photons and reflection
in [Basics]
|
Prev: Question about common-collector circuits.
Next: Absolutly Free Lectures on C++ by MIT Studied Professor
From: Androcles on 9 Dec 2009 14:19 "George Herold" <ggherold(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5535d162-6305-49c0-889d-08542c5e91c5(a)r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > "George Herold" <ggher...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:bc2be262-2a4f-4ba9-ab61-2140c09aa064(a)b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 8, 11:16 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > <snip> > Hmm, Sorry on my second look your picture of a photon has it wrong > you've got the E and B fields 90 degrees out of phase. > ===================================== > It's right. Just ask any electrical engineer. > ===================================== > > This is > exactly what I would have drawn a few years ago. > ===================================== > You'd have been right years ago. > ===================================== > > But check out this, > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation > > There is a picture if you scroll down a bit. > > George H. > ================================================= > Wackypedia is written by both incompetent kooks and the wise. > Kooks outnumber the wise by at least 100:1, perhaps a 1000:1. > Wackypedia has it wrong. See the discussion page, there are a set of > tabs labelled "article", "discussion", "edit this page" and "history" > at the top. > YOU can edit the page, I refuse to have anything to do with it. > > Faraday wrote E = -dB/dt. > He did not write E = B, he did not write dE/dt = -dB/dt and > he did experiment. A CHANGING magnetic field produces > an electric field. Ask any generator designer. > > The kook diagram you've indicated shows E = B. > Use this instead: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometric_functions > Hi Androcles, Are you so sure you are correct? ================================= Yes, quite sure. ================================= Or is there some chance you could learn something new? ================================= I strongly doubt you have any new evidence or data, and I'm not really interested in old crackpot theories. But present it if you do. ================================= I don't mind trying to work through the mathematics with you.... But only if you are interested. ================================== I've already presented http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm which you've snipped. If you think you can fault it you are welcome to try. Just remember that mathematics is about proof based on axioms. ================================== I know about Faraday's law. ================================== That's nice for you. ================================== But we are talking about someting different here. ================================= No we are not. We are talking about the transfer of energy through nothing, as when you feel the heat and see a big bright ball in the sky. ================================= It is the travleing wave solution of Maxwells equations. ================================= What travelling wave and what is waving? I've seen no evidence of a travelling wave. I think ================================= You can stop right there. I'm not interested in what you think, show we what you can prove. ================================= that in the near field of the source you will find that the E and B fields are out of phase. But the far-field traveling wave is different. I'm not much of a theorist. ================================= I'm not interested in your theories. You said above you'd work through the mathematics. I'll allow that, but I'm not going to listen to your theories. ================================= But looking over the solutions (At the moment I'm looking at Volume 3 (Waves) of the Berkley series on Physics) One can see that the spacial derivative of B is equal to 1/c times the time derivative of E. (and visa versa.) From which (with a little math) one can see that the E and B are in phase. (Oh this is the free space solution.) ================================= Phase shift is found in the time derivative. It's E = -dB/dt, and E <> -dB/dx. Or is there some chance you could learn something old?
From: BURT on 9 Dec 2009 16:34 On Dec 8, 8:26 pm, Skywise <i...(a)oblivion.nothing.com> wrote: > BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:8b79ee65-5af0-44a2-bf00- > a67ed367a...(a)2g2000prl.googlegroups.com: > > > The truth is meant to be known. Quantization is the lesser concept > > than full ranges of energy. > > So then, what is the truth? If quantization is 'less correct', then > what is 'more correct'. If you're going to tell us we're wrong, then > tell us what's right. We're listening. > > Brian > --http://www.skywise711.com- Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism > Seismic FAQ:http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html > Quake "predictions":http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html > Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? Quantization only applies to stimulated emmision. Opaque objects have to absorb all frequencies. Quantum Mechanics is wrong. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 9 Dec 2009 17:57 On Dec 9, 3:34 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 8, 8:26 pm, Skywise <i...(a)oblivion.nothing.com> wrote: > > > BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:8b79ee65-5af0-44a2-bf00- > > a67ed367a...(a)2g2000prl.googlegroups.com: > > > > The truth is meant to be known. Quantization is the lesser concept > > > than full ranges of energy. > > > So then, what is the truth? If quantization is 'less correct', then > > what is 'more correct'. If you're going to tell us we're wrong, then > > tell us what's right. We're listening. > > > Brian > > --http://www.skywise711.com-Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism > > Seismic FAQ:http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html > > Quake "predictions":http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html > > Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? > > Quantization only applies to stimulated emmision. Oh dear. > Opaque objects have to absorb all frequencies. > > Quantum Mechanics is wrong. > > Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 10 Dec 2009 00:11 On Dec 9, 2:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 9, 3:34 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 8:26 pm, Skywise <i...(a)oblivion.nothing.com> wrote: > > > > BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:8b79ee65-5af0-44a2-bf00- > > > a67ed367a...(a)2g2000prl.googlegroups.com: > > > > > The truth is meant to be known. Quantization is the lesser concept > > > > than full ranges of energy. > > > > So then, what is the truth? If quantization is 'less correct', then > > > what is 'more correct'. If you're going to tell us we're wrong, then > > > tell us what's right. We're listening. > > > > Brian > > > --http://www.skywise711.com-Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism > > > Seismic FAQ:http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html > > > Quake "predictions":http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html > > > Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? > > > Quantization only applies to stimulated emmision. > > Oh dear. > > > > > Opaque objects have to absorb all frequencies. > > > Quantum Mechanics is wrong. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Perhaps you have something to say? Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 10 Dec 2009 09:45
On Dec 9, 11:11 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 9, 2:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 9, 3:34 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 8, 8:26 pm, Skywise <i...(a)oblivion.nothing.com> wrote: > > > > > BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:8b79ee65-5af0-44a2-bf00- > > > > a67ed367a...(a)2g2000prl.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > The truth is meant to be known. Quantization is the lesser concept > > > > > than full ranges of energy. > > > > > So then, what is the truth? If quantization is 'less correct', then > > > > what is 'more correct'. If you're going to tell us we're wrong, then > > > > tell us what's right. We're listening. > > > > > Brian > > > > --http://www.skywise711.com-Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism > > > > Seismic FAQ:http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html > > > > Quake "predictions":http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html > > > > Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? > > > > Quantization only applies to stimulated emmision. > > > Oh dear. > > > > Opaque objects have to absorb all frequencies. > > > > Quantum Mechanics is wrong. > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Perhaps you have something to say? Oh, I dunno. Some statements you make are just so far off base, there's too much to correct. You might have well have said that mathematics only applies to adding up the prices of groceries. |