On Dec 31, 8:28*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
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

Happy New Year to you too Art,

Interesting ideas, as ever. I don't see anything to disagree with in the
above as you have stated it. As you say, the exact nature of the photon is
relatively unknown and by virtue of the fact that there is a formula that
allows energy to be converted to mass and vice versa, there is the
possibility that photons will one day be discovered to have an
infinitesimally small mass.

I suspect the missing ingredient in my water analogy is the bond that binds
the atoms together. The ancient concept of an all pervading ether throughout
space may substitute in electromagnetic waves providing a substrate to bind
the electric and magnetic fields and perhaps also be the reason for the
limit of the speed of propogation of radio and light waves. In universal
terms 186,000 miles per second is not very fast. Perhaps there is a slight
pause in propagation as the photons transition between electrical and
magnetic fields, at the moment of transition? It seems there may be an
'ether' after all.

Reports of experiments that appear to demonstrate faster than light
propogation is possible in the laboratory indicate that we are still missing
something vital in our understanding of electromagnetic waves in all their
forms.

You are not alone in your frustration at modern physics using pure maths to
arrive at an explanation for the way things work. Many mathematicians in the
Victorian era were unhappy with quaternions and the use of imaginary numbers
to arrive at the solution to previously insoluble problems. The use of
imaginary numbers (like the square root of minus 1) to balance equations
divorced mathematics from the everyday world in which things could be
directly physically verified at each step by measurement. Of course this
math is used everyday in radio to calculate standing wave ratios and for
antenna matching. It works in as much as you calculate the values according
to the formulae and get an answer that matches (generally) what is found
when you build the antenna and feedline. I have never quite got over the
disquiet that an imaginary number is vital to solve the formulae myself,
even though I have been taught how and why it is required.

Perhaps it is time for a newer new mathematics to address these problems and
not resort to string theory which seemingly gives the answer to everything
and nothing unless you already know what the answer is. Just like Douglas
Adams book Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy when the computer answers that
the solution to life, the universe and everything is 42.

Have a great 2010

Mike G0ULI

One final note
When mass changes state there is a loss or gain in energy at a near
static temperature! If energy has mass then it should be measurable
at both ends of a liquid state change stages. I have heard nothing
that relates to that which knocks my thoughts of energy measurement in
terms of temperature, into a mess. Looking at it from mechanical "work
done" angle is way beyond my pay grade.
I have just made a 6foot sphere of aluminum mesh which I will try to
attach a Bernoli type nozzle so I can try to measure the half power
width as well as the Take off angle as I raise the ground mounted
apparatus from horizontal to some where above the grazing angle.
Forcast for weather in the next two weeks is negative temperatures
(F) so all activities have come to a close. Now I can muse about the
nozzle being in the confines of the sphere versus outside of the
sphere. Certainly inside means an increase in Eddy currents which
constituts losses. On the other hand outside suggests a loss because
it requires a larger sphere........ Maybe a comparison against just an
opening is called for
Cheers
Art
Cheers
Art