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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#617783

Dne 09/02/2017 v 18:35 kdthrge@gmail.com napsal(a):
> 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.

No matter what you say, dimension of h is not dimension of energy.
h time frequency is energy.

-- 
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]

#617787

According to Einstein, hv is a finite packet of energy or photon which travels at c and has indefinite life which few particles have. 

He proved this with the photo-electric effect. 

A photon of 9eV, in liberating an electron bound by the ionization potential of 6eV, gives the ejected electron 3eV of kinetic energy.

As is confirmed in the laboratory according to the measured momentum.

More photons liberste more electrons. Higher frequency means higher energy delivered to the electrons.

Proving conclusively that light is composed of the particles of photons. The energy of these photons is always a multiple of h. 1h, 2h, 3h....

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

#617793

Dne 09/02/2017 v 22:14 kdthrge@gmail.com napsal(a):
> According to Einstein, hv is a finite packet of energy or photon which travels at c and has indefinite life which few particles have. 
> 
> He proved this with the photo-electric effect. 
> 
> A photon of 9eV, in liberating an electron bound by the ionization potential of 6eV, gives the ejected electron 3eV of kinetic energy.
> 
> As is confirmed in the laboratory according to the measured momentum.
> 
> More photons liberste more electrons. Higher frequency means higher energy delivered to the electrons.
> 
> Proving conclusively that light is composed of the particles of photons. The energy of these photons is always a multiple of h. 1h, 2h, 3h....
> 
Nothing new.
Only your mistake in the last sentence is new.
The energy of photons is NOT a multiple of h. 1h, 2h, 3h....

1/ n.h is not energy
2/ frequency is not an integer quantum number

-- 
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]

#618357

On 2/9/2017 3:14 PM, kdthrge@gmail.com wrote:
> Proving conclusively that light is composed of the particles of photons. The energy of these photons is always a multiple of h. 1h, 2h, 3h....

This is incorrect. The energy of a photon is hf, but f is not an 
integer. The energy of ANY photon of frequency f is always the same.

What quantization means is that the energy deposited by light of 
frequency f is always a multiple of hf: hf, 2hf, 3hf, 4hf....

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#618369

photonic is not neccesarily realted to rocktons de kn00ton

> What quantization means is that the energy deposited by light of 
> frequency f is always a multiple of hf: hf, 2hf, 3hf, 4hf....
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#618678

From what I see, you guys need to brush up on your basic math.
Your alphabet math ain't cuttin it.

To write a fraction in the exponent of the natural log means to SUBTRACT  the denominator from the numerator. 

Look it up.

hv/kt starts out at 1,, - 1

As the values increase, the difference increases although the ratio remains the same for maximum intensity and temperature. Since hv and kT are both quanties, they can be subtracted. 

At low temperatures the difference between hv and kT is small. At higher temperatures, the difference bexomes greater.  Each frequency is considered an independent oscillator.

Mean energy is, hv(vmax) / loghv/kT - 1

Stupid and useless to convert hv/kT to hc/lambakT and use the fraction as a function in the exponent. 

Using this in conjuction with Planck's hypothesis that the energy is of the harmonics of the linear oscillator,  2piv,  gives the correct display of the distribution as determined from empirical thermodynamics. 

hv cannot be divided. Starting at 1h, the primary frequency with wavelength of c, for 1 second, h is only in values of h, 2h, 3h, 4h...

Using this the derivative of the wavelength,  c to limit, is determined. This is the foundation of 'quantum' theory, the whole values of h.,

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

#619094

Just a note,
The T must appear in the formula as v/T for Wien's Law.

T is of the arbitrary units of Celsius, of which kT represents the increase of average kinetic energy for 1degC for the molecules of a gas. Being the average of RT, which is total kinetic energy of the molecules of one mole of a gas at a given Temperature. kT therefore describes the pressure of the gas as a direct proportion to Temperature and inverse to the volume. 

kT is the average kinetic energy therfore for a gas regardless of amount of the gas. T is a dimensionless number and must be kT to have dimension.

v (frequency), has no meaning without h.
h has no meaning unless registered in values of frequency.

Planck derived his formula independently, although it resembles the Raleigh Jean formula. 

Mean energy stipulates overall radiated energy per second which is a fourth power to absolute temperature. 

The distribution is described by the function of the natural log.

The distribution rises closely as a square to the frequency, and if hv is not much greater than kT, as at lower temperatures, the frequency maximum is close to a square to the frequency as in the Releigh Jean formula.

At higher values, the function of the square is moderated by the difference  of hv/kT

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

#619095

On 02/17/2017 10:59 AM, kdthrge@gmail.com wrote:
> Just a note,
> The T must appear in the formula as v/T for Wien's Law.
>
> T is of the arbitrary units of Celsius,

Kelvin

of which kT represents the increase of average kinetic energy for 1degC 
for the molecules of a gas.

1/2.k.T for each degree of freedom of the molecule.


-- 
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]

#619166

On 02/17/2017 05:30 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> On 02/17/2017 10:59 AM, kdthrge@gmail.com wrote:
>> Just a note,
>> The T must appear in the formula as v/T for Wien's Law.
>>
>> T is of the arbitrary units of Celsius,
>
> Kelvin
>
> of which kT represents the increase of average kinetic energy for 1degC
> for the molecules of a gas.
>
> 1/2.k.T for each degree of freedom of the molecule.

Pooter, please do not straighten out the nutjobs. OK?
They are much more fun as they are.

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

#619141

units per month, gigasecond, or nanoyear?

> Using this the derivative of the wavelength,  c to limit, is determined. This is the foundation of 'quantum' theory, the whole values of h.,

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

#617808

No matter what you say, dimension of h is not dimension of energy. 
h time frequency is energy. 

.......

This is true.
h has little meaning unless multiplied by frequency. 
Then it denotes a quantity of energy in multiples of h only.

This is why it is invalid to change hv to hc/lamba.

This gives no valid quantity and working with the inverse relation does give a valid read.

hv denotes a quantity of energy. 
kT denotes a quantity of energy. 

hv/kT = Constant is the expression of Wiens Law.
Increasing T means the v must increase to keep the same ratio of the Constant. 

This is 1.03E11 cycles per second, for each degK.
Or the inverse relation, 0.2898cm / T = lamba max of the distribution at a given Temperature. 

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

#617812

Dne 09/02/2017 v 23:32 kdthrge@gmail.com napsal(a):
> 
> 
> This is true.
> h has little meaning unless multiplied by frequency. 
> Then it denotes a quantity of energy in multiples of h only.
> 
> This is why it is invalid to change hv to hc/lamba.

While hc/lambda is OK.

> hv/kT = Constant is the expression of Wiens Law.

In the Planck law variant for frequency as well.

-- 
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]

#617825

kT/hvmax = Constant
kT x lamba max/hc = Constant 
k/hc x lamba max x T = Constant 
Lamba max x T = Constant,, x (hc/k)
Lamba max x T = 0.20144
hc/k = 1.438
0.20144 x 1.438 = 0.2898cm

Lamba max x T = .2898cm

Lamba max = .2898cm/T

k/hc x lamba max x T = .20144

Comvert back to frequency, 
kT/hv = .20144

Reciprocal of this, hv/kT is
4.96

The derivative of lamba x T is from the divisions of 2.99E10cm or c

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

#617840

hey, three gOgAlcentimeters per some unit

> The derivative of lamba x T is from the divisions of 2.99E10cm or c

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

#618115

le'see, that would be 0.03 gOgAlmeters, what?...
per as-I-recall second

> hey, three gOgAlcentimeters per some unit
> 
> > The derivative of lamba x T is from the divisions of 2.99E10cm or c

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

#618039

""While hc/lambda is OK. ""
.......

Hhahahahahahah

Okay class. Get out your crayons. Today we're gonna make up some real pretty graphs using hc/lambakT as the exponent for the natural log.

Looky there. Your graph even looks like a wave.

If you do a good job with your crayons, you can take your graph home and have your mommie put it on the refrigerator. 

That way she'll know the money for your education in physics is not being wasted and she and you can be proud of your learned prowess in physics of drawing up really pretty graphs with your crayons. 

Hahahahahahahahaahah

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

#618045

Dne 11/02/2017 v 06:53 kdthrge@gmail.com napsal(a):
> ""While hc/lambda is OK. ""
> .......
> 
> Hhahahahahahah
> 
> Okay class. Get out your crayons. Today we're gonna make up some real pretty graphs using hc/lambakT as the exponent for the natural log.
> 
> Looky there. Your graph even looks like a wave.
> 
> If you do a good job with your crayons, you can take your graph home and have your mommie put it on the refrigerator. 
> 
> That way she'll know the money for your education in physics is not being wasted and she and you can be proud of your learned prowess in physics of drawing up really pretty graphs with your crayons. 
> 
> Hahahahahahahahaahah
> 

Empty talk.

-- 
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]

#617750

On 2/8/2017 8:17 PM, kdthrge@gmail.com wrote:
> Planck's constant in electron Volts is, 6.626E15.

Planck's constant does not have units of energy, so it cannot have units 
of electron volts.

I did not read the rest.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#617756

What the hell is an erg? Planck's constant is in ergs per second, which is a quantity and not just a variable in some stupid ass 'Planck function' as used in bogus thermodynamic theory of waves that should have been discarded more than a hundred years ago.

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

#617758

On 02/09/2017 06:31 PM, kdthrge@gmail.com wrote:
> What the hell is an erg? Planck's constant is in ergs per second, which is a quantity and not just a variable in some stupid ass 'Planck function' as used in bogus thermodynamic theory of waves that should have been discarded more than a hundred years ago.
>
The erg is a unit of energy and work equal to 10^−7 joules.
It originated in the centimetre–gram–second (CGS) system of units.
The erg is not an SI unit.

Its name is derived from ergon (’έργον),
a Greek word meaning work or task.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erg

-- 
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]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web