On Dec 30, 4:21*pm, K7ITM wrote:
On Dec 28, 6:36*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



Gauss's boundary contains static particles

Faraday cage contains static particles

Both have a boundary that is conductive and thus can radiate.

Both radiate when a time varying field is applied

Both receive when transformed into a time varying field
provided when the magnetic and electric moves to cancellation

Both are applicable to Maxwell's equations for radiation

Both start and finish with a time varient current.

Both produce a charge by accelerating or removal of a charge via
deceleration of a particle.

The accelerant in both cases is the intersection of two closed fields.
( Electric field and a static field encircled by
the displacement current)

In both cases the particle has a straight line projection with spin

In both cases the particle vector angles equate exactly with that of
gravity and the Earth's rotation

Question * *;
How does the particle ( singular) referred to in each case act like a
wave or become a wave as stated in Classical Physics?

Something for you to ponder, Art:

If we shine monochromatic light source through a pinhole, some
distance behind which there is a white screen, we'll see that the
light is diffracted by the pinhole. *If we have two such pinholes near
each other, we'll see an interference pattern on the screen. *If we
replace the screen with a sensitive detector such as a photomuliplier
with a small aperature which we can move over the area of the screen
it replaces, we can quantitatively map the intensity versus location
in that plane. *If we reduce the intensity of the light source enough,
we can get to the point where the photomultiplier detects individual
photons at even the locations of greatest intensity. *Eventually, we
can get to an intensity where apparently there is almost never more
than one photon at a time on a path from the source to the plane where
the detector is located. *If we count photons for long enough, though,
we can map the intensity at that plane just as we did above. *Now,
will we see the same pattern, the same interference, the same
_relative_ intensities, as we did when there were lots and lots of
photons arriving at that plane? *If so, why? *If not, why not?

Cheers,
Tom

Tom,
Thank you for your thoughts which probably is a break out from the
double slit experiment which by the way has the apearance of increased
attacks.On the many physics forums on the net physics professors have
now ban those who would suggest that those in physics could be wrong.
I know little of optics so I can't do justice indebating your thoughts
so please allow me to change the approach.
The discussion is about behavior like a wave ! Not that a particle IS
a wave. The definition provided for a wave is indeterminate and
different to that generally known. All I ask is for an fresh
evaluation of the work by Maxwell, Gauss and now with the addition of
Faraday known by his work as an experimenter and not by his knowledge
of mathematics.
For me I am concentrating on the subject of radiation and not of light
or photons that have little evidence to support them as part of the
discussion.
To my knowledge the Faraday cage is well understood where isolation
can occur with electric fields,magnetic fields an current flow from a
tank circuit. Particles and charges held are a part of Faradays
thoughts
and accepted in everyday physics. His experiments bears out the
boundary theorems by Gauss and others with respect to static particles
and the addition of charge.
From a radiation point of view the mathematical equation for both of
these efforts are those of Maxwell.
Radiation is not fully explained purely because physics are responding
first to mathematics instead of observables as with the past which has
lead to trickery and assumptions.
It is for this reason I have posted the additions of Faraday which are
really the experimental results of what this group stated of Gauss
where it is "illegal" to add a time vaying field! So what I have done
is widen the pot of facts as supplied, not by me, but those of the
Masters,
where the trained observers of this group have more data to explain
where the masters should have referred to waves and not static or
charged particles. If somebody wants to add so called facts such as
the known presence of a photon and how it turns into a wave to provide
light then be my guest as long as the abservables are factual
that match known facts as with a lonely jigsaw part that fits so
deftly within the area assigned of a puzzle.
Other than that we are left with the comments of "nuts" from those who
consider themselves superiour of mind compared to others.
Best regards
Art Unwin