Re: photons


"sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42611f39$0$79461$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Dr ***" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1113653999.49689.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4260ef18$0$79452$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Dr ***" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1113638265.7963.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1113602289.742333.27370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> s
> The charges in a candle flame, have a Coulomb coupling to the charges
> in your cornea. Since glancing at flame doesn't alter it, we can probably
> assume safely that atomic bonding forces are adaquate to keep the
> participants from "canceling" .
> dr
> Yes but a moment ago we were into positron and electrons so we are into
> photon level interactions which are essentially E field interacts which I
> think was were I was going at one stage :-) Mind you I suppose it may be
> possible to limit positron/electron interaction to photon level but its a
> bit to tricky to get our oven to do things of that order so I'm a bit
> limited for facilities. It sometimes has troubles with chips:-) Are you
> satisfied that photons are as near to pure E fields as we are likely to
get
> ?? and the ones between Galaxies with no obvious matter about might fit my
> description of E field ??

I am satisfied that photons *represent* the energy that an
atomic oscillator gains or looses in emission or absorbion
of a unit of electromagnetic energy. My involvement in
this thread titled "photons" is mainly make the case that the
statistical tool of a corpuscular model is a poor substitute
for a good understanding of the electrodynamics involved
in aquiring a qualitative understanding of propagation.
dr
I have no disagreement with that only the implication that I was supporting
a
statistical tool of a corpuscular model:-)

> > s
> > I don't think so. The technique is to configure the
> > coupling structure
> > so that one or the other component
> > cancels out. A transformer with a Faraday shield, for example.
> > I can't think of an example to cancel the magenetic
> > component but allow the electric component because
> > any free space potential is, by it's very nature, coupled.
> > Permittivity Eh

> > Jefferies has some good antenna theory. Believe me...
> > You will just chase your tail 'till you can explain large
> > and small Faraday shielded loops
> > dr
> > I thought I could. Ask me a question in no more than three words :-)
> > s
> > OK
> > ___________ defines E-plane aperture . ;-)
> >
> > dr
> > Angular spread of polarised radiation. May not be the conventional one
but
> > it is what my model tells the answer is ?:-) I could even draw you a
> diagram
> > :-) O! no she says, not another diagram :-) I was hoping to reply in
less
> > words than the question but failed without cheating. This is the cheat
> ASPR.
> > :-)
> s
> I was more calling you bluff. But the point is that an infintesimally
small
> solenoid
> can produce a huge magentic field but have no legs. (1/r^3 ).
> dr
> Whirling round and round in small circles makes you dizzy and dont help
your
> ability to walk long distances :-)
> s
> Some E-plane aperture is necessary to if the path is to diminish at 1/r^2.
> dr
dr
What do you mean by E-plane apeture.
dr
> Are you saying that a plane polerized microwave tx in vacuum falls of
faster
> than 1/r^2 ??
s
Such a coupling structure could be designed. Santa's smallest elves
might have to build it tho; . ;-)
dr
Yes but are you saying that if built its o/p would not fall off 1/r^2
> s
> This is why VLF transmitting antennas are usually found on large farms
> instead
> of inside ladies purses.
> dr
> I can understand why VLF[?] antenna stuff wont fit in your pocket neatly
but I
> fail to see at the moment how it relates directly to 1/r^2 and aperture
size
> except interaction with the earth's mag field and that interaction seems
> complicated to explain at this moment.
VLF ***transmitting*** antennas
VLF propagates through the far reaches of the cosmos without benefit
of any planets magnetic field.
dr
Yes and I seem to remember that it needs lots of power to get anywhere but
I'm not an expert in this area so other factors might effect my generalised
picture. Your original comments when you brought this up brought in aperture
size to VLF and 1/r^2 and I was just asking how you related these factors
but you clearly seem to think magnetic effects are insignificant in regard
to VLF ?
> > s
> > That is the only configuration
> > where you can separate the E from H fields
> > dr
> > I want the E fields not the mag fields :-)
> > s
> > Then don't jiggle any charges and that's what you'll get.
> > s
> >
http://www.google.com/search?h­l=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=+­site%3Aww...
> >
> > dr
> > Very rusty but have worked on RFI projects many years ago and some mag
> > shielding ones as well. but never tried to shield mag and get max RFI
> > :-)
> > but seems a good tail chasing game. for long haul low cost comms. To
> > daft and impossible for anybody else to be interested in ?:-)
> >
> > I have done a lot of antenna field analysis. So just trust me. ( after
> > the check for the bridge clears the bank).
> dr
> bounced :-) No more bridges for you.
> s
> > The shortest path is to study a pair of Faraday shielded loops. You can
> > "morph" the model into every thing else. In fact they are used as
> > laboratory standard coupling structures up to 30MHz.
> > dr
> > But wont the Faraday screens shunt all the E field away and all you will
> > have left is the mag field so we are into transformer design ?
> s
> If magnetism is a perturbation of electric fields then clearly it isn't
> "shunted
> away".
> dr
> But I don't see it like that I see them both as modulation of the vacuum
> state
s
*modulation of the vacuum state* is not a substitute for
electrodynamic theory that has been well documented for over
100 years. :-( STOP IT! AARRRRRGH!
dr
Get your teeth out of my leg woman :-) Clearly I am touching a raw nerve
here and don't know how to proceed without presumably getting written off as
a kook or something. All I'm trying to do is document how and why the things
that you apply you electrodynamics theory to actually work, the theory don't
really address this just providing a mechanisms by which the applicable
effects can be applied. If you don't think that fields are modulation of the
vacuum state then fine but some of the things I write will not make sense
unless you have another explanation ?? If you have please present it so I
may try and understand it. The taffy one was ammusing but a little
incomplete ?
dr
and the can intermodulate that's true but the two modulation methods
> can be separated. Bit like pumping an AM and FM signal up the same pipe,
> difficult to interpret in transit but after you understand the decoding it
> all becomes clear ?
s
<< But I don't see it like that >>
No it isn't like that at all. If a charge at the source moves in response to
the sum of the AM and FM signals, a charge at the destination will
also move in response to the SUM.
dr
That was not my point and I dont dispute what you say.
s
You can't imbue the properties
of a single charge with the same properties of a *collection* of charges.
dr
This below is what you said and what I replied and I was just taking issue
with you about your statement that magnetism was just a modulation of
Electric fields to point out that you had not explained what electric fields
are and that saying that magnetism was a modulation of electric fields was
in effect avoiding saying what they are. I cant understand the meaning of
your statement 'You can't imbue the properties of a single charge with the
same properties of a *collection* of charges.' as being meaningful because
although that may be true in some cases I cant see how it is true in all
cases. Qualitatively we can in some cases would be my view.
> s
> If magnetism is a perturbation of electric fields then clearly it isn't
> "shunted away".
> dr
> But I don't see it like that I see them both as modulation of the vacuum
> state
s
You can't magically invoke all the other charges that comprise a complex
transmission system to argue your POV.
dr
I did not see myself magicaly doing anything what I wrote seemed fairly
reasonable to me.
> s
> Hint: Faraday shields are configured so they will not present
> themselves as a "shorted turn" or "eddy current".
> dr
> No they present a closed loop to an RF field like a large and continuous
> antenna ? As far as I remember I've been in a faraday cage but for the
life
> of me at this moment I cant remember if I was trying to keep E field in or
> out :-) I expect I will remember in a few minutes, data lag:-)
s
There IS much confusion. A Farady cage is not designed to permit
magnetic paths. A Faraday shield is.
dr
Never used a Farady Shield as far as I remember thought it was the same as
a small Faraday cage. Sorry.
s
That is why shieled loops have
a gap in the shield. If the Shield is physically large, current are induced
on the shield's surface, restoring the effective E-plane component.
dr
That sounds like both E and M fields get out, Whats its use?
s
This is why loop antenna are classified as *large* or *small*.
dr
Cant remember the stuff about loop antenna but arnt they very similair to a
folded dipole. And you fold a dipole to reduce its impedence as I remember ?
s
The small loops are usually assumed to couple only by magnetic induction.
dr
Never got into wave guides much but dint they used to have a loop for
injection and extraction ?
> s
> The charges on the surface of the earth don't seem to shield the moons
> gravity from the interior of the earth. Eh?
> dr
> No, I thought my description explained that. Its the positive or negative
> which ever way round you want to call them , differences of potential
> between the cores and surface's of the particals of both bodies that
> causes the effect of gravity, probably mainly the core at this distance
but
> you would notice the surface if you tried to shove the moon though the
> earth:-). ???
s
IMHO the motional component
dr
Of the gravity field which would be an electric field due to potential
diifference ?
s
might be passed from atom to atom just
as magentism distributes itself throughout a body of matter.
Dr ***
Sue...



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Einsteins Electrodynamics
    ... >> It is probably incorrect to say that the electric fields in the ... >> that their force is easily duplicated by charges in motion. ... > ALL magnetism is created by the motion of charges, as Maxwell, himself, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Electrodynamics
    ... >> It is probably incorrect to say that the electric fields in the ... >> that their force is easily duplicated by charges in motion. ... > ALL magnetism is created by the motion of charges, as Maxwell, himself, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: photons
    ... >> The charges in a candle flame, have a Coulomb coupling to the charges ... A transformer with a Faraday shield, ... perturb both the electrons and nuclei of atoms and molecules, the capacity to amplify and control polariton propagation could lead ... >>> The shortest path is to study a pair of Faraday shielded loops. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: REAL FUSION...Caradache ---NOT!
    ... >> and the moving charges. ... >> There is no need of magnetism. ... > of physics. ... >> is bent and the electric wave travels in a circle with the ...
    (sci.physics.fusion)
  • Re: Constancy of the Light Speed !
    ... |> | My POV: ... |> | charges have mass and thus exhibit inertia. ... Field shield = fuel: onboard accelerator, two glasses of red wine should do ... Yea I had been ignoring vacuum state effects as nobody much seemed to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading