Re: Electromagnetic wave and photon spin

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1158701938.537480.18070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FrediFizzx wrote:


In units where c = 1, the E field and B field of a monochromatic EM
radiation plane wave are identical except they are in phase and are
tranverse to the direction of motion. And 90 degrees rotated from
each
other. However, that is an ideal case and nature is not usually so
perfect. ;-) But can be used as a good approximation in many cases.

Nature won't pay any attention to the units you establish

Well, maybe nature doesn't be we sure can "pay attention". ;-)

The long range components are electirc as the OP wrote.

I don't know what that means. You mean *only* electric? Sorry, that is
flat out wrong if so.

Jackson demonstrates with an E plane only antenna.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053


Yes... You are spot on. The E component diminishes by 1/r^2
and is the farfield or radiative component. The magnetic
component diminishes by 1/r^3 and is effective in the nearfield
only.

You need to qualify your 1/r^3. That would only be true for certain
types of source configuration and/or boundary conditions.

Having never seen a long range magnet, I don't know how
I would further quality it. The configuration that integrates
the Coulomb forces seem rather inflexible given the finite
speed of light.

Read Timo's reply to rds in this thread. He has it exactly right.
Magnets are dipoles. The B field of EM radiation doesn't necessarilly
come from a magnet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral


Photons are a mathmatical abstraction not a propagation model.
Your question is to the heart of why Feynman puts wrist watches
on his photons to fix all the mirrors that QM broke. In QED,
the phase information and magnetic components are transported
on the tip of a mathematicians pencil. ;-)

Photons are definitely not a math abstraction. The are basically
chunks
of propagating EM energy that don't disperse due to the nature of
the
relativistic quantum "vacuum" medium. They have only helicity and
some
value of momentum as intrinsic properties. All the EM associated
with
them comes from the quantum "vacuum".

This may be some conjecture of something more funadamental
than electrons and positrons but if there is any evidence then
someone left the party without their prize.

Seems to be just plain common sense to me. The evidence is as plain as
just opening your eyes. ;-)

<<Now, does not the prize to Einstein imply
that the Academy recognised the particle
nature of light? The Nobel Committee says
that Einstein had found that the energy exchange
between matter and ether occurs by atoms emitting
or absorbing a quantum of energy,hv .

As a consequence of the new concept of light quanta
(in modern terminology photons) Einstein proposed the
law that an electron emitted from a substance by
monochromatic light with the frequency has to have
a maximum energy of E=hv-p, where p is the energy needed to
remove the electron from the substance. Robert Andrews
Millikan carried out a series of measurements over a
period of 10 years, finally confirming the validity of this
law in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had, however,
found the idea of light quanta to be unfamiliar and strange.

The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html

... and your no-dispersing ~photons~ can't take any
cell-phones into the mirror spaces to conspire about
their phase.

This is supposed to mean something?

http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/ ;-)

Wrong direction to the mirror spacetimes.

"Higgs-field Portal into Hidden Sectors"
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0605188

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Electromagnetic wave and photon spin
    ... Having never seen a long range magnet, ... The B field of EM radiation doesn't necessarilly ... Photons are definitely not a math abstraction. ... remove the electron from the substance. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?
    ... >> A radiation is independent of the immediate ... magnet... ... > You don't think there's a dE/dt? ... or equivalently gravitation produce photons? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Rotating Bar Magnets & CRTs
    ... |> | Suppose I have a stationary magnet, ... | net radiation is zero that's ok. ... |> is just like the fact that photons require a charge for detection. ... | a floton because we cannot transform measurements ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?
    ... But now suppose a magnet is rotated in free space orthogonal to its ... The radiation field carries 1 hbar per photon about the axis of rotation. ... There's a corresponding reaction torque on the magnet/antenna. ... > partial photons would seem to emit from each element. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?
    ... >>I provide below the answers which are currently accepted in physics. ... >>Electromagnetic radiation. ... Classical mechanics can not fully explain the behaviour of electrons. ... > at the origin (the magnet at rest, not radiating, with closed magnetic ...
    (sci.physics)