Science update,particle wave duality
 

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?

Science update,particle wave duality
 

On Dec 29, 2:36*am, Art Unwin wrote:
Gauss's boundary contains static particles

not in YOUR world where you have added a time dependency to his law.


Faraday cage contains static particles

Faraday doesn't care about particles


Both have a boundary that is conductive and thus can radiate.

Both radiate when a time varying field is applied

both have a boundry, this is true. Faraday cages are conductive and
could radiate if properly excited. But gaussian surfaces are
conceptual and have not physical manifestation so can not be
conductive nor radiate, though radiative fields could pass through
them.


Both receive when transformed into a time varying field
provided when the magnetic and electric moves to cancellation

I have no idea what this means.


Both are applicable to Maxwell's equations for radiation

Gaussian surfaces are part of maxwell's equations by his inclusion of
Gauss's law. the Faraday cage is a result of the effects of maxwell's
equations in a practical application.


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.

Only after YOU add the time factor to Gauss's law.



The accelerant in both cases is the intersection of two closed fields.
( Electric field and a static field encircled by
the displacement current)

I would like to see how you encircle a static field (which by
definition must be infinite in extent) by a 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

right, maybe in your twisted world.


Question * *;
How does the particle ( singular) referred to in each case act like a
wave or become a wave as stated in Classical Physics?

its all a matter of perspective. quite simple in fact so i'll leave
it as an exercise for the student...
show your work, papers due by 9am tomorrow.

Science update,particle wave duality
 

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

Science update,particle wave duality
 

K7ITM wrote:
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
Hi Tom

Not to encourage the nuts, but I have to point out one weird part to
your description. If you reduce the intensity until there is only one
photons at a time in the dark box, that is if a photon comes through the
hole on the right, and none comes through the hole on the left. They
will still show an interference pattern. There is explanation but it
takes someone who knows more physics than I do. But I've built an
apparatus that show just this effect. Why, 40 years of building research
and teaching equipment for physicists.

73 John W3JXP

Science update,particle wave duality
 

On Dec 30, 4:21*pm, K7ITM wrote:
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

Tom,
Thank you for your thoughts which probably is a break out from the
double slit experiment which by the way has the apearance of increased
attacks.On the many physics forums on the net physics professors have
now ban those who would suggest that those in physics could be wrong.
I know little of optics so I can't do justice indebating your thoughts
so please allow me to change the approach.
The discussion is about behavior like a wave ! Not that a particle IS
a wave. The definition provided for a wave is indeterminate and
different to that generally known. All I ask is for an fresh
evaluation of the work by Maxwell, Gauss and now with the addition of
Faraday known by his work as an experimenter and not by his knowledge
of mathematics.
For me I am concentrating on the subject of radiation and not of light
or photons that have little evidence to support them as part of the
discussion.
To my knowledge the Faraday cage is well understood where isolation
can occur with electric fields,magnetic fields an current flow from a
tank circuit. Particles and charges held are a part of Faradays
thoughts
and accepted in everyday physics. His experiments bears out the
boundary theorems by Gauss and others with respect to static particles
and the addition of charge.
From a radiation point of view the mathematical equation for both of
these efforts are those of Maxwell.
Radiation is not fully explained purely because physics are responding
first to mathematics instead of observables as with the past which has
lead to trickery and assumptions.
It is for this reason I have posted the additions of Faraday which are
really the experimental results of what this group stated of Gauss
where it is "illegal" to add a time vaying field! So what I have done
is widen the pot of facts as supplied, not by me, but those of the
Masters,
where the trained observers of this group have more data to explain
where the masters should have referred to waves and not static or
charged particles. If somebody wants to add so called facts such as
the known presence of a photon and how it turns into a wave to provide
light then be my guest as long as the abservables are factual
that match known facts as with a lonely jigsaw part that fits so
deftly within the area assigned of a puzzle.
Other than that we are left with the comments of "nuts" from those who
consider themselves superiour of mind compared to others.
Best regards
Art Unwin

Science update,particle wave duality
 

On Dec 30, 4:59*pm, John Passaneau wrote:
K7ITM wrote:
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

Hi Tom

Not to encourage the nuts, but I have to point out one weird part to
your description. If you reduce the intensity until there is only one
photons at a time in the dark box, that is if a photon comes through the
hole on the right, and none comes through the hole on the left. They
will still show an interference pattern. There is explanation but it
takes someone who knows more physics than I do. But I've built an
apparatus that show just this effect. Why, 40 years of building research
and teaching equipment for physicists.

73 John *W3JXP

Yes. This is fully stated on the web where explanations are provided
that challenge the double slit experiment. I expect the academics to
cry foul, take it personal and then to form together and chant that
they are "nuts" After all, physics professors declare the discussion
is over
and fully decided by them. If one suggests otherwise then they can be
banned.

Science update,particle wave duality
 

"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

Science update,particle wave duality
 

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

Science update,particle wave duality
 

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

Science update,particle wave duality
 

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