Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike Monett wrote:
There is a bad mixup here. He claims: "Note especially that the electric and magnetic fields are not in phase with each other, but are rather 90 degrees out of phase. Most books portray these two components of the total wave as being in phase with each other, but I find myself disagreeing with that interpretation, based on three fundamental laws of physics" He claims the E and H fields are in quadrature. I claim he is wrong. If the E and H fields were in time quadrature, you'd have a power problem. I believe that is what I tried to tell him. He bases his argument on the following: 1. "The total energy in the waveform must remain constant at all times." Not true. It obviously goes to zero twice each cycle. 2. "A moving electric field creates a magnetic field. As an electric field moves through space, it gives up its energy to a companion magnetic field. The electric field loses energy as the magnetic field gains energy." Only if the environment is purely reactive. Not true with a pure resistance. 3. "A moving magnetic field creates an electric field. This is Faraday's Law, and is exactly similar to the Ampere-Maxwell law listed above. A changing magnetic field will create and transfer its energy gradually to a companion electric field." Regards, Mike Monett Mike, This concept is not unique to the web site you referenced. I have seen several other debates about the same thing. One thing that is missed in this simple analysis is a consideration of the uncertainty principle. Heisenberg proposed in 1927 that it is not possible to simultaneously know the value of position and momentum to arbitrarily high accuracy or to know the value of energy and time to arbitrarily high accuracy. The uncertainly for energy and time is given as delta E x delta t must be greater than or equal to h-bar, which is Planck's constant divided by 2 pi. The energy of a photon is h-bar x omega, where omega is the angular frequency of the photon. In order to declare a violation of energy conservation in the wave example above, one would need to examine the energy at time intervals at least as short as half the wave period. Guess what, the uncertainty principle says that if we attempt to do so we cannot determine the energy to the accuracy required in order to claim a violation of energy conservation. Note carefully that "determine" does not mean we must actually measure the energy. The energy cannot even be defined more accurately than the limit imposed by the uncertainty principle. One way to look at this is that during the interval over which one might try to claim a violation of energy conservation the energy is in a virtual state. As you may know, this sort of consideration is everywhere when one delves into atomic scale and quantum mechanics. 73, Gene W4SZ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
IC-M710 long distance communication, how long ? | Digital | |||
Non Radiative Energy | Antenna |