Re: photons


"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
> > I've forgoteen what I'm supposed to be doing cheaper it must be
> > late.:-)
> > s
> > establish an EM path with fewer than 2 charges
> > you said you needed no matter.
> > dr
> > No I dint say that exactly I think I said with little matter and the
> trouble
> > with a positron and an electron is that the only way I can think of
> keeping
> > them from cancelling themselves is by rotation and/or external magnetic
> > fields or by electric fields that have had a lot of rotation added to
> them
> > by their means of production.
> 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.

>
> > 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
> >
> >
> > dr
> > I see that I'm going to have to dig up Coulomb and do an autopsy and
> > then
> > make him fit gravity.
> > It might not be a pretty sight so you better close your eyes:-)
> >
> > Yeah... we might be able to model gravity as magnetism with
> > a 89.999999999 degree error... or some such.
> > dr
> > How about magnetism as gravity with 0 deg error ?:-)
> > s
> >
> > 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
> Are you saying that a plane polerized microwave tx in vacuum falls of faster
> than 1/r^2 ??
Such a coupling structure could be designed. Santa's smallest elves
might have to build it tho; . ;-)

> 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.

> > 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

*modulation of the vacuum state* is not a substitute for
electrodynamic theory that has been well documented for over
100 years. :-( STOP IT! AARRRRRGH!

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 ?

<< 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. You can't imbue the properties
of a single charge with the same properties of a *collection* of charges.

You can't magically invoke all the other charges that comprise a complex
transmission system to argue your POV.

> 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:-)

There IS much confusion. A Farady cage is not designed to permit
magnetic paths. A Faraday shield is. 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.
This is why loop antenna are classified as *large* or *small*. The
small loops are usually assumed to couple only by magnetic induction.

> 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:-). ???
IMHO the motional component might be passed from atom to atom just
as magentism distributes itself throughout a body of matter.

Sue...

> Dr ***
> > Sue...
> >
> >
>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Understanding SR - simultaneity
    ... Is it the charges, or merely the effect of the charges, and how does ... energy, thus no radiation. ... does light depend on the acceleration of an electron or proton? ... For a four particle universe, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Understanding SR - simultaneity
    ... Is it the charges, or merely the effect of the charges, and how does ... energy, thus no radiation. ... does light depend on the acceleration of an electron or proton? ... particle such as an electron. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Detecting Space-Time
    ... The free space equations are not valid in the ... and short whip or globe antenna might ferret out the necessary ... and we have yet to determine what element an electron is made of. ... Moving charges make B. simple simple simple. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Charged spinning disks
    ... that mass is also an electromagnetic effect.. ... the inertia of the excess charge on the disk increase as a result of ... the charge itself is in motion wrt other charges on the same disk. ... One could assume that the charge of an electron is no more constant ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Detecting Space-Time
    ... The free space equations are not valid in the ... field due only to charges that are free. ... I think even the E-field of an electron is bigger than an electron. ... If you don't stop carryin' on about spin faries in the ether ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading