Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: However, two EM waves have to exist before they can cancel. And that makes rocks like waves? That makes real waves tangible like real rocks. The wave particles are just smaller. OTOH, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." is an intangible. If they exist, they posses both energy and momentum. Bet ya can't prove it without first transfering it to something. _Optics_, by Hecht is good enough for me. "It is possible to compute the resulting (momentum) force via Electromagnetic Theory, whereupon Newton's Second Law suggests that the *wave itself carries momentum*. (all emphasis his, not mine) ... As Maxwell showed, the *radiation pressure* equals the energy density of the EM wave. ... When the surface under illumination is perfectly reflecting, the beam that entered with a velocity of +c will emerge with a velocity of -c. This corresponds to twice the change in momentum that occurs on absorption, ..." It's obvious that the energy in the TV ghosting wave makes a round- trip to the match-point and back to the RCVR. That's obviously a change in the direction of momentum of the reflected wave. It is twice the change in momentum than if it encountered a circulator/ load and was dissipated. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: However, two EM waves have to exist before they can cancel. And that makes rocks like waves? That makes real waves tangible like real rocks. The wave particles are just smaller. OTOH, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." is an intangible. If they exist, they posses both energy and momentum. Bet ya can't prove it without first transfering it to something. _Optics_, by Hecht is good enough for me. "It is possible to compute the resulting (momentum) force via Electromagnetic Theory, whereupon Newton's Second Law suggests that the *wave itself carries momentum*. (all emphasis his, not mine) ... As Excellent, now try and understand what is intended by _ALL_ of the words in the sentence. Maxwell showed, the *radiation pressure* equals the energy density of the EM wave. ... When the surface under illumination is perfectly reflecting, the beam that entered with a velocity of +c will emerge with a velocity of -c. This corresponds to twice the change in momentum that occurs on absorption, ..." Yes, I'm familiar with the subject. I've been familiar with it for a long time. However it is incorrect to infer that interactions between waves would be the same as interactions between waves and matter! It's obvious that the energy in the TV ghosting wave makes a round- trip to the match-point and back to the RCVR. It's obvious that the signal has taken multiple paths, at least. That's obviously a change in the direction of momentum of the reflected wave. Perhaps. You're describing back scattering, which should exhibit a Compton effect wavelength shift if true. But again, you're describing an interaction with matter. Photons don't interact with each other in the same way they interact with matter. 73, Jim AC6XG |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Kelley wrote:
Excellent, now try and understand what is intended by _ALL_ of the words in the sentence. I know, you have told me before, ad infinitum. All of the words intend exactly what Jim Kelly wants them to intend and absolutely nothing else. You are the only person in the entire universe capable of ascertaining the intent of words. So tell me something I don't already know. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Rho = (Zload-Zo*)/(Zload+Zo), for complex Zo | Antenna | |||
Derivation of the Reflection Coefficient? | Antenna | |||
Length of Coax Affecting Incident Power to Meter? | Antenna |