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