Prev: 'Relativistic' "Doppler" shift
Next: Good arguments supporting reality of bp's support of cap&trade "free-er trade" nostrum
From: Darwin123 on 1 Aug 2010 14:00
On Jul 30, 11:22 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 3:41 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 5:42 pm, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> >Where is Newton when we need him?
In Hell, trying to use his famous map to get out!
The physical classists of the world are always praying to Rabbi
Newton. They think of Principia as the Talmud of physics. Issaac
Newton was plagerist, a fraud and a tax collector. He stole all the
experimental data from Kepler and Galileo. He corrupted the intuitive,
readily verifiable physics of Aristotle.
And those light corpusules, moving faster in air than in glass!
Does this make sense to you? Light corpusules are the Devil's
particle!
Furthermore, he wrote that there was an absolute space and time.
Zionist rubbish! It's time turned our backs on the tax collector
called Isaac!
From: Darwin123 on 1 Aug 2010 14:09
On Jul 30, 11:22 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 3:41 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On Jul 29, 5:42 pm, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> >Where is Newton when we need him?

In Hell, trying to use his famous map to get out!
The physical classists of the world are always praying to Rabbi
Newton. They think of Principia as the Talmud of physics. Issaac
Newton was plagerist, a fraud and a tax collector. He stole all the
experimental data from Kepler and Galileo. He corrupted the intuitive,
readily verifiable physics of Aristotle.
And those light corpusules, moving faster in glass than in air!
Obviously, a medium like glass will slow down light corpusules!
Furthermore, look at those experiments with light diffraction and
interference. Light is obviously a wave, traveling through an aether.
Yet Newton dares to call light a particle! Light corpusules are the
Devil's particle!
Furthermore, he wrote that there was an absolute space and time.
Zionist rubbish! It's time turned our backs on the tax collector
called Isaac!


From: Darwin123 on 1 Aug 2010 21:17
On Jul 31, 1:06 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c160eb03-0d62-42df-861c-6026b8d4f2fa(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 30, 2:20 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
>
> > "maxwell" <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message
>
> >news:6e1e8404-40b2-4da9-b0df-230bcef461ac(a)o7g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 29, 3:41 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 29, 5:42 pm, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:>
> > magnetic fields or photons. Where is Newton when we need him?
> > =============================================
> > Last I heard he was scratching his head and then laughing at virtual
> > photons inside a transformer.
>
>    Do you know anything about transformers?
> ========================================
> More than you ever will about trolling, drosen,  I've designed and
> wound transformers.
Really? Did your "design" involve specifying the impedance of the
transformer? Did you ever calculate the power load, the phase angle,
the resistance or the ractance of a power supply? Did you ever measure
or calculate the electromagnetic field in the transformer coils? Do
you understand the hysteresis diagrams of the iron core? Or were you a
technician that just wrapped copper around an iron core? Did you ever
measure the properties of a solenoid with an air core?
I'll bet you did no more "designing" than calculating the ratio
between windings.
I have worked through every problem in:
Robert C. Johnson and Robert Cox, "Electrical Wiring: Design and
Construction" (Prentice Hall, Engleworth Cliffs, NJ, 1981).
I think this is a pretty good introduction to the fundamentals of
electrical theory. Fundamentals that you lack.
This is in addition to working through problems in:
J. D. Jackson, "Classical Electrodynamics 3rd Ed." (Wiley, 1999).
So I know a bit about transformers and antenna in classical
electrical theory. You barely know anything about electricity. It is
obvious.
You lack a fundamental science education. Your rants against
Einstein is just sand in our eyes. You wrap coils. That is all.
From: spudnik on 1 Aug 2010 21:36
indeed, a massless & momentumless particle is going
to have a hard time observing any thing, but
I thought you meant an actual observer *not* going at c.

four spins of this virtual photon, coould be a dradel.

>     I used electrical engineer language to describe the four
> polarization states of the electromagnetic field inside an antenna.
> Let me use covariant QED language.
>     The two circular polarization states are unchanged in QED
> language. Clockwise and counterclockwise are good words. However, the
> transverse magnetic mode is called the longitudinal spin state. The
> transverse electric mode is called the time-like spin state.
>        To summarize: I described a good heuristic relating QED to
> classical antenna theory. The spin state of the photon relates to the
> polarization state of the radio wave or radio field. There are two
> polarization/spin states in the far field (far from the antennae) and
> four polarization/spin states in the near field (close to the
> antennae).
>      The classical electromagnetic field can be described as a
> collection of photons. Photons don't change spin states once they are
> created. However, the number of photons with any particular property
> can change in the presence of electric charges. The same electric
> charges can change the state of a classical electromagnetic field.

thus:
the pythagorean theorem is perfectly dimensional, as
he and I both concern ourselves with "circling," instead
of "tatragoning." that is, "Einstein's proof" via similarity,
which he probably found at the gymnasium
in Euclid, is merely diagrammatic as he gave it;
the actual construction *is* the lunes proof
(Hippocrates', I think, but different than the Oath's .-)
> So why are you assuming otherwise?

thus: in spite of his slogan about phase-space,
Minkowski was a fantastic Nd geometer. anyway,
it's downright innumerate to worry about it,
without actually peeking at l'OEuvre de Fermatttt, but
Hipparchus' (or Hippocrates') lunes proof is all
that you need for the dimensionality of the 2d pythag. thm.,
if not the 3d pair of them (quadruplets).
the main thing, though, is that Fermat didn't have
to prove n=3, since his proof apparently applied
to all of the odd primes; only the special case
of n=4 does not fall to teh well-known lemma
for composite exponents, and this he showed,
in one of his rare expositions.

thus: too bad, the unit associated with the pound, had
to be associated with The newton -- the plagiarist,
the spook, the freemason, the corpuscular "theorist" ...

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biograph...

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
From: Darwin123 on 1 Aug 2010 22:05
On Jul 31, 10:35 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> On Jul 30, 11:20 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "maxwell" <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message
>
> >news:6e1e8404-40b2-4da9-b0df-230bcef461ac(a)o7g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 29, 3:41 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 29, 5:42 pm, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> What are the
> > > physical processes, from a quantum perspective, involved
> > > > in receiving/transmitting radio waves?
>
> > > There are rather easy rules of thumb that connect classical
> > > electrodynamics (CED) to quantum electrodynamics (QED). I will assume
> > > that you know classical electrodynamics rather well, so that you are
> > > comfortable analyzing a classical antennae. I will also assume that
> > > you don't know QED but for a few popular images. In other words, I
> > > assume that you have heard the phrases "real photon" and "virtual
> > > photon".
> > > The electromagnetic field of an antennae can be divided into a
> > > near-field component and a far-field component.
> > > Far-field component: What are generally called "radio waves" are
> > > the far field component. Radio waves carry energy a large distance
> > > from the antennae (i.e., many antennae lengths). In QED, radio waves
> > > are modeled as "real photons".
> > > Near-field component: The near-field component consists of static
> > > and near static fields that exist only near or inside the antennae. In
> > > other words, the energy inside the antennae is mostly stored in near-
> > > field component. In QED, the near-field component is modeled as
> > > virtual photons.
>
> > > > Eg, if an electron undergoes acceleration in a magnetic field, >is the
> > > > magnetic force mediated by photons?
>
> > > Very close to the accelerating electron, the electric and magnetic
> > > fields are distinguishable. So most of the force close to the electron
> > > is mediated by virtual photons. The virtual photons disappear at a
> > > certain distance from the electron by a distance determined by
> > > Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Some of the virtual photons become
> > > real photons, and some just disappear. Virtual photons are equivalent
> > > to the near-fields studied by electrical engineers.
> > > At large distances from the accelerating electron, there are no
> > > virtual photons. However, all the energy is traveling as real photons..
> > > Real photons are equivalent to the "radio waves" studied by electrical
> > > engineers.> When the accelerating electron
> > > > radiates, does it do so by emitting radio energy quanta?
>
> > > The electron is always surrounded by virtual photons which are
> > > close to the electron. When the electron is accelerated, energy is
> > > added to the virtual photons. The virtual photons change into real
> > > photons when they acquire a sufficient amount of energy from the
> > > accelerating electron. Of course, the accelerating electron loses
> > > energy. In order to accelerate, an electron requires a continuous
> > > input of energy.> If so, does
> > > > that mean that the electron's trajectory is a sequence of linear >steps
> > > > rather than a continuous curve?
>
> > > Virtual photons are not quantized the way real photons are
> > > quantized. The energy of a virtual photon is constrained by
> > > Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. In other words, the energy of a
> > > virtual photon is not quantized.
> > > The trajectory of the electron is not so much continuous as fuzzy.
> > > The exact position of the electron is unknown. The trajectory is more
> > > like a fuzzy band than a precise curve.
> > > Under the conditions that radio engineers usually work at, the
> > > fuzziness caused by the uncertainty principle is unimportant. The band
> > > is narrow enough to be called a line curve for pruposes of the radio
> > > engineer. QED is generally not important for understanding the
> > > spectrum of radio antennae. However, there are some special conditions
> > > where the uncertainty principle can not be ignored.
>
> > > > Assume a conducting wire antenna lying normal to the direction of
> > > > propagation of a radio 'wave' (what is the structure of this 'wave' in
> > > > terms of a photon model?).
>
> > > There are two complications involved with a photon model for
> > > energy traveling in an electrical conductor.
> > > Complication #1: Radio waves don't penetrate deeply into
> > > conductors. They are rapidly turned to heat energy. That is why there
> > > is a skin depth to conductors. In the classical picture of the case
> > > you are envisioning, there are radio waves just outside the wire and a
> > > heating in the wire caused by electric currents.
> > > Complication #2: Pauli's exclusion principle. The electrons in a
> > > conductor aren't isolated from each other. According to quantum
> > > mechanics, there can't be two electrons in the same state. So you
> > > can't pretend that a single electron interacts with the radio wave
> > > without shaking up other electrons.
> > > Solution to both complications: Don't treat either photons or
> > > electrons as individual particles. Pretend that electrons and photons
> > > combine inside the conductor as a strange hybrid particle called a
> > > plasmon.
> > > There is a coupled excitation called a plasmon. Inside the
> > > conductor, photons lose their status as individual particles. Inside
> > > the conductor, photons lose their status as individual particles.
> > > Instead, there are these strange composite particles called plasmons.
> > > What you want to know is how photons become plasmons as they enter
> > > the conductor. You would like to study the properties of plasmons. You
> > > don't want to know how photons behave inside the conductor, because
> > > the photon doesn't behave as such in a conductor.> When a radio photon
> > > interacts with an
> > > > electron in a conductor, how does the (linear?) momentum of the >photon
> > > > get converted into electron motion in a specific direction >along the
> > > > antenna?
>
> > > The photon becomes a plasmon inside the conductor. The momentum
> > > of the photons is transferred into the plasmons inside the conductor.
> > > The plasmon has a finite half life, and decays into smaller plasmons.
> > > The momentum gets redistributed into smaller plasmons.
>
> > > > Is there a good reference that explains these kind of issues >from a
> > > > "what's going on in this situation" perspective?
>
> > > No. I have not found a book that explains these kind of issues
> > > from a "what's going on in this situation" perspective. I have looked..
> > > However, there are books that explain the mathematics of quantum
> > > mechanics as applied to solids.
> > > This post is based on my personal intuition concerning the
> > > mathematical descriptions that I have read. I have gotten into
> > > advanced courses and research involving solid state. To me, it is
> > > fairly obvious "what is going on" once I understand the mathematics.
> > > I, personally, have a knack for taking abstract mathematics and
> > > turning it into pictures and images. I can not be sure if I am doing
> > > it "right" or not.
> > > Books on solid state physics do describe the quantum mechanics of
> > > what happens inside an electrical conductor. I don't know your level.
> > > However, if you understand CED really well and if you have studied
> > > rudimentary quantum mechanics, I suggest the next step is studying
> > > solid state physics. I think that once you understand the mathematics,
> > > you may find your own pictures of what is going on.
>
> > Gentlemen: We are looking at a part of reality from two different
> > scales - macro & micro.  At the macro level we have electrical
> > currents moving backwards & forwards and from the micro scale,
> > electrons forming the currents.  With two antennae, one sending & one
> > receiving energy: we have induction (remote interaction) between the
> > sources & sinks.  We have also two mathematical schemes, again at
> > different scales, to describe this situation.  Neither Maxwell (CED)
> > nor his field theory successors (QED) wanted to focus on the real
> > physics (inside the conductors: very complicated) so they invented
> > simple math schemes to "describe" what they imagined might be going on
> > between them; i.e. in the empty space in between.
> > Do not fall into the ancient scholastic trap of thinking the symbols
> > in these math schemes describe any form of reality - there are no
> > magnetic fields or photons.  Where is Newton when we need him?
> > =============================================
> > Last I heard he was scratching his head and then laughing at virtual
> > photons inside a transformer. Since there are no magnetic fields I'll
> > inform my fridge to let go of the magnets holding my shopping notes
> > up and go back to using licky sticky stuff, shall I?
>
> Magnetism is a real phenomenon: it is the interaction between
> electrons in motion.  Do not confuse the phenomena with the theories
> that are used to explain them.
I don't want to "confuse" the phenomenon with any theory. I want
a theoretical representation that can help me visualize the phenomena.
Visualization is a good short cut through mathematics.
As visualized in one theoretical representation that explain
electromagnetic phenomena:
1) Static magnetic fields are mediated by virtual photons that have a
time-like polarization state (i.e., spin).
2) Static electrical fields are mediated by virtual photons that have
a longitudinal polarization-state (i.e., spin).
3) Radio waves (light waves, etc.) are mediated by real photons that
have circular polarization-states (i.e., spin).
4) there are two circular polarization states: clockwise and
counterclockwise.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Prev: 'Relativistic' "Doppler" shift
Next: Good arguments supporting reality of bp's support of cap&trade "free-er trade" nostrum