photons and reflection
in [Basics]
|
Prev: Question about common-collector circuits.
Next: Absolutly Free Lectures on C++ by MIT Studied Professor
From: Autymn D. C. on 12 Dec 2009 23:05 On Dec 8, 1:44 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: > > "George Herold" <ggher...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:0497f18c-647c-4792-a268-197905b5f01d(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > Hi Androcles. I use to like this analogy too. Until I learned a few > > years ago that in E-M radiation the E and B are in phase! used You mean in near-field? > > =========================================== > > Then you should unlearn it immediately. If E and B were in phase > > both would be zero simultaneously and that violates the first law of > > thermodynamics, you'd create energy from nothing. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics > > But anyway, Maxwell's equations never did claim E and B were in phase, > > what you've "learnt" is a rumour spread by the incompetent. > > =========================================== If both voltage and currend are at nouht then presumably there are diaelèctric and diamagnetic bodies in medium to offset them such thas their potential yields somewise. > > At first I > > thought there was a mistake... but then discovered that the mistake > > was mine. (Your link shows correctly the in phase behavior so I > > realize I'm not telling you anything you don't know.) > > > Anyway the analogy can lead to false conclusions. (At least for me.) > > > So now I see that the E field at some time was 'created' by some B > > field at a previous time.... E, D, B, H -> S; D -> E, H -> B, D -> B, H -> E > > ============================================ > > Any spark will start the process. A flame is a chemical reaction > > whereby the electrons of the atoms are rearranged to build a different > > molecule. 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O. > > ============================================ > > > Which starts to 'weird' me out if think > > too hard. All of a sudden I picture 'photons' travelling in both > > directions. > > > George H. > > > =========================================== > > Androcles' third law: For every photon there is an equal and > > opposite rephoton. > >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rephoton.gif > > (It's Newton's third law applied to E-M waves and allows > > for light to travel in beams -- quite simple, really.) What a mutt--anafotòn. Two fotòns meet and make a plasmonic beam. > 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. How would you know the ratio of writers? > 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. None of them show fasis or hýsteresis. -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 12 Dec 2009 23:14 Berkeley spatial vice versa Nescientist Androcles, the medium is the charge, not nothing.
From: Autymn D. C. on 12 Dec 2009 23:51 On Dec 2, 9:03 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > "Bill Taylor" <w.tay...(a)math.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message > > news:cdf336a9-30f5-4657-9322-d6f248be477d(a)z35g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > The nature of light is "?" . > > > The upper part represents the wave aspect; > > the lower part represents the particle aspect. > > > -- Befuddled Bill > > > ** They travel as waves but arrive as photons. > > The upper part is the magnetic aspect; > the lower part is the electric aspect. > > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm > > If a rotating magnet turns another magnet then there is > an energy transfer across empty space. One rotation > corresponds to one photon. > That's the nature of light. empty as in not moot? http://google.com/groups?q=%22Comparisons+for+the+illiterate%22 (update: find|leave, cleave|clive, meld|sunder, meet|split) >Some purists want that to read curl E = -dB/dt but really the electric field is wherever the conductors take it. In this motor is parallel with the shaft, curling around the iron, but also across the brushes. "Curl" is misleading.< Yes, "curling". If the loop were infinite, there'd be no reaction. So it's "E o( -B,/t,", where o( is proports. >When we do that we say we have a dielectric and a diamagnetic material that can affect the operation, but it is not a requirement for the process to occur. Thus the vast reaches of space across which light reaches us in packets of energy from individual atoms need contain no aether with properties of permittivity or permeability, these are properties of matter and not a requirement for the transmission of energy. All that is necessary and sufficient is that magnetic and electric fields must exist in the vacuum of space..< The vacvum is still a material medium, the far-field of the radiant body--namely, its charges. There is no transmission without matter: http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+-autumn+sun+bird. >The "wave" nature of the photon is simply a misinterpretation of such concepts as "wavelength", for the wave shown above is a wave not in space, but in time. "Now" is shown by the black vertical line and as time passes the trace shows the voltage and gaussage* as it once was, not how it is now. It doesn't actually exist "now", but it did "then". There is no wave"length", only wave duration. The horizontal axis is the time axis, not a distance axis. The "poles" of the photon are it's centre and the surface of a sphere at infinity, for there is no electric or magnetic field except between poles.< its Length is in time. A wave (especially in condensed matter) has bobble (room) and ripple (time) componends: wavearm (stride) and wavestint (tide) in near-field/pole and wavespan (stride) and wavelength (tide) in far-field/group; plasmòns do them all. And there is no infinity for the univers isn't infinitely eld. -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 13 Dec 2009 00:01
On Dec 1, 8:30 am, Louis Boyd <b...(a)apt0.sao.arizona.edu> wrote: > happens in nature. Use the one which works best to explain a given > phenomena. Or come up with more complete unified model if you can. no a phenomena |