|
Science update,particle wave duality
"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 |
Science update,particle wave duality
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 |
Science update,particle wave duality
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... 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 Hi Art, Minus 2 Centigrade here with snow on the ground and more forecast, so not the weather to be outside although tropical compared to your QTH. The energy released and absorbed when mass changes state can be quite considerable but may be unnoticed depending on the mass involved, its thermal conductivity and the environmental background temperature. The famous e = mc2 equation demonstrates that huge amounts of energy are required to equal a very small mass and that assumes 100% efficiency in the conversion. Much lower conversion efficiencies are observed in the real world so the effects are barely measurable. Burning materials in a sealed but transparent container should result in the container being lighter than an identical one containing unburnt material due to the emission of heat and light, the conversion of mass to energy. A famous Victorian experiment showed both containers to weigh exactly the same. Of course they weren't trying to demonstrate mass to energy conversion at the time, rather that the materials were being converted from one form into another and that in a sealed system nothing was lost or gained. In that respect the experiment was a success. The exquisite accuracy needed to measure such effects such as loss of mass due to conversion of matter into energy is beyond all but the best equipped modern labs. Cheers Mike |
Science update,particle wave duality
"Mike Kaliski" wrote in news:Et-dnelSh-
: the solution to life, the universe and everything is 42. All at sixes and sevens. |
Science update,particle wave duality
"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message . .. "Mike Kaliski" wrote in news:Et-dnelSh- : the solution to life, the universe and everything is 42. All at sixes and sevens. As I recall, the question showed that the universe was truly screwed up... Cheers Mike G0ULI |
Science update,particle wave duality
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:35:08 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote: As I recall, the question showed that the universe was truly screwed up... I don't remember if the question was ever settled. As the original poster (I presume it was Art) is in the habit of quoting a German surveyor of the early 19th century; it should have been settled by the Reichoffice of land boundaries. These threads seem to be started in the vein of a breathless discovery of an announcement tucked away in a locked file cabinet in the janitor's closet in the third basement revealing plans for the "new" hyper-Hohenzollern horse carriage expressway bypass - as much as the original comment, responses and counter-responses are so distinctive by fulfilling that metaphor. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Science update,particle wave duality
Richard Clark wrote in
: As the original poster (I presume it was Art) is in the habit of quoting a German surveyor of the early 19th century; it should have been settled by the Reichoffice of land boundaries. These threads seem to be started in the vein of a breathless discovery of an announcement tucked away in a locked file cabinet in the janitor's closet in the third basement revealing plans for the "new" hyper-Hohenzollern horse carriage expressway bypass - as much as the original comment, responses and counter-responses are so distinctive by fulfilling that metaphor. That reminds me of another great bit of writing, on military standards, I found it online somewhere, it explained how the Roman roads were decided based on uquestrian travel, went on to show how the same standard measures persisted through centuries of rail travel and ended up explaining why it is that the scale of the solid rocket booster of the most advanced form of orbital transport known was exactly correlated with the width of a horse's ass. :) |
Science update,particle wave duality
"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message . .. Richard Clark wrote in : As the original poster (I presume it was Art) is in the habit of quoting a German surveyor of the early 19th century; it should have been settled by the Reichoffice of land boundaries. These threads seem to be started in the vein of a breathless discovery of an announcement tucked away in a locked file cabinet in the janitor's closet in the third basement revealing plans for the "new" hyper-Hohenzollern horse carriage expressway bypass - as much as the original comment, responses and counter-responses are so distinctive by fulfilling that metaphor. That reminds me of another great bit of writing, on military standards, I found it online somewhere, it explained how the Roman roads were decided based on uquestrian travel, went on to show how the same standard measures persisted through centuries of rail travel and ended up explaining why it is that the scale of the solid rocket booster of the most advanced form of orbital transport known was exactly correlated with the width of a horse's ass. :) Basically true. The ruts on Roman or older roads caused by wagons and carts meant that any cart not conforming to a standard wheel width would tip over or lose a wheel. Rail wagons were adapted from road carts and so the standard was maintained through the Victorian era. Modern machinery is still essentially set up to those standards to maintain compatibility with earlier equipment and so that older machinery can still be maintained. Bit like the DOS prompt still being available in Windows? Mike G0ULI |
Science update,particle wave duality
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 23:40:34 -0000, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote: Bit like the DOS prompt still being available in Windows? As a duality, it fits within the context of this thread. C:\WINNT\$NtUnistall$\spuninst spuninst.exe ? an instance of the DOS-Windows duality annihilation ? What Would Chairman Bill Do? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com