Gaussian statics law
 

John E. Davis wrote:
It is unclear
to me that virtual particles play a role in non-perturbative theories.

How about the static magnetic field from a permanent
magnet?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Gaussian statics law
 

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:33:46 +0000, Ian White GM3SEK
wrote:

Quantum theory describes electromagnetic energy as being divided into a
series of packets called photons, so (total energy in a stream of
photons) = (number of photons/second) x (energy of individual photons).

Energy is not expressed with a time in the denominator. The standard
quantum theory expression for energy is eV - time is wholly absent as
it should be.

This also means that EM energy doesn't exist in pure sine-waves

EM theory does not exclude the classic description of pure sine waves.
This is not a neither/nor situation.

- the
waveform is actually built up in steps, very much like digitized audio.

This appears to be the beginnings of a description about to fall off
the edge. What waveform? This is a conceit of time.

The step size is the energy content of one quantum.

No, the step size as you describe is the potential difference of
quantization, an engineering term, not a quantum mechanics term. It
is quantisizing an amplitude to construct the wave in a time domain.
Quanta is the complete wave in a frequency domain.

The transform from one domain to the other is classic Fourier. His
analysis revealed that one unique energy (a single frequency) can be
decimated into many components (amplitudes over time). The
transformation is fully reversible (many amplitudes over time turned
back into one single frequency) without any information loss.

Mixing the two as being one analysis, corrupts it. Time is not a
factor in energy and cannot be drawn into its discussion through
transforms that mix topics.

The question is: are those steps noticeable enough to be important?

For light and shorter wavelengths, the answer is often Yes. Quantum
theory was developed to explain observations like some kinds of light
being emitted in a series of sharp spectral lines, which cannot be
explained by a wave-only theory. Instead, it has to be thought of as
being built up of individual photons/quanta which can only have certain
"allowed" energy levels.

There is absolutely no distinction between "allowed" energy levels and
resonance which allows only certain frequencies. Resonance has been
historically correlated with circularity, and every instance you site
above is found in the change of orbitals - circular, harmonic motion.

A photon is emitted in the cM band when an electron orbiting a
Hydrogen atom flips its magnetic pole. This event is vastly below the
short wavelengths you describe by a million-fold. A good number of
correspondents here are fully capable of detecting this event with
commercial gear already suitable for the Ham market. They could have
done it 50 years ago too.

This is a quantum event, it is expressed with a classic quantum
energy, and it is resolvable as being important (insofar as
"importance" is a subjective, not quantitative quality). It is
certainly noticeable and is not artificially constrained by scale.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian statics law
 

"John E. Davis" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:38:08 GMT, Dave
wrote:
Gauss's law in Jackson's 'Classical Electrodynamics' 2nd edition, ppg
30-32,33 has NO 't'. nor does it in Ramo-Whinnery-VanDuzer 'Fields and
Waves in Communications Electronics' ppg 70-72(differential form),
75-76(integral form)

This is not surprising since that chapter in Jackson deals with
electrostatics. Look at section 1.5 on page 17. The section states:

The Maxwell equations are differential equations applying locally
at each point in space-time (x,t). By means of the divergence
theorem and Stoke's theorem they can be cast in integral form. [...
a few sentences later...] Then the divergence theorem applied to
the first and last [Maxwell] equations yields the integral
statements... The first is just Gauss's law...

--John

yes, referring to all 4 Maxwell equations you do have a 't' dependency.
however, even equations 1.13 and 1.14 referred to by your quote have NO time
dependency in them. the equations on the next page,1.15 and 1.16 have the
time dependency that the 't' in your quote refers to. remember, those
integrals are NOT integrals over time, they are over the surface or volume.

Gaussian statics law
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I don't know ...

A digitized/stepped wave sorta' makes sense.

If you have an "amplitude" of one photon, then you add another, and yet
another, etc. it would tend to look "stepped" at some point--and, since
no one really knows, let's reserve the final determination ...

Right now, "quantums" are kinda like "nauga hide" (or, naugahyde) to me ...

You DO know about naugas' right?

My couch and chair and covered with their hides ... grin

Regards,
JS

Gaussian statics law
 

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:59:59 GMT, Dave
wrote:
yes, referring to all 4 Maxwell equations you do have a 't' dependency.
however, even equations 1.13 and 1.14 referred to by your quote have NO time
dependency in them. the equations on the next page,1.15 and 1.16 have the
time dependency that the 't' in your quote refers to. remember, those
integrals are NOT integrals over time, they are over the surface or volume.

As I stated before, this chapter deals with electrostatics so the time
dependence has been dropped. However, the fact remains that Gauss's
law is the integral form of the first Maxwell equation, which holds
for an arbitrary space-time point. Unless you reject the first
equation, namely

div E(x,t) = 4 \pi \rho(x,t)

or the divergence thereom, you have to accept the fact that

\integral_S E(x,t).dA = 4 \pi \integral_V dV \rho(x,t)

which is Gauss's theorem.

This is my last post regarding this subject.
--John

Gaussian statics law
 

"John E. Davis" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:59:59 GMT, Dave
wrote:
yes, referring to all 4 Maxwell equations you do have a 't' dependency.
however, even equations 1.13 and 1.14 referred to by your quote have NO
time
dependency in them. the equations on the next page,1.15 and 1.16 have the
time dependency that the 't' in your quote refers to. remember, those
integrals are NOT integrals over time, they are over the surface or
volume.

As I stated before, this chapter deals with electrostatics so the time
dependence has been dropped. However, the fact remains that Gauss's
law is the integral form of the first Maxwell equation, which holds
for an arbitrary space-time point. Unless you reject the first
equation, namely

div E(x,t) = 4 \pi \rho(x,t)

or the divergence thereom, you have to accept the fact that

\integral_S E(x,t).dA = 4 \pi \integral_V dV \rho(x,t)

which is Gauss's theorem.

This is my last post regarding this subject.
--John

the later chapter i quoted first is not based on electrostatics, and the
formula for gauss's law is always the same. it is not dependent on time in
any form. thank you for not continuing to prolong the misinformation in
this thread.

Gaussian statics law
 

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:21:35 GMT, Dave
wrote:
the later chapter i quoted first is not based on electrostatics, and the
formula for gauss's law is always the same. it is not dependent on time in
any form.

I will make one last effort to to set the record straight. In volume
II of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, the title of chapter 15,
section 6 is "What is true for statics is false for dynamics". The
5th paragraph of that section states "Gauss' law, [eq omitted]
remains...". Also in that section, he has a table (Table 15-1) that
contains two columns:

FALSE IN GENERAL | TRUE ALWAYS
(true only for statics) |
------------------------------------------------------
Coulomb's Law | Gauss' law
[...] | [...]


Then in chapter 18, section 1 paragraph 3 you will find the statement:

"In dynamic as well as static fields, Gauss' law is always valid".

I do not think I can make it any more clear than this.

thank you for not continuing to prolong the misinformation in this
thread.

Do you also accuse Feynman of spreading misinformation? Unfortunately
he died a few years ago.

--John

Gaussian statics law
 

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 06:00:27 +0000 (UTC), (John E.
Davis) wrote:

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:21:35 GMT, Dave
wrote:
the later chapter i quoted first is not based on electrostatics, and the
formula for gauss's law is always the same. it is not dependent on time in
any form.

I will make one last effort to to set the record straight. In volume
II of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, the title of chapter 15,
section 6 is "What is true for statics is false for dynamics". The
5th paragraph of that section states "Gauss' law, [eq omitted]
remains...". Also in that section, he has a table (Table 15-1) that
contains two columns:

FALSE IN GENERAL | TRUE ALWAYS
(true only for statics) |
------------------------------------------------------
Coulomb's Law | Gauss' law
[...] | [...]

At the bottom of that Table is a footnote explaining the bold arrow of
your Gauss' law. It reads:
"The equations marked by an arrow (-») are Maxwell's equations."

The table equation, and the one you reference in the text are both
Maxwell's.

Then in chapter 18, section 1 paragraph 3 you will find the statement:

"In dynamic as well as static fields, Gauss' law is always valid".

That chapter, too, clearly defines the same equation you are making an
appeal to as "Maxwell's equations." Observe Table 18-1 "Classical
Physics"

It is explicitly derived from the treatment as equation 4.1 - also
denoted Maxwell's equations.

"All charges are permanently fixed in space, or if they do move,
they move as a steady flow in the circuit ( so rho and j are
constant in time). In these circumstances, all of the terms in
the Maxwell equations which are time derivatives of the field are
zero."

Equations 4.6 and 4.8, the cross and dot products resolve to zero.

If you crank up the clock, Feynman concludes
"Only when there are sufficiently rapid changes, so that the time
derivatives in Maxwell's equations become significant, will E and
B depend on each other."

We will, of course, recognize this EB relationship as the field of
radiation and further recognize there is no field of radiation without
a significant time factor.

The grad operator, an inverted, enbolded del, is discussed by Feynman
in Chapter 2-4 is a significant element of these equations. The grad
operator obeys the same convention as the derivative notation.

Feynman's instruction clearly shows that Maxwell's treatment (actually
Heaviside's work before him) is a generalization of Gauss to include
time (sorry Art, he got there two centuries ago) and hence describes
Gauss equations as special (zero-time) instances of the generality.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian statics law
 

On 10 Mar, 23:00, (John E. Davis) wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:21:35 GMT, Dave
wrote:

the later chapter i quoted first is not based on electrostatics, and the
formula for gauss's law is always the same. it is not dependent on time in
any form.

I will make one last effort to to set the record straight. In volume
II of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, the title of chapter 15,
section 6 is "What is true for statics is false for dynamics". The
5th paragraph of that section states "Gauss' law, [eq omitted]
remains...". Also in that section, he has a table (Table 15-1) that
contains two columns:

FALSE IN GENERAL | TRUE ALWAYS
(true only for statics) |
------------------------------------------------------
Coulomb's Law | Gauss' law
[...] | [...]

Then in chapter 18, section 1 paragraph 3 you will find the statement:

"In dynamic as well as static fields, Gauss' law is always valid".

I do not think I can make it any more clear than this.

thank you for not continuing to prolong the misinformation in this
thread.

Do you also accuse Feynman of spreading misinformation? Unfortunately
he died a few years ago.

--John

John
I thank you for your input and continued attempts to overcome the
barriers placed before you. I don't know what Country you come from
but I apologise that the baggage associated with me was then dumped
upon you and I fully understand your action of withdrawal.
Thanks again for your efforts and I trust that you will not see
this as sign of a new America emerging. It is certainly not the
America I envisaged some forty years ago when I arrived. I think it is
best that I to withdraw . Sometime it takes a hundred years
before science is permitted to move on. A similar thing happened to
George Green of Nottingham U.K. and only reemerged in full by the
presentation by some body else who received the acreditation.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG

Gaussian statics law
 

"art" wrote

John
I thank you for your input and continued attempts to overcome the
barriers placed before you. I don't know what Country you come from
but I apologise that the baggage associated with me was then dumped
upon you and I fully understand your action of withdrawal.
Thanks again for your efforts and I trust that you will not see
this as sign of a new America emerging. It is certainly not the
America I envisaged some forty years ago when I arrived. I think it is
best that I to withdraw . Sometime it takes a hundred years
before science is permitted to move on. A similar thing happened to
George Green of Nottingham U.K. and only reemerged in full by the
presentation by some body else who received the acreditation.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG

Yo XG man!

While most of us sympatize with your condition, but your drivell is getting
beyong pathetic, you dumping on America is picture of your messed up
judgement and your "evaluation" of people here is just reflection of who is
messed up.

If you can't get over losing your colonies, or superiority of colonist
inbreds, you are free to go back, Eurabia is waiting for you and will
undoubtly recognize your genius (of calling reflector - director, and having
patent to prove it) and award you cross of the empire or something.

Just what the heck is your "Gausian" contraption suppose to get me that all
other known antennas or my designs don't? Lousy pattern with three lobes
over perfect ground and 6 dB F/B at 200 MHz??? Whopeeeee!!!

God bless America, the last bastion of freedom and the greatest country on
Earth!
Love it, or leave it!

73, cut the crap and get well!

Yuri, ex OK3BU