On Dec 31, 11:57*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 31, 9:12*am, Art Unwin wrote:



On Dec 31, 7:06*am, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:

"K7ITM" wrote in message

....
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

Art,

The same phenomena can also be demonstrated using microwaves. At UHF and VHF
it allows signals to be received even though there is a solid mass between
the transmitter and the receiver - signals can be received directly behind a
tower block or skyscraper due purely to diffraction effects (so long as you
are far enough behind the building). Hills and mountains can also be used as
a diffraction edge at lower frequencies enabling reliable long range
communications without direct line of sight.

Electromagnetic waves, photons and electrons, are all inextricably linked.
The electromagnetic wave is constantly varying as it propogates so that
measuring it at one point reveals the magnetic element and half a wavelength
later, the electrical element.

For example, water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen atoms combined as H2O
but displays properties that are completely different to either element in
isolation. Why should electromagnetic waves be any different? The
combination of electricity and magnetism as a "compound" would logically be
expected to display properties that are different to electricity or
magnetism in isolation. Hence the observed properties of electromagnetic
radiation.

Regards

Mike G0ULI

Happy new year Mike
Again I cannot do justice to a debate in optics. At the same time I
recognise that different things can exhibit similar properties and
thus, like many others, I can state that they act like the same while
at the same time state that "they are NOT the same."
With respect to radiation I stick with the aproach of Newton and do
not see enough evidence that suggest that a wave and a particle are
interchangeable in terms of mass with that of a particle.
From my own point of view I liken it to the standard model where only
two forces in combination with mass make up all of the Universe as we
see it in that the particle of mass is the same but the propertise
bestowed on it are different.
Thus I come back to the radiation aspect and see a clear path to a
particle of mass where additional properties are added in line with
the exchange of kinetic to potential energies. So I am back in
interpreting
results from the same experiment without the two leaps required to
jump the Grand Canyon. This is why I have gone back to the times that
mathematics did not rule all and provide two instances where
the properties of the particle are one and the same and present them
for others to determine how and why Newton was wrong. AS YET
no body has explained the properties of waves with respect to
radiation.
Cheers
Ar in

Mike
Picking up from your point regarding H20and parts in isolation.
H2o is a compound or so where the electrons or particles of a bound
form. In other words they have a energty constituent added.
Now let us look at the surface of water which is diamagnetic where the
surface is completely covered by Unbound particles such that insects
can walk across it. These unbound particles or electrons are so
tenacious in finding a place to rest that they are able to form a hoop
stress around a droplet. We know that updraft imposes a charge on such
an arrangement when that same surface disipates and the charge
returned to earth bring the same particle or electron with it
In each case the difference in the particles in isolation is purely in
its energy component. Ala bound versus unbound.
Looking at a football at rest at the beginning of a match. When the
whistle blows various characteristics are applied to the football by
the addition or removal of energy. When the ball finally becomes to
rest
it reverts to equilibrium where the energy flow as stopped and the
ball no longer has the characteristics observed and is at rest.
Thus we see how the same analogy can be applied to a Faraday cage
where the characteristics show the extent of energy change but where
the carrier of such is always the same, an unbound electron.
Regards
Art

While I am on a roll let me compare a Faraday cage with what is known
about radiators
Aperture in the books is a relative measure of gain. In otgher words
the shere thatr encircles a radiator or array is symbiolic of total
gain
(poyntings vector) and where with respoect to a sphere the energy
contained within the sphere is equal to the energty outside of the
sphere.
In the Faraday cage the outside surface is covered in charges carried
by particles as is the inside surface so the areas can be considered
equal and 100% efficient energy transfer. The total energy is
realisable ONLY when transfered as a time varying current from the
inside of the sphere.This being the addition of the charges carried by
the particles on the inside and the outside of the conductive surface.
Thus this is the experimental results o0f Faraday that leads from
Gauss to Maxwell.
With respect to radiators the analogy between the surface area of a
sphere equates with the circle that encloses a radiator, say a yagi.
This is provided by Jasik as a approximation of gain by visualisation.
This same analogy was applied by Steven Guest on his antenna paper
presented to the IEEE for an electrically small radiator' where he
showed that by "crushing" a radiator into a state of equilibrium for
insertion into a half hemisphere as per Gauss.
Thus with all this interlocking of facts when comparing a Faraday
shield with a radiator opponents of the particle aproach are now in a
position of showing an electrical field cancelling a magnetic field
both of which are a measure of energy alone and not mass to produce
a addition of fields so that somehow a time varying current is
obtained
which a receiver can use.
Compare this with the proposition that a photon is a relatively
unknown,assumed to be without mass in terms of mathematics that
apparently is a breakaway of energy from mass in a similar form to a
fireball. Frankly the idea of the eyeball being a small Faraday cage
to manufacture a signal to the brain is a much better supposition by
those who rule physics of the day.
Art