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

Groups > sci.physics > #617234 > unrolled thread

Maxwell's equations

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-06 11:57 -0800
    Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 15:21 -0800
    Re: Maxwell's equations Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-02-06 15:38 -0800
      Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 08:56 -0800
        Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 08:46 -0800
          Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 09:03 -0800
            Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 09:56 -0800
          Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 10:00 -0800
            Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 18:17 -0800
              Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:36 -0800
                Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 18:47 -0800
                Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 18:59 -0800
                  Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:47 -0800
                  Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 21:47 -0800
                    Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 22:17 -0800
                    Re: Maxwell's equations Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-09 07:01 -0600
                      Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 09:26 -0800
              Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:29 +0100
                Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 09:35 -0800
                  Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:50 -0800
                  Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 21:24 +0100
                    Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 13:14 -0800
                      Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 22:45 +0100
                      Re: Maxwell's equations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:15 -0600
                        Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 13:49 -0800
                        Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 14:36 -0800
                          Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-17 01:59 -0800
                            Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:30 +0100
                              Re: Maxwell's equations benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 15:48 -0500
                          Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:32 -0800
                    Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 14:32 -0800
                      Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 23:38 +0100
                        Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 16:19 -0800
                          Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 19:15 -0800
                            Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:50 -0800
                        Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 21:53 -0800
                          Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 08:51 +0100
              Re: Maxwell's equations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:24 -0600
                Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 09:31 -0800
                  Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 18:39 +0100
                    Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 12:07 -0800
                      Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 21:28 +0100
                        Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 13:31 -0800
                          Re: Maxwell's equations Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 22:46 +0100
                          Re: Maxwell's equations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:38 -0600
                Re: Maxwell's equations benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:31 -0500
    Re: Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 10:41 -0800
    Re: Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 14:12 -0800
    Re: Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 11:32 -0800
      Re: Maxwell's equations kdthrge@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 20:28 -0800
        Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 23:59 -0800
    Re: Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 13:59 -0800
    Re: Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 11:37 -0800
      Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 14:11 -0800
    Re: Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 13:00 -0800
      Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 10:07 -0800
    Re: Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 09:58 -0800
    Re: Maxwell's equations numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 10:42 -0800
      Re: Maxwell's equations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 18:20 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#617234 — Maxwell's equations

Maxwell's equations 



∇ x E = - dB/dt..........∇ x B = 1/c (dE/dt)................88a,b 



are derived using Faraday's induction effect yet induction is not luminous yet Maxwell's equations are used to represent the structure of light. Cannot you explain that? 

 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#617276

you think a)
that's a question, or b)
what

> are derived using Faraday's induction effect yet induction is not luminous yet Maxwell's equations are used to represent the structure of light. Cannot you explain that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617279

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:57:28 AM UTC-8, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maxwell's equations 
> 
> 
> 
> ∇ x E = - dB/dt..........∇ x B = 1/c (dE/dt)................88a,b 
> 
> 
> 
> are derived using Faraday's induction effect yet induction is not luminous yet Maxwell's equations are used to represent the structure of light. Cannot you explain that?


The above version of Maxwell's equation was formulated by Oliver Heaviside.

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617380

all properties of light are wavey, and
none of them are particulate, except insofar
as simple miscomprehension has gone about bosons;
it might even be that all bosons are waves, but
I dygress

> > ∇ x E = - dB/dt..........∇ x B = 1/c (dE/dt)................88a,b 
> The above version of Maxwell's equation was formulated by Oliver Heaviside.
> 
> Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617572

 .all properties of light are wavey, and 
none of them are particulate, :"
.....

How can you explain a rainbow?

 A rainbow can be brighter and less bright. More bright means greater density of the 'particulate' photons. Greater energy.
 Yet the colors toward the blue have higher energy. More energy in each photon.

Two components of the energy, only explained by Einatein nd the photon in which he received a Nobel Prize. 

Einstein used laboratory data to show that one photon packet of the energy 'hv', liberates one electron which then has a velocity and mass and KINETIC energy which is the energy of the photon minus the energy of the ionization potential.

Greater flux, or brightness liberates more electrons. Higher energy according to frequency times Planck's constant gives the ejected electrons greater velocity and kinetic energy.

Conclusively proving and quantifying for his Nobel Prize that light is composed of the descreet packets or photons.

Your wave theory cant quantify a damn thing in the real world and must ignore empirical facts of a rainbow and the photo- electric effect. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617576

By using the photo- electric effect and the momentum of the ejected electrons, the more specific value of Plancks constant was refined in the early years after Einstein's paper, 'The Light Quantum Hypothesis' of 1905, which is rhe demarcation between classical theory and modern theory.

One photon for each ejected electron.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617587

and that is to ask,
how is the photon so de-tuned (seeing the wave
as a particular frequency with a particular polarization
-- which is minimally spatial, not planar, as has
been used in cellphony for at least a decade) ??

> One photon for each ejected electron.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617589

hv, yes, wherein v is at most c, because
of Snell's law of refraction between media, or
in a varying medium like the atmosphere,
per Liebniz's challenge of the brachistochrone --
which is also Huyghens' tautochrone!

> Greater flux, or brightness liberates more electrons. Higher energy according to frequency times Planck's constant gives the ejected electrons greater velocity and kinetic energy.
> 
> Conclusively proving and quantifying for his Nobel Prize that light is composed of the descreet packets or photons.
> 
> Your wave theory cant quantify a damn thing in the real world and must ignore empirical facts of a rainbow and the photo- electric effect.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617677

Planck's constant in electron Volts is, 6.626E15.
The ionization potential of aluminum is close to 6.0 eV.

A photon, or packet or quantum of energy of 6 electron Volts or more can knock the first electron from the neutral aluminum atom.

This ejected electron then has the kinetic energy for its mass and velocity, equal to the energy of the photon minus the ionization potential.

hv = 6eV
v = 6/h

6/6.626E-15 = 9.58E14 cycles per second. 

This photon traveling at c, therefore has the 'wavelength' of c/v or,
0.000031 cm.

Pretty specific elucidation of light as energy. The distribution of blackbody radiation within Stefan's Law of total energy as a fourth power to temperature, is only done by the flux density at each frequency and the statistical probability of the photons being formed at each frequency at a specific temperature.

The energy of the photons is always an integral multiple of h, no intermediate values, since they derive from the linear oscillator of 2piv in divisions of c. 

Basic science developed by Planck and Einstein and based on the science and theory of others. Although a brilliant mathematician, Maxwell and classical theory was nowhere without Planck and Einstein.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617679

why should a wave of light have a particular frequency, or
is this some special condition?

all properties of light are wavish, of course
including the electrico-photon effect -- nobelistes!

> This photon traveling at c, therefore has the 'wavelength' of c/v or,
> 0.000031 cm.
> 
> Pretty specific elucidation of light as energy. The distribution of blackbody radiation within Stefan's Law of total energy as a fourth power to temperature, is only done by the flux density at each frequency and the statistical probability of the photons being formed at each frequency at a specific temperature.
> 
> The energy of the photons is always an integral multiple of h, no intermediate values, since they derive from the linear oscillator of 2piv in divisions of c. 
> 
> Basic science developed by Planck and Einstein and based on the science and theory of others. Although a brilliant mathematician, Maxwell and classical theory was nowhere without Planck and Einstein.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617684

My error. Plancks constant in eV is 4.136E-15
6/h = 1.45E15
Wavelength, 0.00002 cm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617688

Light is energy as defined by Einstein. Energy is the capacity to do work. 
Collection of light energy can be done by various means. It is a quantity and always remains within the Law of the Conservation of Energy.
 
Waveiness is for those who cant define energy or dont abide theoretically within the Law of the Conservation of Energy. 
In the real world, it is useful and necessary to actually actually quantify energy.

Nodal lines and other empirical facts about light energy can be done viewing light as a stream of photons traveling at c in a particular direction with a vibration and frequency which also has a polarization.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617697

quelle absurdite';
there is no quantumfication of pure sinewaves,
that is not intrinsically wavey

> Waveiness is for those who cant define energy or dont abide theoretically within the Law of the Conservation of Energy. 
> In the real world, it is useful and necessary to actually actually quantify energy.
> 
> Nodal lines and other empirical facts about light energy can be done viewing light as a stream of photons traveling at c in a particular direction with a vibration and frequency which also has a polarization.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617698

Just consider the polarised lens.
Scattered light is polarised in all different directions. 
The lens only allows light polarizzed in a common direction.
Rotating two polarised lens together will block out the light altogether when at 90 degrees.
The polarization of the light is independent of frequency or wavelength or else the polarization of the lens would discriminate.

Where is the waveiness of the light polarised in all different directions or how are the independent photons of particular color joined and just a function of a 'wave'?

How does one calculate the energy transfered in these waves in real world values of calories, electron Volts, ergs, Joules or foot pounds? All simply QUANTITIES of energy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617715

polarization is minimally spatial,
not just that planar aspect of circular etc. polarization;
the speed of light is in units of the rate of expansion
of the area of the wavefront, but
you really should use mod pi

> Where is the waveiness of the light polarised in all different directions or how are the independent photons of particular color joined and just a function of a 'wave'?
> 
> How does one calculate the energy transfered in these waves in real world values of calories, electron Volts, ergs, Joules or foot pounds? All simply QUANTITIES of energy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617740

On 2/8/2017 11:47 PM, kdthrge@gmail.com wrote:
> Just consider the polarised lens. Scattered light is polarised in all
> different directions.

not really.... depending upon the angle of incidence and surface

> The lens only allows light polarizzed in a
> common direction.

LH circular, RH circular, Vert or Horz.

>  Rotating two polarised lens together will block out
> the light altogether when at 90 degrees.

assuming Vert or Horzontal polarized lenses


> The polarization of the
> light is independent of frequency or wavelength or else the
> polarization of the lens would discriminate.

in general practice yes, but they all have limits over what wavelengths 
they work


>
> Where is the waveiness of the light polarised in all different
> directions or how are the independent photons of particular color
> joined and just a function of a 'wave'?

depends upon the problem

>
> How does one calculate the energy transfered in these waves in real
> world values of calories, electron Volts, ergs, Joules or foot
> pounds? All simply QUANTITIES of energy.

at a high level, watts/m^2 is good too

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617755

A Watt is one Joule per second.
Stefans Law is 5.67E- 5 ergs, cm^2 sec^1 deg^4
Which can be translated to Joules and meters. The Joule is the quantity. The Watt is the rate of the quantity transfer and stipulates a quantity in time.

Multiplied by surface area of a system, gives total radiated energy at a specific temperature. 

What this means is that this quantity of energy, per second is leaving the system as radiation energy, passing through the plane of 1sq cm at the velocity of light. 

 If the energy is purely blackbody radiation  (thermal radiation purely without reflected radiation), it is composed of photons of each frequency in the various flux density of each frequency according to the distribution for the temperature, with peak intensity according to Wiens Law which advances or displaces towards the ultraviolet as a direct proportion to Temperature in frequency.

If one has an aperture to an oven, increasing the temperature will increase the density of the energy in the system and leaving through the aperture until this density carries energy equivalent to the energy being absorbed into the system, at which thermal equilibrium will again be achieved, meaning unchanging temperature.

The density of the energy traveling at c, is increased by increase of the energy of the photons of the maximum intensity, which is actually the mean energy as most probable energy level for the temperature, and the flux density at all frequencies according to Planck's Radiation Law.

Plain and simple. No need for wave theory. Just add up all the photons and how much energy they possess as hv.

Energy is a quantity which people recognize in calories. Other units are just different units of calories.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617716

Dne 09/02/2017 v 03:17 kdthrge@gmail.com napsal(a):

> Planck's constant in electron Volts is, 6.626E15.

It cannot be, due dimension conflict.
h does not have dimension of energy.

The value does not fit either,
as dividing be e will not preserve  6.626.


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617757

According to Einstein, hv, ergs per second times cycles per second, (the seconds cancel out) and makes a quantum or discreet packet of energy which as a particle has a theoretical infinite life time unless absorbed or otherwise affected.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617760

erg/s * cycle/s is cycle-erg/s^2

> According to Einstein, hv, ergs per second times cycles per second, (the seconds cancel out) and makes a quantum or discreet packet of energy which as a particle has a theoretical infinite life time unless absorbed or otherwise affected.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web