Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 7, 8:17 am, Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Coherency, non-coherency, and interference is covered well in "Optics" by Hecht and other textbooks. Optical physicists have been tracking the EM energy flow for centuries. This information may be new to you but it is old hat in physics. Cecil, You may or may not already know this, but a lot of detailed optical analysis these days is done with full 3-D electromagnetic simulation, starting from Maxwell equations and boundary conditions. Interference, coherence, energy flow, and all of the other stuff you like to discuss can be *output* from that analysis, but those items are not part of the input. The "centuries old" optics simply does not get the job done. The "centuries old" stuff may work in the (impossible) cases where everything is completely lossless and ideal, but it doesn't give the right answers in the real world. 73, Gene W4SZ You can sure say that again...in fact, Maxwell doesn't really do it either when you get to quantum mechanical effects. But that's a story for another day. Certainly, those who design and build FTIR spectrometers know perfectly well that interference does not depend on a narrow-band coherent source. Blackbody radiation works just fine, thank you. But it doesn't take much beyond belief in linear systems to understand that. I recall explaining to a company VP how it worked in terms of a linear system, and it was very gratifying to see the virtual light bulb lighting up in his head...he really got it. Cheers, Tom |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Now for the rest of the story! | General | |||
Now for the rest of the story! | Policy | |||
Now for the rest of the story! | General | |||
Now for the rest of the story! | Policy | |||
WTD: Paul Harvey Rest of the Story broadcasts from Sep 1 thru 6 | Broadcasting |