic 'warnings', than any hard and fast set of rules. And for a simple list of 'rules of thumb'; it's pretty well thought out.
Genetics comes to mind as an idea that came from left field. The theory was, however, published in a legitimate journal.
One could make some rules of thumb about how quickly a revolutionary idea will be adopted, and it has nothing to do with the status of the scientist or his politics. New ideas will be quickly accepted if they are correctly phrased in the language of physical science and mathematics; if they address a problem that others are struggling with; and if they are supported by evidence.
Consider the ideas of John Nash, a certified loon. To the extent that his writings were lucid, he had no problem getting them accepted.
Medical research is difficult because, ethically, you have to use the best proven treatment, and because many treatments are only statistically beneficial (you can't tell if they benefit an individual, because some people get well without treatment.) For these and other reasons, progress is slow. Conceptual breakthroughs do not change practice immediately. I don't think you can fault the practices of science for the backwardness of medicine.
Do electrons have a color? No, electrons don't have an intrinsic color since they are reflectors of em waves. They are more like perfect mirrors. If there is a fundamental em wave associated with an electron it would be at a wavelength far too short to be visible (ie. a color). Perfectly good question that deserves an answer.
Ok, I've answered your question. Now would you answer mine? What is the size and shape of a photon? If that's too hard, maybe you could start by saying whether a photon moves or not and at what speed it moves. I was under the impression that a photon from the Sun takes around 8 minutes to reach the Earth. Is that not true?
As an aside, if a unit step em wave hits a stationary point electron, at what distance from the point electron is the reflected wave's electric field equal to and opposite that in the input unit step? What is the significance of the distance? Of course, I'm asking for a classical analysis, if can lower yourself that far.
No, electrons don't have an intrinsic color since they are reflectors of em waves. They are more like perfect mirrors.
B.S.. I have somewhere around 10^28 electrons in my body. I'm not a mirror.
What is the size and shape of a photon?
That depends. Write a proper quantum mechanical operator for the property 'size', and calculate its expectation value. My QED is a little rusty, but I think you can do that without invoking creation and annihilation operators and mucking with the number of photons.
As an aside, if a unit step em wave hits a stationary point electron, at what distance from the point electron is the reflected wave's electric field equal to and opposite that in the input unit step
What makes you think a stationary electron (leaving aside the fact that a stationary electron cannot be localized at a single point) reflects em waves? Why would it do that?
Are you trying to sound like some sort of great philosopher? It ain't working...
B.S.. I have somewhere around 10^28 electrons in my body. I'm not a mirror.
You asked about a free electron and I gave you the answer. Now you're talking about your body. The electron is in an atom and behaves differently and absorption/emission come into play. But you know this.
What makes you think a stationary electron (leaving aside the fact that a stationary electron cannot be localized at a single point) reflects em waves? Why would it do that?
Your classical em must be even rustier than your QED. An incident em wave's electric field causes an electron to accelerate. That acceleration causes an spherical em wave to be emitted by the electron which is superimposed on the input. You can call it scattering if you like. I prefer reflection because that's what it looks like - an incident em wave enters from, say, the left and a large chunk of the scattered em energy moves back to the left. Why would it do that? I'll throw throw back one of the photonist's answers: because that's what electrons do!
A photon travels at the speed of light in a vacuum. Your request for "size and shape" really makes no sense. A photon is not really a particle, nor is it strictly a wave. It can behave like a wave in some respects, and like a particle in others. In order to talk about it's shape, you would have to localize it, compress it to a single point. That's not allowed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.
How can you say that something with an FT of 1 (eg. a point) has a specific wavelength, which a photon is supposed to have? Nope, you're going to have to broaden that impulse out in time and decrease the amplitude before anything resembling a dominant wavelength emerges. So, how broad in time is a photon (I can handle multiplying by c all by myself)
If you were to try and localize a photon (treat it as a point) you would be compressing it to an incredibly short light pulse. Such pulses can (sort of) be generated. I used to work in a lab with a femtosecond pulse laser system. A pulse of about 25 femtoseconds (1fs = 10^-13 seconds) is spread out over a distance of less than a millimeter. You are correct that this could not have a single wavelength. It typically has a mix of around 40 nm around a central primary wavelength, as opposed to just a few nm for a standard, continuous laser. Photons are not point-like particles, though they can act like particles in specific circumstances (the photoelectric effect for example).
As an aside, if a unit step em wave hits a stationary point electron, at what distance from the point electron is the reflected wave's electric field equal to and opposite that in the input unit step? What is the significance of the distance? Of course, I'm asking for a classical analysis, if can lower yourself that far.
I think you're describing a photon scattering off an electron here, though I'm not quite certain. The problem is, you're asking for a classical response to a question that ONLY Quantum Mechanics will answer. For one thing, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a photon to scatter off an electron without having the elctron respond. If the photon has a wavelength anywhere near that of the size of an electron, it will also have enough energy to excite and move the electron. For this and other reasons, you NEED QM to solve this problem.
You really don't want to answer that question, do you?
You asked about a free electron and I gave you the answer
Nowhere did I say 'free electron'. Stop making things up. Besides, electrons are indistinguishable particles. A free electron can't be a different color from a bound electron. What color is it?
Your classical em must be even rustier than your QED. An incident em wave's electric field causes an electron to accelerate.
For a guy who's so insistent others answer his questions, you're sure slippery about answering other people's. Let me repeat. Why would a stationary electron reflect e.m. waves?
Photonist?
There is nothing more disturbing than a brain that doesn't work right. My nephew had the same initial response to medication as depicted in Beautiful Mind. It wrecked his ability to concentrate, he hated it, and refused to take the meds. I understand it is rare to be able to come to grips with a dual reality, to function in the "real" and to stop paying attention to the other "real" world. They are both equally compelling to the victim.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.