photons and reflection

BURT <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:

The truth is meant to be known. Quantization is the lesser
concept than full ranges of energy.

The process of quantization doesn't require discrete, countable
sets of EM mode functions (although that may well make the
mathematics easier). Quantization doesn't necessarily restrict
the allowed energies.

--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (Photonics) (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kinsler@physics.org
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

 

[eric gisse]

p.kinsler@ic.ac.uk wrote:

BURT <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
The truth is meant to be known. Quantization is the lesser
concept than full ranges of energy.

The process of quantization doesn't require discrete, countable
sets of EM mode functions (although that may well make the
mathematics easier). Quantization doesn't necessarily restrict
the allowed energies.

You are wasting your time explaining this to him. He is nothing but a noise
generator.

 

[Androcles]

<p.kinsler@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:4aq1v6-pg8.ln1@ph-kinsle.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk...

Androcles <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
Quite right, Bob. I sometimes use a "leapfrog" analogy, the electric
field creates the magnetic field as the electric collapses and then the
magnetic creates the electric field in turn.

Why not consider the Yee grid for discretizing and numerically solving
Maxwell's equations? That might be leapfroggy enough for you, without
requiring any dubious analogies.

Because the first requirement is to understand the physical concept,

not play mathematical games. Maxwell plagiarised the work of Faraday,
Gauss and Ampere. Maxwell's aether was a dubious analogy dispelled
by Michelson, that's why.

 

[George Herold]

On Dec 7, 10:53 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:

"Bob Masta" <N0S...@daqarta.com> wrote in message

news:4b1d0fb6.1129688@news.sysmatrix.net...





On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 20:31:18 -0800 (PST), BURT
macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If light is a particle which of its waves is this particle in? its
magnetic wave or electric wave?

Yes.  Don't think of this as "either-or", think of
the photon as the oscillation between magnetic and
electric fields.  To use a mechanical analogy, you
might think of the photon as a rubber ball flying
through space.  It is springy in the X and Y
dimensions, and oscillates between having its
energy stored in X-compression/Y-elongation,
versus Y-compression/X-elongation.

Now take away the ball.

Best regards,

Bob Masta

Quite right, Bob. I sometimes use a "leapfrog" analogy, the electric
field creates the magnetic field as the electric collapses and then the
magnetic creates the electric field in turn.
 http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Androcles. I use to like this analogy too. Until I learned a few
years ago that in E-M radiation the E and B are in phase! At first I
thought there was a mistake... but then discovered that the mistake
was mine. (Your link shows correctly the in phase behavior so I
realize I'm not telling you anything you don't know.)

Anyway the analogy can lead to false conclusions. (At least for me.)

So now I see that the E field at some time was 'created' by some B
field at a previous time.... Which starts to 'weird' me out if think
too hard. All of a sudden I picture 'photons' travelling in both
directions.

George H.

 

[Androcles]

"George Herold" <ggherold@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0497f18c-647c-4792-a268-197905b5f01d@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 7, 10:53 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:

"Bob Masta" <N0S...@daqarta.com> wrote in message

news:4b1d0fb6.1129688@news.sysmatrix.net...





On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 20:31:18 -0800 (PST), BURT
macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If light is a particle which of its waves is this particle in? its
magnetic wave or electric wave?

Yes. Don't think of this as "either-or", think of
the photon as the oscillation between magnetic and
electric fields. To use a mechanical analogy, you
might think of the photon as a rubber ball flying
through space. It is springy in the X and Y
dimensions, and oscillates between having its
energy stored in X-compression/Y-elongation,
versus Y-compression/X-elongation.

Now take away the ball.

Best regards,

Bob Masta

Quite right, Bob. I sometimes use a "leapfrog" analogy, the electric
field creates the magnetic field as the electric collapses and then the
magnetic creates the electric field in turn.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Androcles. I use to like this analogy too. Until I learned a few
years ago that in E-M radiation the E and B are in phase!
===========================================
Then you should unlearn it immediately. If E and B were in phase
both would be zero simultaneously and that violates the first law of
thermodynamics, you'd create energy from nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
But anyway, Maxwell's equations never did claim E and B were in phase,
what you've "learnt" is a rumour spread by the incompetent.
===========================================

At first I
thought there was a mistake... but then discovered that the mistake
was mine. (Your link shows correctly the in phase behavior so I
realize I'm not telling you anything you don't know.)

Anyway the analogy can lead to false conclusions. (At least for me.)

So now I see that the E field at some time was 'created' by some B
field at a previous time....
============================================
Any spark will start the process. A flame is a chemical reaction
whereby the electrons of the atoms are rearranged to build a different
molecule. 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O.
============================================

Which starts to 'weird' me out if think
too hard. All of a sudden I picture 'photons' travelling in both
directions.

George H.

===========================================
Androcles' third law: For every photon there is an equal and
opposite rephoton.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rephoton.gif
(It's Newton's third law applied to E-M waves and allows
for light to travel in beams -- quite simple, really.)

Of course you'll never see a rephoton without a mirror, it is
travelling away from you. Rephotons are the major cause of
poorly understood spooky entanglement.

--
'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' - Galileo
Galilei
'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it with
reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero
New ideas are old ideas resurrected. - Androcles.

 

[NoEinstein]

On Nov 27, 7:24 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear RichD: You are most correct that photons don't reflect (even

from the shiniest mirror). All photons get absorbed by the surface
and the electron orbits re emit light of the correct wave length.
Matter in the 'reflecting' surface doesn't need to KNOW the angle of
the mirror face. All of the atoms near the surface act to absorb the
"off angle" photons being re emitted such that only those photons
which have your stated angle can escape the surface. — NoEinstein —

According to the wave theory of light, angle of
incidence equals angle of reflection.  No problem,
in theory or fact.

However, per QM, light falls as a 'rain' of photons.
What happens then?  As I understand it (big qualifier
there), the photons are absorbed by surface atoms.
Electrons jump to higher energy orbitals, then fall
back to ground state, emitting photon(s) of its
characteristic spectrum.  Simple....

This raises several questions, regarding geometry...
the aforementioned angles are defined relative
to a surface normal.  But the surface is not truly
continuous, it's atomic and chunky.  How does an
atom know where the 'normal' is?  How does it
know which direction to fire its photons, after a
time delay?  Does it have some sort of 'light
momentum' memory?

I never studied quantum field theory, maybe it's
explained there...

--
Rich

 

[Androcles]

"George Herold" <ggherold@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bc2be262-2a4f-4ba9-ab61-2140c09aa064@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 8, 11:16 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:

"George Herold" <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0497f18c-647c-4792-a268-197905b5f01d@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 7, 10:53 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:





"Bob Masta" <N0S...@daqarta.com> wrote in message

news:4b1d0fb6.1129688@news.sysmatrix.net...

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 20:31:18 -0800 (PST), BURT
macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If light is a particle which of its waves is this particle in? its
magnetic wave or electric wave?

Yes. Don't think of this as "either-or", think of
the photon as the oscillation between magnetic and
electric fields. To use a mechanical analogy, you
might think of the photon as a rubber ball flying
through space. It is springy in the X and Y
dimensions, and oscillates between having its
energy stored in X-compression/Y-elongation,
versus Y-compression/X-elongation.

Now take away the ball.

Best regards,

Bob Masta

Quite right, Bob. I sometimes use a "leapfrog" analogy, the electric
field creates the magnetic field as the electric collapses and then the
magnetic creates the electric field in turn.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Androcles. I use to like this analogy too. Until I learned a few
years ago that in E-M radiation the E and B are in phase!
===========================================
Then you should unlearn it immediately. If E and B were in phase
both would be zero simultaneously and that violates the first law of
thermodynamics, you'd create energy from nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
But anyway, Maxwell's equations never did claim E and B were in phase,
what you've "learnt" is a rumour spread by the incompetent.
===========================================

At first I
thought there was a mistake... but then discovered that the mistake
was mine. (Your link shows correctly the in phase behavior so I
realize I'm not telling you anything you don't know.)

Anyway the analogy can lead to false conclusions. (At least for me.)

So now I see that the E field at some time was 'created' by some B
field at a previous time....
============================================
Any spark will start the process. A flame is a chemical reaction
whereby the electrons of the atoms are rearranged to build a different
molecule. 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O.
============================================

Which starts to 'weird' me out if think
too hard. All of a sudden I picture 'photons' travelling in both
directions.

George H.

===========================================
Androcles' third law: For every photon there is an equal and
opposite rephoton.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rephoton.gif
(It's Newton's third law applied to E-M waves and allows
for light to travel in beams -- quite simple, really.)

Of course you'll never see a rephoton without a mirror, it is
travelling away from you. Rephotons are the major cause of
poorly understood spooky entanglement.

--
'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' -
Galileo
Galilei
'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it
with
reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero
New ideas are old ideas resurrected. - Androcles.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmm, Sorry on my second look your picture of a photon has it wrong
you've got the E and B fields 90 degrees out of phase.
=====================================
It's right. Just ask any electrical engineer.
=====================================


This is
exactly what I would have drawn a few years ago.
=====================================
You'd have been right years ago.
=====================================

But check out this,

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

There is a picture if you scroll down a bit.

George H.
=================================================
Wackypedia is written by both incompetent kooks and the wise.
Kooks outnumber the wise by at least 100:1, perhaps a 1000:1.
Wackypedia has it wrong. See the discussion page, there are a set of
tabs labelled "article", "discussion", "edit this page" and "history"
at the top.
YOU can edit the page, I refuse to have anything to do with it.

Faraday wrote E = -dB/dt.
He did not write E = B, he did not write dE/dt = -dB/dt and
he did experiment. A CHANGING magnetic field produces
an electric field. Ask any generator designer.

The kook diagram you've indicated shows E = B.
Use this instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometric_functions

And do not write
- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted
text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show
quoted text -, it irritates me.
Delete it before you post to usenet.

 

[BURT]

On Dec 8, 3:39 am, p.kins...@ic.ac.uk wrote:

BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The truth is meant to be known. Quantization is the lesser
concept than full ranges of energy.

The process of quantization doesn't require discrete, countable
sets of EM mode functions (although that may well make the
mathematics easier). Quantization doesn't necessarily restrict
the allowed energies.

Quantization is defined as making energy transitions discrete for the
electron.
It does not accomadate a mirror.

Show me where I am wrong.

Mitch Raemsch

--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler                
Blackett Laboratory (Photonics)   (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London,          Dr.Paul.Kins...@physics.org
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.          http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

 

[George Herold]

On Dec 8, 11:16 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:

"George Herold" <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0497f18c-647c-4792-a268-197905b5f01d@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 7, 10:53 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:





"Bob Masta" <N0S...@daqarta.com> wrote in message

news:4b1d0fb6.1129688@news.sysmatrix.net...

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 20:31:18 -0800 (PST), BURT
macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If light is a particle which of its waves is this particle in? its
magnetic wave or electric wave?

Yes. Don't think of this as "either-or", think of
the photon as the oscillation between magnetic and
electric fields. To use a mechanical analogy, you
might think of the photon as a rubber ball flying
through space. It is springy in the X and Y
dimensions, and oscillates between having its
energy stored in X-compression/Y-elongation,
versus Y-compression/X-elongation.

Now take away the ball.

Best regards,

Bob Masta

Quite right, Bob. I sometimes use a "leapfrog" analogy, the electric
field creates the magnetic field as the electric collapses and then the
magnetic creates the electric field in turn.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Androcles.  I use to like this analogy too.  Until I learned a few
years ago that in E-M radiation the E and B are in phase!
==========================================> Then you should unlearn it immediately. If E and B were in phase
both would be zero simultaneously and that violates the first law of
thermodynamics, you'd create energy from nothing.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
But anyway, Maxwell's equations never did claim E and B were in phase,
what you've "learnt" is a rumour spread by the incompetent.
==========================================
At first I
thought there was a mistake... but then discovered that the mistake
was mine.  (Your link shows correctly the in phase behavior so I
realize I'm not telling you anything you don't know.)

Anyway the analogy can lead to false conclusions.  (At least for me.)

So now I see that the E field at some time was 'created' by some B
field at a previous time....
===========================================> Any spark will start the process. A flame is a chemical reaction
whereby the electrons of the atoms are rearranged to build a different
molecule. 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O.
===========================================
Which starts to 'weird' me out if think
too hard.  All of a sudden I picture 'photons' travelling in both
directions.

George H.

==========================================> Androcles' third law: For every photon there is an equal and
opposite rephoton.
 http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rephoton.gif
(It's Newton's third law applied to E-M waves and allows
for light to travel in beams -- quite simple, really.)

Of course you'll never see a rephoton without a mirror, it is
travelling away from you. Rephotons are the major cause of
poorly understood spooky entanglement.

--
'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' - Galileo
Galilei
'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it with
reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero
New ideas are old ideas resurrected. - Androcles.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmm, Sorry on my second look your picture of a photon has it wrong
you've got the E and B fields 90 degrees out of phase. This is
exactly what I would have drawn a few years ago.

But check out this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

There is a picture if you scroll down a bit.

George H.

 

[BURT]

On Dec 8, 12:59 pm, George Herold <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 8, 11:16 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:





"George Herold" <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0497f18c-647c-4792-a268-197905b5f01d@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 7, 10:53 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:

"Bob Masta" <N0S...@daqarta.com> wrote in message

news:4b1d0fb6.1129688@news.sysmatrix.net...

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 20:31:18 -0800 (PST), BURT
macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If light is a particle which of its waves is this particle in? its
magnetic wave or electric wave?

Yes. Don't think of this as "either-or", think of
the photon as the oscillation between magnetic and
electric fields. To use a mechanical analogy, you
might think of the photon as a rubber ball flying
through space. It is springy in the X and Y
dimensions, and oscillates between having its
energy stored in X-compression/Y-elongation,
versus Y-compression/X-elongation.

Now take away the ball.

Best regards,

Bob Masta

Quite right, Bob. I sometimes use a "leapfrog" analogy, the electric
field creates the magnetic field as the electric collapses and then the
magnetic creates the electric field in turn.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Androcles.  I use to like this analogy too.  Until I learned a few
years ago that in E-M radiation the E and B are in phase!
==========================================> > Then you should unlearn it immediately. If E and B were in phase
both would be zero simultaneously and that violates the first law of
thermodynamics, you'd create energy from nothing.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
But anyway, Maxwell's equations never did claim E and B were in phase,
what you've "learnt" is a rumour spread by the incompetent.
==========================================
At first I
thought there was a mistake... but then discovered that the mistake
was mine.  (Your link shows correctly the in phase behavior so I
realize I'm not telling you anything you don't know.)

Anyway the analogy can lead to false conclusions.  (At least for me.)

So now I see that the E field at some time was 'created' by some B
field at a previous time....
===========================================> > Any spark will start the process. A flame is a chemical reaction
whereby the electrons of the atoms are rearranged to build a different
molecule. 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O.
===========================================
Which starts to 'weird' me out if think
too hard.  All of a sudden I picture 'photons' travelling in both
directions.

George H.

==========================================> > Androcles' third law: For every photon there is an equal and
opposite rephoton.
 http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rephoton.gif
(It's Newton's third law applied to E-M waves and allows
for light to travel in beams -- quite simple, really.)

Of course you'll never see a rephoton without a mirror, it is
travelling away from you. Rephotons are the major cause of
poorly understood spooky entanglement.

--
'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' - Galileo
Galilei
'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it with
reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero
New ideas are old ideas resurrected. - Androcles.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmm,  Sorry on my second look your picture of a photon has it wrong
you've got the E and B fields 90 degrees out of phase.  This is
exactly what I would have drawn a few years ago.

But check out this,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

There is a picture if you scroll down a bit.

George H.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quantization doesn't work for rainbow physics.

Mitch Raemsch

 

[BURT]

On Dec 8, 1:44 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:

"George Herold" <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bc2be262-2a4f-4ba9-ab61-2140c09aa064@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 8, 11:16 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:





"George Herold" <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0497f18c-647c-4792-a268-197905b5f01d@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 7, 10:53 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:

"Bob Masta" <N0S...@daqarta.com> wrote in message

news:4b1d0fb6.1129688@news.sysmatrix.net...

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 20:31:18 -0800 (PST), BURT
macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If light is a particle which of its waves is this particle in? its
magnetic wave or electric wave?

Yes. Don't think of this as "either-or", think of
the photon as the oscillation between magnetic and
electric fields. To use a mechanical analogy, you
might think of the photon as a rubber ball flying
through space. It is springy in the X and Y
dimensions, and oscillates between having its
energy stored in X-compression/Y-elongation,
versus Y-compression/X-elongation.

Now take away the ball.

Best regards,

Bob Masta

Quite right, Bob. I sometimes use a "leapfrog" analogy, the electric
field creates the magnetic field as the electric collapses and then the
magnetic creates the electric field in turn.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Androcles. I use to like this analogy too. Until I learned a few
years ago that in E-M radiation the E and B are in phase!
==========================================> > Then you should unlearn it immediately. If E and B were in phase
both would be zero simultaneously and that violates the first law of
thermodynamics, you'd create energy from nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
But anyway, Maxwell's equations never did claim E and B were in phase,
what you've "learnt" is a rumour spread by the incompetent.
==========================================
At first I
thought there was a mistake... but then discovered that the mistake
was mine. (Your link shows correctly the in phase behavior so I
realize I'm not telling you anything you don't know.)

Anyway the analogy can lead to false conclusions. (At least for me.)

So now I see that the E field at some time was 'created' by some B
field at a previous time....
===========================================> > Any spark will start the process. A flame is a chemical reaction
whereby the electrons of the atoms are rearranged to build a different
molecule. 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O.
===========================================
Which starts to 'weird' me out if think
too hard. All of a sudden I picture 'photons' travelling in both
directions.

George H.

==========================================> > Androcles' third law: For every photon there is an equal and
opposite rephoton.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rephoton.gif
(It's Newton's third law applied to E-M waves and allows
for light to travel in beams -- quite simple, really.)

Of course you'll never see a rephoton without a mirror, it is
travelling away from you. Rephotons are the major cause of
poorly understood spooky entanglement.

--
'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' -
Galileo
Galilei
'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it
with
reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero
New ideas are old ideas resurrected. - Androcles.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmm,  Sorry on my second look your picture of a photon has it wrong
you've got the E and B fields 90 degrees out of phase.
====================================> It's right. Just ask any electrical engineer.
====================================
This is
exactly what I would have drawn a few years ago.
====================================> You'd have been right years ago.
====================================
But check out this,

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

There is a picture if you scroll down a bit.

George H.
================================================> Wackypedia is written by both incompetent kooks and the wise.
Kooks outnumber the wise by at least 100:1, perhaps a 1000:1.
Wackypedia has it wrong. See the discussion page, there are a set of
tabs labelled "article", "discussion", "edit this page" and "history"
at the top.
YOU can edit the page, I refuse to have anything to do with it.

Faraday wrote E =  -dB/dt.
He did not write E = B, he did not write dE/dt = -dB/dt and
he did experiment.  A CHANGING magnetic field produces
an electric field. Ask any generator designer.

The kook diagram you've indicated shows E = B.
Use this instead:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometric_functions

And do not write
- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted
text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show
quoted text -,  it irritates me.
Delete it before you post to usenet.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If the photon is in light which wave is it in?

Mitch Raemsch

 

[Skywise]

BURT <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in news:13d204a0-e272-46cb-bb40-
3363ec996a6f@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com:

Show me where I am wrong.

I have climbed Mount Everest. Prove me wrong.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

 

[Skywise]

BURT <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8b79ee65-5af0-44a2-bf00-
a67ed367a2e8@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

The truth is meant to be known. Quantization is the lesser concept
than full ranges of energy.

So then, what is the truth? If quantization is 'less correct', then
what is 'more correct'. If you're going to tell us we're wrong, then
tell us what's right. We're listening.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

 

[Bob Masta]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:53:48 -0800 (PST), BURT
<macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:

If the photon is in light which wave is it in?

Why do you think it needs to be "in" one wave or
the other?


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v5.00
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
DaqMusic - FREE MUSIC, Forever!
(Some assembly required)
Science (and fun!) with your sound card!

 

[George Herold]

On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:

"George Herold" <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bc2be262-2a4f-4ba9-ab61-2140c09aa064@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 8, 11:16 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:

<snip>

Hmm,  Sorry on my second look your picture of a photon has it wrong
you've got the E and B fields 90 degrees out of phase.
====================================> It's right. Just ask any electrical engineer.
====================================
This is
exactly what I would have drawn a few years ago.
====================================> You'd have been right years ago.
====================================
But check out this,

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

There is a picture if you scroll down a bit.

George H.
================================================> Wackypedia is written by both incompetent kooks and the wise.
Kooks outnumber the wise by at least 100:1, perhaps a 1000:1.
Wackypedia has it wrong. See the discussion page, there are a set of
tabs labelled "article", "discussion", "edit this page" and "history"
at the top.
YOU can edit the page, I refuse to have anything to do with it.

Faraday wrote E =  -dB/dt.
He did not write E = B, he did not write dE/dt = -dB/dt and
he did experiment.  A CHANGING magnetic field produces
an electric field. Ask any generator designer.

The kook diagram you've indicated shows E = B.
Use this instead:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometric_functions

Hi Androcles, Are you so sure you are correct? Or is there some
chance you could learn something new? I don't mind trying to work
through the mathematics with you.... But only if you are interested.
I know about Faraday's law. But we are talking about someting
different here. It is the travleing wave solution of Maxwells
equations. I think that in the near field of the source you will find
that the E and B fields are out of phase. But the far-field traveling
wave is different. I'm not much of a theorist. But looking over the
solutions (At the moment I'm looking at Volume 3 (Waves) of the
Berkley series on Physics) One can see that the spacial derivative of
B is equal to 1/c times the time derivative of E. (and visa versa.)
From which (with a little math) one can see that the E and B are in
phase. (Oh this is the free space solution.)

George H.

 

[Androcles]

"George Herold" <ggherold@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5535d162-6305-49c0-889d-08542c5e91c5@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:

"George Herold" <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bc2be262-2a4f-4ba9-ab61-2140c09aa064@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 8, 11:16 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:

<snip>

Hmm, Sorry on my second look your picture of a photon has it wrong
you've got the E and B fields 90 degrees out of phase.
=====================================
It's right. Just ask any electrical engineer.
=====================================

This is
exactly what I would have drawn a few years ago.
=====================================
You'd have been right years ago.
=====================================

But check out this,

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

There is a picture if you scroll down a bit.

George H.
=================================================
Wackypedia is written by both incompetent kooks and the wise.
Kooks outnumber the wise by at least 100:1, perhaps a 1000:1.
Wackypedia has it wrong. See the discussion page, there are a set of
tabs labelled "article", "discussion", "edit this page" and "history"
at the top.
YOU can edit the page, I refuse to have anything to do with it.

Faraday wrote E = -dB/dt.
He did not write E = B, he did not write dE/dt = -dB/dt and
he did experiment. A CHANGING magnetic field produces
an electric field. Ask any generator designer.

The kook diagram you've indicated shows E = B.
Use this instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometric_functions

Hi Androcles, Are you so sure you are correct?
=================================
Yes, quite sure.
=================================

Or is there some
chance you could learn something new?
=================================
I strongly doubt you have any new evidence or data,
and I'm not really interested in old crackpot theories.
But present it if you do.
=================================

I don't mind trying to work
through the mathematics with you.... But only if you are interested.
==================================

I've already presented
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
which you've snipped.
If you think you can fault it you are welcome to try. Just
remember that mathematics is about proof based on axioms.
==================================

I know about Faraday's law.
==================================
That's nice for you.
==================================

But we are talking about someting
different here.
=================================
No we are not. We are talking about the transfer of energy
through nothing, as when you feel the heat and see a big
bright ball in the sky.
=================================


It is the travleing wave solution of Maxwells
equations.
=================================
What travelling wave and what is waving? I've
seen no evidence of a travelling wave.


I think
=================================
You can stop right there. I'm not interested in what you
think, show we what you can prove.
=================================


that in the near field of the source you will find
that the E and B fields are out of phase.
But the far-field traveling
wave is different. I'm not much of a theorist.
=================================
I'm not interested in your theories. You said above
you'd work through the mathematics. I'll allow that,
but I'm not going to listen to your theories.
=================================
But looking over the
solutions (At the moment I'm looking at Volume 3 (Waves) of the
Berkley series on Physics) One can see that the spacial derivative of
B is equal to 1/c times the time derivative of E. (and visa versa.)
From which (with a little math) one can see that the E and B are in
phase. (Oh this is the free space solution.)
=================================
Phase shift is found in the time derivative. It's E = -dB/dt,
and E <> -dB/dx.
Or is there some chance you could learn something old?

 

[BURT]

On Dec 8, 8:26 pm, Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:

BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8b79ee65-5af0-44a2-bf00-
a67ed367a...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

The truth is meant to be known. Quantization is the lesser concept
than full ranges of energy.

So then, what is the truth? If quantization is 'less correct', then
what is 'more correct'. If you're going to tell us we're wrong, then
tell us what's right. We're listening.

Brian
--http://www.skywise711.com- Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ:http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions":http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Quantization only applies to stimulated emmision.
Opaque objects have to absorb all frequencies.

Quantum Mechanics is wrong.

Mitch Raemsch

 

[PD]

On Dec 9, 3:34 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Dec 8, 8:26 pm, Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:

BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8b79ee65-5af0-44a2-bf00-
a67ed367a...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

The truth is meant to be known. Quantization is the lesser concept
than full ranges of energy.

So then, what is the truth? If quantization is 'less correct', then
what is 'more correct'. If you're going to tell us we're wrong, then
tell us what's right. We're listening.

Brian
--http://www.skywise711.com-Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ:http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions":http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Quantization only applies to stimulated emmision.

Oh dear.

Opaque objects have to absorb all frequencies.

Quantum Mechanics is wrong.

Mitch Raemsch

 

[BURT]

On Dec 9, 2:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 9, 3:34 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On Dec 8, 8:26 pm, Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:

BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8b79ee65-5af0-44a2-bf00-
a67ed367a...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

The truth is meant to be known. Quantization is the lesser concept
than full ranges of energy.

So then, what is the truth? If quantization is 'less correct', then
what is 'more correct'. If you're going to tell us we're wrong, then
tell us what's right. We're listening.

Brian
--http://www.skywise711.com-Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ:http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions":http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Quantization only applies to stimulated emmision.

Oh dear.



Opaque objects have to absorb all frequencies.

Quantum Mechanics is wrong.

Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps you have something to say?

Mitch Raemsch

 

[PD]

On Dec 9, 11:11 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Dec 9, 2:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Dec 9, 3:34 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Dec 8, 8:26 pm, Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:

BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8b79ee65-5af0-44a2-bf00-
a67ed367a...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

The truth is meant to be known. Quantization is the lesser concept
than full ranges of energy.

So then, what is the truth? If quantization is 'less correct', then
what is 'more correct'. If you're going to tell us we're wrong, then
tell us what's right. We're listening.

Brian
--http://www.skywise711.com-Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ:http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions":http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Quantization only applies to stimulated emmision.

Oh dear.

Opaque objects have to absorb all frequencies.

Quantum Mechanics is wrong.

Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps you have something to say?

Oh, I dunno. Some statements you make are just so far off base,
there's too much to correct.
You might have well have said that mathematics only applies to adding
up the prices of groceries.