Does a stationary charge in a gravitational field emit radiation?

[atyy]

Note that it's not a published paper, it's an internal report. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason it was never published is that referees found problems with it. This is typical of the kind of thing cranks obsess over. They find some statement by a respected scientist and try to use it to promote the idea that all of modern physics is wrong. We've seen the same thing here recently with Einstein's 1924 paper "On the Aether," which is another darling of the kooks.

Try p24, 25 of http://books.google.com/books?id=5t0tm0FB1CsC&dq=quantum+challenge&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Also p24 of http://books.google.com/books?id=1-nhz2Ek-X8C&dq=quantum+optics+chiao&source=gbs_navlinks_s

 

[Bob S]

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680009569_1968009569.pdf"
where Willis E. Lamb and Marlan O. Scully (1968)
"A misconception which most physicists acquire in their
formative years is that the photoelectric effect requires
the quantization of the electromagnetic field for its explanation."
and conclued :
"In conclusion, we understand the photoeffect as being
the result of a classical field falling on a quantized atomic
electron. The introduction of the photon concept is
neither logically implied by nor necessary for the
explanation of the photoelectric effect"
.

Willis Lamb won the Nobel Prize in physics for correctly calculating the QED underlying the 21-cm (1420-MHz) hyperfine structure line in hydrogen.
Bob S

 

[conway]

Try p24, 25 of http://books.google.com/books?id=5t0tm0FB1CsC&dq=quantum+challenge&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Also p24 of http://books.google.com/books?id=1-nhz2Ek-X8C&dq=quantum+optics+chiao&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Will the kookery never end??

 

[atyy]

Will the kookery never end??

Only when the Lamb is kooked.

 

[bcrowell]

Willis Lamb won the Nobel Prize in physics for correctly calculating the QED underlying the 21-cm (1420-MHz) hyperfine structure line in hydrogen.
Bob S

And Nobel Prize winners can write bad papers too :-) I've started a thread in the Quantum Physics forum giving my explanation of why I think the paper is wrong (and why it presumably never made it into a peer-reviewed journal).

[EDIT] Note that my #50 is not using the word "kooks" to refer to Einstein and Lamb. It's using the word "kooks" to refer to people who covet these papers by great physicists as holy relics in their quest to prove that the entire structure of modern physics is one big lie. (I think there is a difference between Einstein's "On the Aether" and Lamb's "The Photoelectric Effect Without Photons." The Einstein paper is interesting and, as far as I can tell, correct, but has been wildly misinterpreted by the kooks. The Lamb paper is just wrong, IMO.)

 

[heldervelez]

quantization results of electronic orbits beeing resonances, which is why radiation is emitted or absorbed in quanta not because that is their nature.
a semiclassical analisys is sufficient to explain the photoelectric effect and also the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbury_Brown_and_Twiss_effect#Wave_mechanics"
-----------------
The energy of a particle and its associated field are in balance because one is the source of the other.
As the field (electro/gravito) expands at 'c' speed, as time goes by, since particle creation, the energy content of the field can only increase continually.
At expense of what? Any numbers?
Am I misleaded?
-----------------

 

[sylas]

quantization results of electronic orbits beeing resonances, which is why radiation is emitted or absorbed in quanta not because that is their nature.
a semiclassical analisys is sufficient to explain the photoelectric effect and also the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbury_Brown_and_Twiss_effect#Wave_mechanics"
-----------------
The energy of a particle and its associated field are in balance because one is the source of the other.
As the field (electro/gravito) expands at 'c' speed, as time goes by, since particle creation, the energy content of the field can only increase continually.
At expense of what? Any numbers?
Am I misleaded?

Yes, you do seem to be mislead. Quantization is in the nature of the thing, that shows up in all aspects of the behaviour of light and radiation; it is definitely not merely a side effect of quantized orbits of atoms.

 

[conway]

quantization results of electronic orbits beeing resonances, which is why radiation is emitted or absorbed in quanta not because that is their nature.
a semiclassical analisys is sufficient to explain the photoelectric effect and also the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbury_Brown_and_Twiss_effect#Wave_mechanics"
-----------------

I'm going to agree with what you've said here. My inclination is that any natural phenomenon involving thermal light can be explained with a semiclassical treatment. And probably laser light as well.

 

[heldervelez]

Yes, you do seem to be mislead. Quantization is in the nature of the thing, that shows up in all aspects of the behaviour of light and radiation; it is definitely not merely a side effect of quantized orbits of atoms.

Mr. Sylas: I do like to discuss the reasoning behind physical statements.
I will be convinced if there exists (or devise) an experiment where the resonant nature of emitter and absorver is absent, or first principles.

 

[sylas]

Mr. Sylas: I do like to discuss the reasoning behind physical statements.
I will be convinced if there exists (or devise) an experiment where the resonant nature of emitter and absorver is absent, or first principles.

The quantum nature of radiation is now well established basic physics, based on far more than only the photoelectric effect.

I was only just recently looking at some lecture notes for Physics 313: Modern Physics at Rutgers, where this reference and explanation was provided:

So what would give us a proof? The study of statistical properties of photons:

"Although surely the correct description of the electromagnetic field is a quantum one, just as surely the vast majority of optical phenomena are equally well described by a semiclassical theory, with atoms quantized but with a classical field. ... The first experimental example of a manifestly quantum or nonclassical field was provided in 1977 with observation of photon anti-bunching for the fluorescent light from a single atom (PRL 39, 691 (1977))"

-- H.J. Kimble, Physica Scripta T76, 127 (1998).​

The title of the Kimble reference is "Strong interactions of single atoms and photons in cavity QED". The instructor also recommends as excellent reading on this subject: G. Greenstein and A.G. Zajonc, “The Quantum Challenge” (Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2005).

In brief, it should be no surprise that the semi-classical approach works, even though it is not actually a fully correct representation of the nature of light. It is an error to confuse the continued usefulness of classical methods with an claim about the real nature of light being adequately described with the classical accounts.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[atyy]

The instructor also recommends as excellent reading on this subject: G. Greenstein and A.G. Zajonc, “The Quantum Challenge” (Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2005).

This is the same reference I gave in post #51. The reference states that quantization of the electromagnetic field is not necessary to explain the photoelectric effect (there's a caveat to this, but it's not relevant at this point).

 

[bcrowell]

This is the same reference I gave in post #51. The reference states that quantization of the electromagnetic field is not necessary to explain the photoelectric effect (there's a caveat to this, but it's not relevant at this point).

I've started a thread about this in the quantum physics forum. The problem with the Scully-Lamb model is that it violates conservation of energy.

I wasn't able to access anything via the link in your #51, but I was able to find the book on amazon, which let me see certain pages. However, I was unable to see the page where they give their reference [1]. Do you have the actual book, and is reference [1] the internal report that's been floating around? I was able to access the pages where they present the idea, and it's basically just a summary of the internal report. They ignore the same issue Scully and Lamb ignore, which is that the hybrid model violates conservation of energy.

 

[atyy]

IDo you have the actual book, and is reference [1] the internal report that's been floating around?

I haven't got the book, was browsing at Borders some time ago which is when I came across their discussion.

 

[bcrowell]

I haven't got the book, was browsing at Borders some time ago which is when I came across their discussion.

It's funny trying to access this information through "keyholes" like amazon and google books. Although I couldn't access the book through google books at home, I am able to access it through google books here at work. Right after the section on the photoelectric effect, they have a section called "anticoincidences," which makes essentially the same point I'm making. Anyway, the Quantum Physics forum is really the right place to continue this discussion.