Choate Prime Physics

[Steve Schear]

At 12:39 AM 7/25/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote:
>
> > You're gibbering about things you have no clue about. Babbling about
> > "the intermediate vector boson" when you clearly don't even
> > understand high school physics is especially bizarre.
> >
> > Photons are _quanta_, as in quantum theory. Their energy is given by
> > the usual E = hv (v is nu, frequency). They aren't "less energetic"
> > when they scatter (i.e., are reflected). A photon fired at a surface
> > will scatter/reflect with precisely the energy it had when it hit the
> > surface, unless it is absorbed (in which case it knocks electrons out
> > of atoms...the photoelectric effect in a vacuum, thermalized in
> > ordinary solids).
>
><groan>
>
>Here is what actually happens. It's called "The Radiated Electric Field".
>
>Some 1st year engineering physics books will have it listed in the index
>under 'mirror'.
>
>The incident photons strike the mirror.
>
>A current is induced.
>
>That current is electrons moving in a resistor. Making heat, losing
>energy. Note, we are NOT talking about photons here but J/C.
>
>That current re-emits photons that retain both frequency and temporal/time
>related coherence (see Maxwell's Equations for more detail). However, the
>total number of photons MUST be reduced from the incident beam. This also
>means the incident photons can not be the same as the emitted photons.
>
>The photons (as opposed to 'a photon') lose energy.

The photons don't lose energy: the beam or flux is diminished in 
intensity.  Your improper choice of terms is what's getting creating the 
misunderstandings.

steve