|
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 |
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 |
Science update,particle wave duality
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Mike Kaliski" wrote in news:dbydneBBW- : "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 least one of the books, and I don't remember if the question was ever settled. There were a couple of philosophers with Pythonesque silly names who asked Deep Thought the Meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything, and whose equally silly named decendents spent their final years cleaning up on the chat show circuit, but the computer designed to calculate the original question got thoroughly panned by a small fleet of yellow butter-pat shaped ships full of petulant Vogons and Dentrassi chefs. But I sort of sense how Douglas Adams thinks, a small and persistent obervation blooming strangely. No-one ever spelled out that 42 came from seven sixes or six sevens, but 'all at sixes and sevens' is an English colloquailism that Douglas Adams would not have ignored. Basically the idea is chaos, but not exactly chaos, just an arbitrary collection is decreet entities that exist in no clear relation to each other, so all kinds of silly possibilities exist. Fits, no? :) And don't get me started on how I think he came up with 'The Long Dark Teatime Of The Soul'... Actually it comes out during the TV play and at least one of the books that it's "what is 9 times 6?" Adams denied what many here should quickly figure out. tom K0TAR |
Science update,particle wave duality
Mike Kaliski wrote:
"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 "There is an urban legend that Julius Caesar specified a legal width for chariots at the width of standard gauge, causing road ruts at that width, so all later wagons had to have the same width or else risk having one set of wheels suddenly fall into one deep rut but not the other. In fact, the origins of the standard gauge considerably predate the Roman Empire, and may even predate the invention of the wheel. The width of prehistoric vehicles was determined by number of interacting factors which gave rise to a fairly standard vehicle width of a little under 2 metres (6.6 ft) These factors have changed little over the millenia, and are still reflected in today's motor vehicles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gauge -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
Science update,particle wave duality
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 02:51:37 -0000, wrote:
In fact, the origins of the standard gauge considerably predate the Roman Empire, and may even predate the invention of the wheel. The width of prehistoric vehicles was determined by number of interacting factors which gave rise to a fairly standard vehicle width of a little under 2 metres (6.6 ft) These factors have changed little over the millenia, and are still reflected in today's motor vehicles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gauge Yep. Put two people comfortably on a bench and measure the width of the bench. That's the minimum cart width. They probably should have changed over the millenia as we are becoming larger and more rotund. I dunno about the "standard" gauge. There seems to be quite a few not-so-standard gauges in use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_gauges Of course, the US standards were established in the time honored traditional methods of politics, rhetoric, violence, and open warfa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Gauge_War -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Science update,particle wave duality
"Mike Kaliski" wrote in
: "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 That prompt SHOULD be there. :) The real problems with M$ come when they try to break with history, not when they honour it. Given that their initial survival depended on direct inheritance that should be evident. OS's that have real security like OpenBSD don't reject their roots, they GROW on them properly. :) Which reveals an interesting point... The size of standards can easily be arbitrary. So it makes good sense to go with something that has historical context. That way we can efficiently revert to whatever earlier form we need at will. The only way to improve this proces is to think ahead better at the outset. Not easy, given that ancient Rome was in no posotion to imagine a space flight program's requirements. Actually, of those it COULD have imagines, it provided the groundwork for extremely well despite not having any way to imagine them. Likewise, people underestimate older and simopler computer systems at their peril. |
Science update,particle wave duality
Richard Clark wrote in
: 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$\spuninst spuninst.exe ? an instance of the DOS-Windows duality annihilation ? What Would Chairman Bill Do? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Ha! I bet that only runs in 32 bit protected mode, too. :) (Which I could easily be wrong about but it's the kind of silliness that might be true, as often happens when people think that plants continue to grow when you cut their roots off, as M$ appear to do. For the record, I stay with W98 for this reason, it was the latest M$ OS that grew firmly on the roots that Windows was designed for (and a lot of stuff I need depends on it anyway)). |
Science update,particle wave duality
wrote in :
Mike Kaliski wrote: "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 "There is an urban legend that Julius Caesar specified a legal width for chariots at the width of standard gauge, causing road ruts at that width, so all later wagons had to have the same width or else risk having one set of wheels suddenly fall into one deep rut but not the other. In fact, the origins of the standard gauge considerably predate the Roman Empire, and may even predate the invention of the wheel. The width of prehistoric vehicles was determined by number of interacting factors which gave rise to a fairly standard vehicle width of a little under 2 metres (6.6 ft) These factors have changed little over the millenia, and are still reflected in today's motor vehicles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gauge I'll buy that it's a lot older, that's the thing about roots, they trace out further than any effort to cut them does. And given how much they cover, it seems unwise to consider them a limiting factor. Sure, if you want to fly, can't stay rooted, but even that little homily doesn't mean that Arthur Clarke wasn't right about the space elevator. :) We won't go far until we build one. And what's the betting its tramlines will still be the width of a horse's ass or two? |
Science update,particle wave duality
tom wrote in
. net: Lostgallifreyan wrote: "Mike Kaliski" wrote in news:dbydneBBW- : "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 least one of the books, and I don't remember if the question was ever settled. There were a couple of philosophers with Pythonesque silly names who asked Deep Thought the Meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything, and whose equally silly named decendents spent their final years cleaning up on the chat show circuit, but the computer designed to calculate the original question got thoroughly panned by a small fleet of yellow butter-pat shaped ships full of petulant Vogons and Dentrassi chefs. But I sort of sense how Douglas Adams thinks, a small and persistent obervation blooming strangely. No-one ever spelled out that 42 came from seven sixes or six sevens, but 'all at sixes and sevens' is an English colloquailism that Douglas Adams would not have ignored. Basically the idea is chaos, but not exactly chaos, just an arbitrary collection is decreet entities that exist in no clear relation to each other, so all kinds of silly possibilities exist. Fits, no? :) And don't get me started on how I think he came up with 'The Long Dark Teatime Of The Soul'... Actually it comes out during the TV play and at least one of the books that it's "what is 9 times 6?" Adams denied what many here should quickly figure out. tom K0TAR I never saw that one.. Read the books, but I don't remember that, at least not with much meaning. Maybe just to indicate human capacity for coming up with wrong answers from wrong questions? I doubt he ever spelled out what the real roots were. A good magician doesn't deliberately and publicly spoil the illusion (or in his case, allusion, perhaps). The one thing I'm fairly sure of is thet the references were cultural, colloquial, and that's why so many people got it. Without that it might have just been another impenetratable space opera with humour thrown in. |
Science update,particle wave duality
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Actually it comes out during the TV play and at least one of the books that it's "what is 9 times 6?" Adams denied what many here should quickly figure out. tom K0TAR I never saw that one.. Read the books, but I don't remember that, at least not with much meaning. Maybe just to indicate human capacity for coming up with wrong answers from wrong questions? I doubt he ever spelled out what the real roots were. A good magician doesn't deliberately and publicly spoil the illusion (or in his case, allusion, perhaps). The one thing I'm fairly sure of is thet the references were cultural, colloquial, and that's why so many people got it. Without that it might have just been another impenetratable space opera with humour thrown in. Ok, a hint. 9 times 6 IS 42. tom K0TAR |
Science update,particle wave duality
On Jan 2, 11:16*am, tom wrote:
Lostgallifreyan wrote: Actually it comes out during the TV play and at least one of the books that it's "what is 9 times 6?" Adams denied what many here should quickly figure out. tom K0TAR I never saw that one.. Read the books, but I don't remember that, at least not with much meaning. Maybe just to indicate human capacity for coming up with wrong answers from wrong questions? I doubt he ever spelled out what the real roots were. A good magician doesn't deliberately and publicly spoil the illusion (or in his case, allusion, perhaps). The one thing I'm fairly sure of is thet the references were cultural, colloquial, and that's why so many people got it. Without that it might have just been another impenetratable space opera with humour thrown in. Ok, a hint. *9 times 6 IS 42. tom K0TAR it wasn't when i went to school. but 7*6 was |
Science update,particle wave duality
tom wrote in
. net: Lostgallifreyan wrote: Actually it comes out during the TV play and at least one of the books that it's "what is 9 times 6?" Adams denied what many here should quickly figure out. tom K0TAR I never saw that one.. Read the books, but I don't remember that, at least not with much meaning. Maybe just to indicate human capacity for coming up with wrong answers from wrong questions? I doubt he ever spelled out what the real roots were. A good magician doesn't deliberately and publicly spoil the illusion (or in his case, allusion, perhaps). The one thing I'm fairly sure of is thet the references were cultural, colloquial, and that's why so many people got it. Without that it might have just been another impenetratable space opera with humour thrown in. Ok, a hint. 9 times 6 IS 42. tom K0TAR Well, I wondered about non-euclidean geometry for a moment, then remembered Greg House saying something about working smart, not hard, and no-one said I couldn't plunder Wikipedia, so.... Actually, before I got there, I wasn't even sure if what Adams had denied was that "six times nine equals thirteen is wrong", or that he denied the more interesting case that it was its correctness in base 13 that explained the 'answer'. Apparently he did deny it. Which doesn't mean it isn't true. :) But according to Wikipedia's stuff, he chose a small number that looked ordinary and totally unprofound. Which means that he let whim, i.e. unconscious conditioning hold sway, without attempt to mediate it. Given that the English colloquilasm would never be entirely far from a writer wose native language and culture was English, I stand by my 'theory'. :) Though I'd like to know if he was ever directly questioned about the 'sixes and sevens' thing and denied it. Even then, he would be telling the truth if it hadn't been conscious. MUCH more like he was influence ny this that by base 13, no? Maybe you should get me started on my idea for The Long Dark Teatime Of The Soul, you might like it. :) The only thing I'll say about it now, unprompted, is that in this case the allusion isn't English, it's French. |
Science update,particle wave duality
Lostgallifreyan wrote in
: tom wrote in . net: Lostgallifreyan wrote: Actually it comes out during the TV play and at least one of the books that it's "what is 9 times 6?" Adams denied what many here should quickly figure out. tom K0TAR I never saw that one.. Read the books, but I don't remember that, at least not with much meaning. Maybe just to indicate human capacity for coming up with wrong answers from wrong questions? I doubt he ever spelled out what the real roots were. A good magician doesn't deliberately and publicly spoil the illusion (or in his case, allusion, perhaps). The one thing I'm fairly sure of is that the references were cultural, colloquial, and that's why so many people got it. Without that it might have just been another impenetratable space opera with humour thrown in. Ok, a hint. 9 times 6 IS 42. tom K0TAR Well, I wondered about non-euclidean geometry for a moment, then remembered Greg House saying something about working smart, not hard, and no-one said I couldn't plunder Wikipedia, so.... Actually, before I got there, I wasn't even sure if what Adams had denied was that "six times nine equals thirteen is wrong", or that he denied the more interesting case that it was its correctness in base 13 that explained the 'answer'. Apparently he did deny it. Which doesn't mean it isn't true. :) But according to Wikipedia's stuff, he chose a small number that looked ordinary and totally unprofound. Which means that he let whim, i.e. unconscious conditioning hold sway, without attempt to mediate it. Given that the English colloquilasm would never be entirely far from a writer wose native language and culture was English, I stand by my 'theory'. :) Though I'd like to know if he was ever directly questioned about the 'sixes and sevens' thing and denied it. Even then, he would be telling the truth if it hadn't been conscious. MUCH more like he was influence ny this that by base 13, no? Maybe you should get me started on my idea for The Long Dark Teatime Of The Soul, you might like it. :) The only thing I'll say about it now, unprompted, is that in this case the allusion isn't English, it's French. I also found this: "Stephen Fry, a friend of Adams, claims that Adams told him "exactly why 42", and that the reason is[12] "fascinating, extraordinary and, when you think hard about it, completely obvious." However, Fry says that he has vowed not to tell anyone the secret, and that it must go with him to the grave." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galax y I have never met Stephen Fry, and I suspect he wouldn't confirm my idea if I did ask him, but it would fit, given the way thoughts run if you ponder it for a while. Considering the phrase "all at sixes and sevens" in the context of the way HHGTTG works is revealing to the point that even if it really were the original basis, I wouldn't consider it a spoiler if I'd been told either before or after thinking of it for myself. Can't help wondering when people are going to talk about antennas again. :) |
Science update,particle wave duality
Jeff Liebermann wrote in
: On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 02:51:37 -0000, wrote: In fact, the origins of the standard gauge considerably predate the Roman Empire, and may even predate the invention of the wheel. The width of prehistoric vehicles was determined by number of interacting factors which gave rise to a fairly standard vehicle width of a little under 2 metres (6.6 ft) These factors have changed little over the millenia, and are still reflected in today's motor vehicles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gauge Yep. Put two people comfortably on a bench and measure the width of the bench. That's the minimum cart width. They probably should have changed over the millenia as we are becoming larger and more rotund. I dunno about the "standard" gauge. There seems to be quite a few not-so-standard gauges in use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_gauges Of course, the US standards were established in the time honored traditional methods of politics, rhetoric, violence, and open warfa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Gauge_War Best argument I ever saw for the popularisation of science understanding. This is why I have trouble with Art, for example. Never mind if he's right or wrong, all it takes to settle that is for enthusasts who already build antennas to go a tad bit out of their way to see if any of his designs work as advertised. The real problem is the scientified equivalent of purplpe prose which obfuscates understanding as surely as an aggressive and legalistic patent does. Einstein had no time for that kind of 'thinking', he directly asserted several times that clarity and simplicity will get you there better. If the public had a better understanding of engineering and science, things like Betamax, apparently better tech than VHS according to most who discuss this issue, would have won, to the advantage of most people, not just the few who forced the 'war'. Conflict is bad enough, but the one thing that can most effectively redeem it is if it is won by whatever was most right, or useful, or helpful. And if enough people grasp that well beforehand, the conflict probably wouldn't happen so much. Maybe I should shut up now, but this has got to be THE slowest day of the year. And I include most of the last one in this assessment. |
Science update,particle wave duality
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 06:26:42 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote: Einstein had no time for that kind of 'thinking', he directly asserted several times that clarity and simplicity will get you there better. Yeah, but simplicity and sometimes clarity usually fail to get funding. Seen any government money go to the myriad of simple fusion schemes? http://www.fusor.net Nope, even though some of them may actually eventually work. It all goes to gigantic fizzix experiments which are anything but simple and to my limited intelligence, not very clear. If the public had a better understanding of engineering and science, things like Betamax, apparently better tech than VHS according to most who discuss this issue, would have won, to the advantage of most people, not just the few who forced the 'war'. Beta is often used as the poster child of technology versus cost. Sony wanted license fees for Beta, while VHS was essentially free. The public voted with their dollars and VHS won. Moral: The GUM (Great Unwashed Masses) are cheap. Incidentally, the same thing sorta happened with the battle between the RCA all electronic and CBS color wheel schemes for color television. The FCC almost went with the color wheel scheme because RCA hadn't really shaken all the bugs out of their system. Fast forward a half century and we have the same FCC voting on digital television standards. If technical superiority were the criteria, COFDM should have won over 8VSB. However, such decisions are not made on the basis of technical superiority. The public could have been better educated on the issues, but the decision was made by a committee of politicians, not the public. AM stereo and HD radio, versus satellite radio (XM and Sirius) is an oddity. HD Radio, AM stereo, and DRM should have been the winner, because they are the cheapest and simplest. Yet, satellite radio is far more popular. The real difference is that satellite radio started out with no commericals, and slooooowly infested the programming with them. People were willing to pay for what they preceived as commercial free programming. I guess the GUM isn't very well educated on the the technology, but it's certainly not stupid. Conflict is bad enough, but the one thing that can most effectively redeem it is if it is won by whatever was most right, or useful, or helpful. And if enough people grasp that well beforehand, the conflict probably wouldn't happen so much. I presume you've never attended (online or in person) a standards committee discussion. It's fortunate that the technical debates are mostly done electronically or at a distance, as I'm fairly sure some of the proponents of extrememe technologies would settle their differences in the parking lot. Maybe I should shut up now, but this has got to be THE slowest day of the year. And I include most of the last one in this assessment. Not for me. For some odd reason, I'm getting a series of customer calls asking for help with various Christmas toys and gadgets. They apparently have stared at them for a week, given up, and now call me for help. For example: "I got this iPod thing. How do I make it play tunes?" I just finished an over the phone Netflix appliance (Roku) setup. My guess is public understanding of engineering and science has a very long way to go. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Science update,particle wave duality
Jeff Liebermann wrote in
: On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 06:26:42 -0600, Lostgallifreyan wrote: Einstein had no time for that kind of 'thinking', he directly asserted several times that clarity and simplicity will get you there better. Yeah, but simplicity and sometimes clarity usually fail to get funding. Seen any government money go to the myriad of simple fusion schemes? http://www.fusor.net Nope, even though some of them may actually eventually work. It all goes to gigantic fizzix experiments which are anything but simple and to my limited intelligence, not very clear. Gubmint won't touch it till private efforts start working. Was the same with canals and railways. :) And mining. And hospitals. And, perhaps, large scale space explorations. Very cool site, I'll try to follow some of that stuff. I suspect small scale fusion will be the answer to many problems, far more than it's likely to cause. If the public had a better understanding of engineering and science, things like Betamax, apparently better tech than VHS according to most who discuss this issue, would have won, to the advantage of most people, not just the few who forced the 'war'. Beta is often used as the poster child of technology versus cost. Sony wanted license fees for Beta, while VHS was essentially free. The public voted with their dollars and VHS won. Moral: The GUM (Great Unwashed Masses) are cheap. Gubmint by GUMint? :) I amuse myself.... I guess FireWire might suffer the same way, it wants royalties in the price of every plug. I think that one will be a survivor though, it is very good. But it won't be as common as USB which doesn't. Incidentally, the same thing sorta happened with the battle between the RCA all electronic and CBS color wheel schemes for color television. The FCC almost went with the color wheel scheme because RCA hadn't really shaken all the bugs out of their system. Fast forward a half century and we have the same FCC voting on digital television standards. If technical superiority were the criteria, COFDM should have won over 8VSB. However, such decisions are not made on the basis of technical superiority. The public could have been better educated on the issues, but the decision was made by a committee of politicians, not the public. That never helps, but people are getting very wary of politicians, which might help, if they realise they have to think that bit more for themselves. I can accept that pure technical superority isn't always a vital justification, too. For example, cost, to me, is a vital engineering parameter. As in not over-riding, but never to be ignored. Substitute 'cost' with 'ease', 'readiness', and it quickly gets convoluted. Even 'self- interest' creeps in obviously, but I guess it depends on whether it's enlightened or not that matters most. The other main problem is short- sightedness. Most really successful tech-driven economies are LONG sighted, they don't make expensive errors they can't fix later. That said, even the best of those can rest on their laurels and lose ground, as Japan seems to have done. AM stereo and HD radio, versus satellite radio (XM and Sirius) is an oddity. HD Radio, AM stereo, and DRM should have been the winner, because they are the cheapest and simplest. Yet, satellite radio is far more popular. The real difference is that satellite radio started out with no commericals, and slooooowly infested the programming with them. People were willing to pay for what they preceived as commercial free programming. I guess the GUM isn't very well educated on the the technology, but it's certainly not stupid. Interesting. I sometimes use a similar argument in my defence of Usenet when debating with people who think it's dying. Given how fast it loads, I think we can expect many 'web2' refugees, as it happens. Conflict is bad enough, but the one thing that can most effectively redeem it is if it is won by whatever was most right, or useful, or helpful. And if enough people grasp that well beforehand, the conflict probably wouldn't happen so much. I presume you've never attended (online or in person) a standards committee discussion. It's fortunate that the technical debates are mostly done electronically or at a distance, as I'm fairly sure some of the proponents of extrememe technologies would settle their differences in the parking lot. Nope. :) But I have seen infighting over ideas in forums. I've seen experts stamp on good ideas then try to assert their own ideas which were weaker, and because they had a strong academic background, most bystanders were quick to curry favour with them. I figured the best answer was to go alone when I have a good idea. First, they muscle in only when someone's already staked a pitch, so the easiest way to undermine that is to break camp and move out. Second, asking them for assistance will either result in conflict, or stolen credit. Even systems like patenting invented to solve such issues fails because legalistic presentations seem more to do with emotive attempts at squatters' rights than any real defence that might as easily be done with copyright law. None of which stops acrimonious court squabbles. So things like those small scale fusion experiments will only reach success by being done, repeated, by those who will do it without waiting for support. I think the main reason 'big' science gets the funding is actually simple: it's too big to actually be done at all without it. Maybe I should shut up now, but this has got to be THE slowest day of the year. And I include most of the last one in this assessment. Not for me. For some odd reason, I'm getting a series of customer calls asking for help with various Christmas toys and gadgets. They apparently have stared at them for a week, given up, and now call me for help. For example: "I got this iPod thing. How do I make it play tunes?" I just finished an over the phone Netflix appliance (Roku) setup. My guess is public understanding of engineering and science has a very long way to go. Yep. Though given the speed, I have to sympathise with both 'sides'. I loved to take stuff apart and put it together (especially when the latter saved me from punishment if the former would otherwise have gotten noticed), but when confronted with bloated complex operating systems that have been cleaved from the roots that led to their existence, I balk too, the same way many do when told that only maths, and not human observations, will tell them anything new about reality. And I'd rather stay with something whose engineering I can grasp well enough to stand some chance of maintenance. Actually I strongly suspect that this distance between science and tech development and public comprehension won't be reduced until the tools enabled by quantum mechanics start showing us things that shift the current paradigm so much as a result of their new obervations, that people have something really big and new to think about instead of being compelled to beleive that all is run by chance. I think quantum theory largely got us into this mess, but I also think it will get us out. But I have no clue how, other than what I just said. |
Science update,particle wave duality
"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message . .. Lostgallifreyan wrote in : tom wrote in . net: Lostgallifreyan wrote: Actually it comes out during the TV play and at least one of the books that it's "what is 9 times 6?" Adams denied what many here should quickly figure out. tom K0TAR I never saw that one.. Read the books, but I don't remember that, at least not with much meaning. Maybe just to indicate human capacity for coming up with wrong answers from wrong questions? I doubt he ever spelled out what the real roots were. A good magician doesn't deliberately and publicly spoil the illusion (or in his case, allusion, perhaps). The one thing I'm fairly sure of is that the references were cultural, colloquial, and that's why so many people got it. Without that it might have just been another impenetratable space opera with humour thrown in. Ok, a hint. 9 times 6 IS 42. tom K0TAR Well, I wondered about non-euclidean geometry for a moment, then remembered Greg House saying something about working smart, not hard, and no-one said I couldn't plunder Wikipedia, so.... Actually, before I got there, I wasn't even sure if what Adams had denied was that "six times nine equals thirteen is wrong", or that he denied the more interesting case that it was its correctness in base 13 that explained the 'answer'. Apparently he did deny it. Which doesn't mean it isn't true. :) But according to Wikipedia's stuff, he chose a small number that looked ordinary and totally unprofound. Which means that he let whim, i.e. unconscious conditioning hold sway, without attempt to mediate it. Given that the English colloquilasm would never be entirely far from a writer wose native language and culture was English, I stand by my 'theory'. :) Though I'd like to know if he was ever directly questioned about the 'sixes and sevens' thing and denied it. Even then, he would be telling the truth if it hadn't been conscious. MUCH more like he was influence ny this that by base 13, no? Maybe you should get me started on my idea for The Long Dark Teatime Of The Soul, you might like it. :) The only thing I'll say about it now, unprompted, is that in this case the allusion isn't English, it's French. I also found this: "Stephen Fry, a friend of Adams, claims that Adams told him "exactly why 42", and that the reason is[12] "fascinating, extraordinary and, when you think hard about it, completely obvious." However, Fry says that he has vowed not to tell anyone the secret, and that it must go with him to the grave." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galax y I have never met Stephen Fry, and I suspect he wouldn't confirm my idea if I did ask him, but it would fit, given the way thoughts run if you ponder it for a while. Considering the phrase "all at sixes and sevens" in the context of the way HHGTTG works is revealing to the point that even if it really were the original basis, I wouldn't consider it a spoiler if I'd been told either before or after thinking of it for myself. Can't help wondering when people are going to talk about antennas again. :) A 42 metre long, inverted V, fed through an ATU makes for an effective and cheap all band antenna, although perhaps not the ultimate antenna. :-) Perhaps an antenna array mounted 42 metres above ground? That would be some tower system to have in the backyard. Mike G0ULI |
Science update,particle wave duality
"Mike Kaliski" wrote in
: A 42 metre long, inverted V, fed through an ATU makes for an effective and cheap all band antenna, although perhaps not the ultimate antenna. :-) Perhaps an antenna array mounted 42 metres above ground? That would be some tower system to have in the backyard. My vertical whip might be close to 42 decimetres in length. Does this count? :) |
Science update,particle wave duality
Dave wrote:
On Jan 2, 11:16 am, tom wrote: Lostgallifreyan wrote: Actually it comes out during the TV play and at least one of the books that it's "what is 9 times 6?" Adams denied what many here should quickly figure out. tom K0TAR I never saw that one.. Read the books, but I don't remember that, at least not with much meaning. Maybe just to indicate human capacity for coming up with wrong answers from wrong questions? I doubt he ever spelled out what the real roots were. A good magician doesn't deliberately and publicly spoil the illusion (or in his case, allusion, perhaps). The one thing I'm fairly sure of is thet the references were cultural, colloquial, and that's why so many people got it. Without that it might have just been another impenetratable space opera with humour thrown in. Ok, a hint. 9 times 6 IS 42. tom K0TAR it wasn't when i went to school. but 7*6 was Argh! OK, another "hint". Has anyone ever heard of anything besides base 10 arithmetic? tom K0TAR |
Science update,particle wave duality
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Well, I wondered about non-euclidean geometry for a moment, then remembered Greg House saying something about working smart, not hard, and no-one said I couldn't plunder Wikipedia, so.... Actually, before I got there, I wasn't even sure if what Adams had denied was that "six times nine equals thirteen is wrong", or that he denied the more interesting case that it was its correctness in base 13 that explained the 'answer'. Apparently he did deny it. Which doesn't mean it isn't true. :) But according to Wikipedia's stuff, he chose a small number that looked ordinary and totally unprofound. Which means that he let whim, i.e. unconscious conditioning hold sway, without attempt to mediate it. Given that the English colloquilasm would never be entirely far from a writer wose native language and culture was English, I stand by my 'theory'. :) Though I'd like to know if he was ever directly questioned about the 'sixes and sevens' thing and denied it. Even then, he would be telling the truth if it hadn't been conscious. MUCH more like he was influence ny this that by base 13, no? Maybe you should get me started on my idea for The Long Dark Teatime Of The Soul, you might like it. :) The only thing I'll say about it now, unprompted, is that in this case the allusion isn't English, it's French. Someone I have had as a boss at 3 companies is totally convinced that Adams meant it's all a throw of the dice since you get 42 when you add up all sides of two dice. tom K0TAR |
Science update,particle wave duality
tom wrote in
. net: Lostgallifreyan wrote: Well, I wondered about non-euclidean geometry for a moment, then remembered Greg House saying something about working smart, not hard, and no-one said I couldn't plunder Wikipedia, so.... Actually, before I got there, I wasn't even sure if what Adams had denied was that "six times nine equals thirteen is wrong", or that he denied the more interesting case that it was its correctness in base 13 that explained the 'answer'. Apparently he did deny it. Which doesn't mean it isn't true. :) But according to Wikipedia's stuff, he chose a small number that looked ordinary and totally unprofound. Which means that he let whim, i.e. unconscious conditioning hold sway, without attempt to mediate it. Given that the English colloquilasm would never be entirely far from a writer wose native language and culture was English, I stand by my 'theory'. :) Though I'd like to know if he was ever directly questioned about the 'sixes and sevens' thing and denied it. Even then, he would be telling the truth if it hadn't been conscious. MUCH more like he was influence ny this that by base 13, no? Maybe you should get me started on my idea for The Long Dark Teatime Of The Soul, you might like it. :) The only thing I'll say about it now, unprompted, is that in this case the allusion isn't English, it's French. Someone I have had as a boss at 3 companies is totally convinced that Adams meant it's all a throw of the dice since you get 42 when you add up all sides of two dice. tom K0TAR Yep, that's a nice one. I still like mine better though. Adams liked to play with language directly, it would have appealed to him even if it wasn't how he got there. Any thoughts on tea? That was another mild obsession with him, and extends obviously, though strangely, into the Teatime thing. Consider it a hint. :) |
Science update,particle wave duality
On Jan 2, 1:28*am, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote : Mike Kaliski wrote: "Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message 5... 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 "There is an urban legend that Julius Caesar specified a legal width for chariots at the width of standard gauge, causing road ruts at that width, so all later wagons had to have the same width or else risk having one set of wheels suddenly fall into one deep rut but not the other. In fact, the origins of the standard gauge considerably predate the Roman Empire, and may even predate the invention of the wheel. The width of prehistoric vehicles was determined by number of interacting factors which gave rise to a fairly standard vehicle width of a little under 2 metres (6.6 ft) These factors have changed little over the millenia, and are still reflected in today's motor vehicles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gauge I'll buy that it's a lot older, that's the thing about roots, they trace out further than any effort to cut them does. And given how much they cover, it seems unwise to consider them a limiting factor. Sure, if you want to fly, can't stay rooted, but even that little homily doesn't mean that Arthur Clarke wasn't right about the space elevator. :) We won't go far until we build one. And what's the betting its tramlines will still be the width of a horse's ass or two?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Amazingly precisely wrong! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com