On Dec 1, 9:25*am, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Art Unwin wrote in news:15904250-69bb-4aba-8a3f-
:

If you go back to the arbitary boundary of the Gaussian law of statics
and view it as a
Faraday shield it all becomes quite simple. If one adds a time varying
field you have the duplicate of Maxwells laws for radiation, *where
the outside of the boundary is the radiator.
The Faraday shield supplies the transition from a static to a dynamic
field for xmission and
the reverse action *for receiving.
Very basic my dear Watson, and a vindication that particles and not
waves create radiation
which puts it in line with deductions when other methods are applied.

Doesn't look basic, and I suspect it never will to me. The only thing I
can get from this is the idea that a particle model will do what the wave
one does, which isn't surprising but I've been told that particle based
models are usually best left to situations (usually atomic scale quantum
mechanical) where the wave model won't do, and I've never seen anyone suggest
that wave-based theories of electromagnetics were inadequate (or inefficient)
for scales involving obviously large numbers of particles. The other
explanations seemed to grip, but not this one. I'll leave well alone now, but
if anyone else takes up the discussion, I'll read it and only comment if I
can't stop myself..

Yep, that's about right. In fact, my advice if you do get into that
situation (where quantization of energy is important), is to NOT think
of particles or waves, but realize that quanta of electromagnetic
radiation behave exactly as they behave, which is neither exactly like
waves nor exactly like particles. One of Richard Feynman's physics
lectures covered what I think is a lovely example of this: how you
can NOT explain the results of the experiment he sets up, using EITHER
wave OR particle behaviour. I highly recommend it, to arm yourself
against people who get into the particle-vs-wave battle. I believe
it's the sixth of what has been published as Feynman's "Six Easy
Pieces."

Cheers,
Tom