| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Ken S. Tucker" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2005 08:58:48 PM |
| Object: |
About EMR (kst) |
IMHO, we should examine the basic circumstances
needed for photon emission (aka EMR), independant
of the frequency, which Doppler can adjust anyway.
In Purcell's EM on pg 11, describes "Energy of a
System of Charges", he calls "electrical potential
energy", wherein the simplest case uses two charges,
Work = q1*q2/R12 = P
and then sums to assemblies.
A photon derives energy from the "electrical potential
energy of a system" so P becomes...
P => p + energy(photon)
where
p = q1*q2/r12
and p < P.
The point I'll stress, photons (EMR) require a relative
change in the relation of q1 and q2 for emission.
An example is the relative change in an electron orbital,
w.r.t the nucleus.
Maxwell's famous "displacement current" given by
the partial &E/&t really requires a charge "q1" to be
detected, like,
q1*&E/&t = &(q1*E) /&t = &F/&t .
But to complete the dipole the source of E should
use charge "q2", where q1 and q2 are different and
separate by some length R12=ct.
Using Force*distance = energy "P" gives,
P = F*R12
so that,
&P/&R12 = F
which means the emission or detection of EMR
is relative, ie a single charge can't radiate and
therefore can't be affected by radiation.
My 3.1415 cents
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: About EMR (kst) |
04 Aug 2005 02:21:49 PM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
[snip crap]
which means the emission or detection of EMR
is relative, ie a single charge can't radiate and
therefore can't be affected by radiation.
Google
laser acceleration electrons 107,000 hits
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: About EMR (kst) |
04 Aug 2005 03:19:12 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
[snip crap]
which means the emission or detection of EMR
is relative, ie a single charge can't radiate and
therefore can't be affected by radiation.
Google
laser acceleration electrons 107,000 hits
Mr Potato head, all you'e done is proved an
electron contains a dipole, of course it does
have spin, that a single can't do, so what?
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: About EMR (kst) |
04 Aug 2005 05:16:26 PM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
[snip crap]
which means the emission or detection of EMR
is relative, ie a single charge can't radiate and
therefore can't be affected by radiation.
Google
laser acceleration electrons 107,000 hits
Mr Potato head, all you'e done is proved an
electron contains a dipole, of course it does
have spin, that a single can't do, so what?
Ken
"an electron contains a dipole"
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: About EMR (kst) |
05 Aug 2005 11:36:29 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
[snip crap]
which means the emission or detection of EMR
is relative, ie a single charge can't radiate and
therefore can't be affected by radiation.
Google
laser acceleration electrons 107,000 hits
Mr Potato head, all you'e done is proved an
electron contains a dipole, of course it does
have spin, that a single can't do, so what?
Ken
"an electron contains a dipole"
Idiot.
Al what is your problem?
((I'll leave "idiot" in, pending who get's the label))
An electron can contain "nude charges" like,
(-)1
(+)
(-)2
and have an intrinsic spin of 1/2. For every 360
the 1,2 do the (+) does a 180 like,
(1)
(+)
(2)
and then at 720 the original is recovered, so
(1) and (2) spin twice for every spin of (+),
meaning an intrinsic spin of 1/2, that is true
in all FoR's.
That gives TWO dipoles in the electron and accounts
for the mass, -1 charge and the intrinsic 1/2 spin.
I understand the desire of some theoreticians to
"shut-off" Maxwell's Laws and with that GR in
the interior of an electron, but I would also argue
the electron and the photon are compatible with
GR, and Maxwell. In fact maybe that's the basis
of those Laws, pico-scopically that we observe
macroscopically.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: About EMR (kst) |
04 Aug 2005 04:05:22 PM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
IMHO, we should examine the basic circumstances
needed for photon emission (aka EMR), independant
of the frequency, which Doppler can adjust anyway.
I agree, and in fact I have posted an alternative explanation which
takes into consideration the needed basic circumatances, as you put it.
In Purcell's EM on pg 11, describes "Energy of a
System of Charges", he calls "electrical potential
energy", wherein the simplest case uses two charges,
Work = q1*q2/R12 = P
and then sums to assemblies.
A photon derives energy from the "electrical potential
energy of a system"
But how have you separated e from m if they are interdependent?
Shouldn't you say "from the 'electrical and magnetic potential...."?
so P becomes...
P => p + energy(photon)
where
p = q1*q2/r12
and p < P.
The point I'll stress, photons (EMR) require a relative
change in the relation of q1 and q2 for emission.
Yes, I agree.
An example is the relative change in an electron orbital,
w.r.t the nucleus.
Maxwell's famous "displacement current" given by
the partial &E/&t really requires a charge "q1" to be
detected, like,
q1*&E/&t = &(q1*E) /&t = &F/&t .
But to complete the dipole the source of E should
use charge "q2", where q1 and q2 are different and
separate by some length R12=ct.
Using Force*distance = energy "P" gives,
P = F*R12
so that,
&P/&R12 = F
which means the emission or detection of EMR
is relative, ie a single charge can't radiate and
therefore can't be affected by radiation.
That sounds correct to me, Ken. My model requires a transformation
from a stable state into a temporary active state for the creation of
light. The em wave transfers energy into the "energy potential" photon
particle and light is created from that interaction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: About EMR (kst) |
05 Aug 2005 10:12:25 AM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
IMHO, we should examine the basic circumstances
needed for photon emission (aka EMR), independant
of the frequency, which Doppler can adjust anyway.
I agree, and in fact I have posted an alternative explanation which
takes into consideration the needed basic circumatances, as you put it.
In Purcell's EM on pg 11, describes "Energy of a
System of Charges", he calls "electrical potential
energy", wherein the simplest case uses two charges,
Work = q1*q2/R12 = P
and then sums to assemblies.
A photon derives energy from the "electrical potential
energy of a system"
But how have you separated e from m if they are interdependent?
Shouldn't you say "from the 'electrical and magnetic potential...."?
Yes, that's agreeable. I was trying to stay simple.
But you can get *sparks* from discharging a capacitor
or a coil, as you suggest :-).
so P becomes...
P => p + energy(photon)
where
p = q1*q2/r12
and p < P.
The point I'll stress, photons (EMR) require a relative
change in the relation of q1 and q2 for emission.
Yes, I agree.
An example is the relative change in an electron orbital,
w.r.t the nucleus.
Maxwell's famous "displacement current" given by
the partial &E/&t really requires a charge "q1" to be
detected, like,
q1*&E/&t = &(q1*E) /&t = &F/&t .
But to complete the dipole the source of E should
use charge "q2", where q1 and q2 are different and
separate by some length R12=ct.
Using Force*distance = energy "P" gives,
P = F*R12
so that,
&P/&R12 = F
which means the emission or detection of EMR
is relative, ie a single charge can't radiate and
therefore can't be affected by radiation.
That sounds correct to me, Ken. My model requires a transformation
from a stable state into a temporary active state for the creation of
light. The em wave transfers energy into the "energy potential" photon
particle and light is created from that interaction.
Regards
Ken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
