View Single Post
  #16   Report Post  
Old October 10th 14, 02:11 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Jerry Stuckle Jerry Stuckle is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,067
Default Radiation from antennae - a new philosophy

On 10/9/2014 7:02 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 5:12 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 1:09 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 11:54 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 10:46 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in
news:m166ia$u7a$2@dont-
email.me:

I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only
thing
I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either -
just that it's the way the math works out.


That gets very (and unavoidably) metaphysical because the question
becomes
whether the maths is a possibly flawed model, an extrapolation of some
original observation, or whether the maths as information is as
fundamental,
if not more so, than mass-energy itself. After trying for some time, I
decided to let that line of inquiry drop.


I don't think it's really a metaphysical question, nor that the math is
flawed. I think it's more the inability to explain it to me due to my
lack of understanding of the basics behind it.

Right now I think your problem is that you are trying to think of
quantum mechanical theory in classical ways. QM doesn't require the
same things as classical mechanics. Often things just happen without an
underlying mechanism. Even in classical mechanics there are things
happening at the lowest level that we have to accept without
explanation, but we are used to that.


Yes and no. I'm also trying to consider it in the QM domain, but there
is just too much unknown about it. And while we may have to accept
things without explanation, that's only because we don't have the
explanation yet. Much like the Curies and Roentgen not being able to
understand radiation and X-rays, respectively, even though they could
observe the results.


That is an assumption. There are many aspects of QM that simply don't
have an underlying reason. At least when they do the math it simply
says this will happen without an explanation. QM is full of that sort
of thing. Classical mechanics has fewer things that aren't based in
deduction.


Not that we understand at this time. Just as there weren't underlying
reasons to the Curies and Roentgen.


Here is an example. Why do like charges repel? There are a zillion
"why" questions that we just have to accept have no answers. But with
QM we get confused because the lack of answers are to questions we
normally can explain by CM hand waving.


That's simple. The last time a guy approached me, I was repelled!
Unlike that cute gal at the bar last night... Too bad I'm married


Ok. But no understanding of the why, eh?


Oh, I understand why - very well! To both cases.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================