Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #480537

Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY.

Show all headers | View raw

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>            MACROSCOPIC THEORY.

>MAXWELL'S ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY is a MACROSCOPIC theory, which means
>that it treats everything, be it solid,liquid,or gas, as CONTINUOUS.
>There are no atoms in "MACROSCOPIC" theory.One could say that
>     "NO ATOMS" is what "MACROSCOPIC" means.

1) As Tom points out, you confuse "continuous" with "macroscopic".
2) As I pointed out many times, for short wavelength light, your
macroscopic (continuous) approximation doesn't work since it is NOT
continuous.  Vacuum...vacuum...vacuum...vacuum...Atom!...vacuum...vacuum...
THAT is what a (short wavelength) wave sees.

>On 25/12/2018 01:33, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>>> The  "density" at every point throughout ALL SPACE,
>>> will have a FINITE,non zero ,value,
>> 
>> Wrong. Only as a simplification can this be done, when the simplification
>> is valid.
>> 
>>>   and yet ironically "DENSITY" does not exist at a "POINT".
>> 
>> For very small volumes, the density will be 0 if the small volume does not
>> contain an atom, or nonzero if it contains an atom.

>You miss the "POINT" Mr. Moroney. The point is that no POINT can
>contain even a whole proton let alone a whole atom eh!, and i repeat
>            "DENSITY" does not exist at a "POINT".

You miss the POINT that you have just disproved your own claim! For
small volumes the density is NOT a continuous value, it depends on
whether it contains an atom/proton/part of a proton or not. So the
intergalactic density is NOT continuous at a small level, so the
Macroscopic approximation of Maxwell's Equations does NOT work for short
enough wavelengths.
Vacuum...vacuum...vacuum...vacuum...Atom!...vacuum...vacuum...vacuum...

>The same could also be said of other macroscopic parameters like
>pressure, temperature, and even electric and magnetic field, because
>in Maxwell's theory, as written by Maxwell, these latter parameters
>do not vary according to the proximity of the electrons of an atom.

Absolutely wrong. I just need one of his equations to demonstrate this.
div(E) = rho/E0.
Meaning for any closed surface, Gauss' Law describes the enclosed charge.
Which could be an electron or proton.

Did you ever read this from Wikipedia?

"[Maxwell's] equations have two major variants. The microscopic Maxwell
equations have universal applicability, but are unwieldy for common
calculations.  They relate the electric and magnetic fields to total
charge and total current, including the complicated charges and currents
in materials at the atomic scale. The "macroscopic" Maxwell equations
define two new auxiliary fields that describe the large-scale behaviour of
matter without having to consider atomic scale charges and quantum
phenomena like spins.  However, their use requires experimentally
determined parameters for a phenomenological description of the
electromagnetic response of materials."

'Microscopic' equations work everywhere. 'Macroscopic' work only
under certain conditions.  As I have been saying all along!
>This is no doubt why Maxwell's theory does indeed break down at the 
>atomic level.

>Nevertheless Maxwell's theory works fine at the MACROSCOPIC LEVEL,
>and you should note, Mr.Moroney, that there ain't nothing more
>macroscopic than the intergalactic medium eh!

How big space is is irrelevant. Repeating a mistake a zillion times does
not correct it! It is the scale of 'the medium' compared to the light
wavelength that matters. For better and better vacuums, longer and longer
wavelength light experiences perfect vacuum conditions.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 03:18 +0000
  Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-22 20:12 -0800
  Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-23 09:13 -0600
    Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 16:50 +0000
      Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-24 17:30 +0000
        Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 18:46 +0000
          Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-25 01:33 +0000
            Re:MACROSCOPIC THEORY. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 09:52 +0000
              Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-26 09:33 -0600
                Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. Edko Czka <ziue@wuasrvi.kw> - 2018-12-26 17:19 +0000
              Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-26 18:10 +0000
              Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-26 13:10 -0800
                Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-26 13:21 -0800
      Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-24 18:26 -0600

csiph-web