On Jun 1, 11:31*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
"... All of the photon energy present in these waves must

I suggest that you immediately dump any reference that includes
a phrase like "photon energy present in a wave".

There is a wave theory of light, and there is a particle theory
of light, and these two theories do not play well together.

While in many situations they will yield the same answers, it
is not permissible to mix the concepts from each. Distrust
the conclusions of any exposition which does so.

....Keith

On Jun 2, 10:33*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jun 1, 11:31*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

"... All of the photon energy present in these waves must

I suggest that you immediately dump any reference that includes
a phrase like "photon energy present in a wave".

There is a wave theory of light, and there is a particle theory
of light, and these two theories do not play well together.

While in many situations they will yield the same answers, it
is not permissible to mix the concepts from each. Distrust
the conclusions of any exposition which does so.

...Keith

agreed. photons are good when working with other elementary particle
interactions to represent the em energy lost or transferred during
particle interactions. they are not that useful when studying wave
propagation or interaction with macroscopic object... including 1/4
wave coatings.

On Jun 2, 6:39*am, K1TTT wrote:
On Jun 2, 10:33*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

On Jun 1, 11:31*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

"... All of the photon energy present in these waves must

I suggest that you immediately dump any reference that includes
a phrase like "photon energy present in a wave".

There is a wave theory of light, and there is a particle theory
of light, and these two theories do not play well together.

While in many situations they will yield the same answers, it
is not permissible to mix the concepts from each. Distrust
the conclusions of any exposition which does so.

...Keith

agreed. *photons are good when working with other elementary particle
interactions to represent the em energy lost or transferred during
particle interactions. *they are not that useful when studying wave
propagation or interaction with macroscopic object... including 1/4
wave coatings.

For those who may be interested, Richard Feynman offers an
introductory
lecture on photons he http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

It illustrates that attempting to compute 1/4 wave coating behaviour
with photons would be extremely tedious, though possible.

On the other hand, at low light levels, where individual photons
become
discrete events, the wave theory becomes completely inadequate.
Fortunately, for practical applications, power levels are much higher
than this and the wave aproach is quite useful.

....Keith

On Jun 2, 5:39*am, K1TTT wrote:
photons are good when working with other elementary particle
interactions to represent the em energy lost or transferred during
particle interactions. *they are not that useful when studying wave
propagation or interaction with macroscopic object... including 1/4
wave coatings.

Photons are useful for proving that EM waves must necessarily travel
at the speed of light in the medium. Photons cannot stand still -
therefore, EM waves, known to consist of photons, cannot stand still -
therefore any overly-simplified mashed-potatoes version of energy
stored in an RF transmission line violates the laws of physics.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On Jun 2, 1:39*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 2, 5:39*am, K1TTT wrote:

photons are good when working with other elementary particle
interactions to represent the em energy lost or transferred during
particle interactions. *they are not that useful when studying wave
propagation or interaction with macroscopic object... including 1/4
wave coatings.

Photons are useful for proving that EM waves must necessarily travel
at the speed of light in the medium. Photons cannot stand still -
therefore, EM waves, known to consist of photons, cannot stand still -
therefore any overly-simplified mashed-potatoes version of energy
stored in an RF transmission line violates the laws of physics.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

wave function solutions to maxwell's equations are enough to prove
that for me.

On Jun 2, 8:57*am, K1TTT wrote:
wave function solutions to maxwell's equations are enough to prove
that for me.

Not a loaded question: How do Maxwell's equations applied to a
standing wave prove that the component forward and reflected waves are
moving at the speed of light in the medium? If it can and if I can
understand it, I wouldn't need to use the photon argument.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On Jun 2, 2:12*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 2, 8:57*am, K1TTT wrote:

wave function solutions to maxwell's equations are enough to prove
that for me.

Not a loaded question: How do Maxwell's equations applied to a
standing wave prove that the component forward and reflected waves are
moving at the speed of light in the medium? If it can and if I can
understand it, I wouldn't need to use the photon argument.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

easy, maxwell's equations don't predict standing waves! they are a
product of superposition and the simplest instrumentation used since
they were first discovered.

On Jun 2, 9:31*am, K1TTT wrote:
easy, maxwell's equations don't predict standing waves! *they are a
product of *superposition and the simplest instrumentation used since
they were first discovered.

Please correct me if I am wrong: If one starts with the (superposed)
standing wave equation, V(x,t) = A*sin(kx)*sin(wt), Maxwell's
equations seem to provide a perfectly valid result (not that I can
recognize perfection). Therefore, how do Maxwell's equations prove
that the component traveling waves necessarily possess a separate
existence? Again, a serious question from an engineer who considers
anything except a logical '0' or logical '1' to be broken. :-)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Jun 2, 2:12 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

wave function solutions to maxwell's equations are enough to prove
that for me.

Not a loaded question: How do Maxwell's equations applied to a
standing wave prove that the component forward and reflected waves are
moving at the speed of light in the medium? If it can and if I can
understand it, I wouldn't need to use the photon argument.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

easy, maxwell's equations don't predict standing waves! they are a
product of superposition and the simplest instrumentation used since
they were first discovered.

"Kundt's tube is an experimental acoustical apparatus invented in 1866 by
German physicist August Kundt[1][2] for the measurement of the speed of
sound in a gas or a solid rod. It is used today only for demonstrating
standing waves and acoustical forces."

Heaviside wrote "Maxwell" equations" much later.

EM waves are the angular waves in the solid body. It would not be easy to
instal the mirror in such body.

You do not know that EM waves were stripped away in 1864.
The Maxwell's math is used in machinery to calculate the torsion vibration.
Maxwell predicted it:

"I propose now to examine magnetic phenomena from a mecha nical point of
view, and to determine what tensions in, or motions of, a medium are capable
of producing the mechanical pheno mena observed. If, by the same hypothesis,
we can connect the phenomena of magnetic attraction with electromagnetic
phenomena and with those of induced currents, we shall have found a theory
which, if not true, can only be proved to be erroneous by experiments which
will greatly enlarge our knowledge of this part of physics."

The hipothesis " be proved to be erroneous by experiments" but we have the
excelent math for thr solid body.
S*

On Jun 2, 5:33*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
I suggest that you immediately dump any reference that includes
a phrase like "photon energy present in a wave".

If you (and others) will give up on the ridiculous concept of EM wave
energy standing still in standing waves, I will not have to refer to
photons again. Honor the technical fact that EM forward waves (with an
associated ExH energy) and EM reflected waves (with an associated ExH
energy) are always present when standing waves are present and that
those underlying waves (that cannot exist without energy) are moving
at the speed of light in the medium back and forth between impedance
discontinuities. Standing waves are somewhat of an illusion and
according to two of my reference books, do not deserve to be called
waves at all because standing waves do not transfer net energy as
required by the definition of "wave". In short, it is impossible for
EM waves to stand still.

Quoting one of my college textbooks, "Electrical Communication", by
Albert:

"Such a plot of voltage is usually referred to as a *voltage standing
wave* or as a *stationary wave*. Neither of these terms is
particularly descriptive of the phenomenon. A plot of effective values
of voltage, appearing as in Fig. 6(e), *is not a wave* in the usual
sense. However, the term "standing wave" is in widespread use."

From "College Physics", by Bueche and Hecht:

"These ... patterns are called *standing waves*, as compared to the
propagating waves considered above. They might better not be called
waves at all, since they do not transport energy and momentum."

Technically, RF waves *are* light waves, just not *visible* light
waves. All the laws of physics that govern EM waves of light also
apply to RF waves. That you find it inconvenient for your "mashed-
potatoes" theory of energy arguments is not a good reason to abandon
the photonic nature of EM waves. It is actually a good reason to keep
it in mind and abandon the mashed-potatoes energy arguments as human
conceptual constructs that cannot exist in reality. Most of the energy
in an EM wave is kinetic energy. Therefore, it cannot stand still.

There is a wave theory of light, and there is a particle theory
of light, and these two theories do not play well together.

If they are both correct, they should play well together. If there is
any conflict, quantum electrodynamics wins the argument every time.

While in many situations they will yield the same answers, it
is not permissible to mix the concepts from each. Distrust
the conclusions of any exposition which does so.

Actually, distrust the wave theory if it disagrees with QED. Quantum
ElectroDynamics has never been proven wrong.

So feel free to prove that standing waves can exist without the
underlying component traveling waves traveling at the speed of light
in the medium. Feel free to prove that EM wave cancellation does not
"redistribute energy to areas that permit constructive interference"
as the FSU web page explains. Feel free to prove the Melles-Groit web
page wrong when they say such has been proven experimentally. In fact,
the interferometer experiment described here proves that reflected EM
waves, traveling at the speed of light, exist along with the necessary
energy. Take a look at the "non-standard output to screen".

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments...eriments.shtml

I, personally, am not interested in getting the right answer using the
wrong concepts. And I am absolutely sure that your math models do not
dictate reality. It is supposed to be the exact opposite.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com