Tom Donaly wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Assume a future antenna emitting entangled photons and
explain to us how present antenna theory handles non-locality.

Go ahead, Cecil, prove the world wrong. Be the first on your block to
design a real-world antenna based on particle physics, but remember the
correspondance principle.

Maxwell and Einstein assumed the locality principle which
has now been disproved by quantum physics. Anyone want to
predict the effect of non-locality on Maxwell's equations?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Albert Einstein was merely the first to realise what is obvious to
anybody who thinks about it.

What's all the fuss about for the last 100 years?

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:02:55 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Albert Einstein was merely the first to realise what is obvious to
anybody who thinks about it.

What's all the fuss about for the last 100 years?


Hi Reg,

No one else wrote it down. Sure you can "think about it," but if you
keep dialing the same number to talk to Mum and you get chinese
take-out, then "thinking about it" is not all that it is cracked up to
be.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Reg Edwards wrote:
Albert Einstein was merely the first to realise what is obvious to
anybody who thinks about it.

Some things that Albert Einstein said sound a lot like Art.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he
learned in school."

"All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and
childlike ..."

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and
Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities."

"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the
spinal cord would surely suffice."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Anyone want to
predict the effect of non-locality on Maxwell's equations?

How better to explain interference phenomena at, "Alpha Centauri" for
example? :-)

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Anyone want to
predict the effect of non-locality on Maxwell's equations?

How better to explain interference phenomena at, "Alpha Centauri" for
example? :-)

How better indeed? As I remember, it was Dr. Best's assertion
that the source always provided the extra energy during construc-
tive interference (no matter how far away the source might be).
I, OTOH, tend to believe "Optics", by Hecht where he asserts
that there must always be an energy balance between constructive
interference and destructive interference (as demonstrated by
the radiation pattern of an antenna).
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Anyone want to
predict the effect of non-locality on Maxwell's equations?


How better to explain interference phenomena at, "Alpha Centauri" for
example? :-)


How better indeed? As I remember, it was Dr. Best's assertion
that the source always provided the extra energy during construc-
tive interference (no matter how far away the source might be).
I, OTOH, tend to believe "Optics", by Hecht where he asserts
that there must always be an energy balance between constructive
interference and destructive interference (as demonstrated by
the radiation pattern of an antenna).

It's certainly correct in almost any instance to say that the source of
energy provides the energy. Not necessarily so of other points in
space. And only rarely do we find any "extra" energy in physical
systems. ;-)

ac6xg

"Free Energy" is indeed hard to find...
However, consider an antenna made of a superconducting material--it would at
least be impossible to lose any (at least due to resistance and heating!)

Regards

--
Hay, if'n ya'll cun't konstructivly partecipete in this har disscusion, haw
aboot speel-checkin it fer me?


"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
...


Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Anyone want to
predict the effect of non-locality on Maxwell's equations?


How better to explain interference phenomena at, "Alpha Centauri" for
example? :-)


How better indeed? As I remember, it was Dr. Best's assertion
that the source always provided the extra energy during construc-
tive interference (no matter how far away the source might be).
I, OTOH, tend to believe "Optics", by Hecht where he asserts
that there must always be an energy balance between constructive
interference and destructive interference (as demonstrated by
the radiation pattern of an antenna).

It's certainly correct in almost any instance to say that the source of
energy provides the energy. Not necessarily so of other points in space.
And only rarely do we find any "extra" energy in physical systems. ;-)

ac6xg

John Smith wrote:

"Free Energy" is indeed hard to find...
However, consider an antenna made of a superconducting material--it would at
least be impossible to lose any (at least due to resistance and heating!)

Regards

Yea, but it's a real pain having to haul the liquid helium dewar up the
tower in the middle of a dx opening.

ac6xg