Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
is metal essential for the Maxwell Equations to exist #127 New Physics #235 ATOM TOTALITY #43 Brain Locus theory
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 25, 2012, 4:41:22 PM1/25/12
to
I was looking to see if metal is essential, or what a mathematician
would call
necessary to have an antenna. I found nothing in the literature,
except that liquid
metal makes an excellent antenna.
Apparently this question has never been raised in physics. So I raise
the question.
How much is metal essential or required or necessary in the Maxwell
Equations?
From what I gather, metal is essential in the Faraday law and the
Ampere/Maxwell law
for those closed loops. In other words, those laws would not exist if
Chemistry and Physics
had no metals.
I cannot see any way around the idea that Capacitors existing require
the World to have metals.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 25, 2012, 4:46:17 PM1/25/12
to
Some tampering, and odd trouble with the phone connection today.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:41:22 -0800 (PST)
Local: Wed, Jan 25 2012 3:41 pm
Subject: is metal essential for the Maxwell Equations to exist #127
New Physics #235 ATOM TOTALITY #43 Brain Locus theory
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:41:22 -0800 (PST)
Local: Wed, Jan 25 2012 3:41 pm
Subject: is metal essential for the Maxwell Equations to exist #127
New Physics #235 ATOM TOTALITY #43 Brain Locus theory
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
glen herrmannsfeldt
Jan 25, 2012, 10:23:24 PM1/25/12
to
Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was looking to see if metal is essential, or what a mathematician
> would call necessary to have an antenna. I found nothing in
> the literature, except that liquid metal makes an excellent antenna.
> Apparently this question has never been raised in physics. So I raise
> the question.
A single atom can emit light, and another can absorb it, and that
> I was looking to see if metal is essential, or what a mathematician
> would call necessary to have an antenna. I found nothing in
> the literature, except that liquid metal makes an excellent antenna.
> Apparently this question has never been raised in physics. So I raise
> the question.
is true even for non-metals.
Even electrons aren't needed, as gamma rays come from the nucleus.
Non-metallic dye molecules absorb and emit light.
Metals do make it a lot easier, though.
-- glen
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 26, 2012, 1:30:59 AM1/26/12
to
On Jan 25, 9:23 pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
Hi Glen, I hope you can stomach being found wrong about physics and
the Maxwell Equations, and it appears that DRosen in another thread
makes the same mistake as you do. Of course, that is one of the
purposes of the newsgroups is to discuss science and to learn. On this
topic I am not wrong and you are wrong.
One advantage I have over most other physicists is that I am fluent in
both mathematics and physics. There is not too many physicists that
can correct the Euclid proof of the Infinitude of Primes and show
where 87% of the professors of mathematics could not even do a valid
Euclid proof of the Infinitude of Primes. The last time we had a
person fluent in both physics and mathematics was Poincare and before,
it was Gauss. Ever since Poincare, there has been no physicist that is
able to master both physics and mathematics.
So let me show you and DRosen where you are wrong.
From Wikipedia gives a good synopsis of the axioms that make up
Euclidean Geometry:
--- quoting some of the Geometry axioms from Wikipedia ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_axioms
I. Combination
1. Two distinct points A and B always completely determine a straight
line a. We write AB = a or BA = a. Instead of “determine,” we may also
employ other forms of expression; for example, we may say “A lies upon
a”, “A is a point of a”, “a goes through A and through B”, “a joins A
to B”, etc. If A lies upon a and at the same time upon another
straight line b, we make use also of the expression: “The straight
lines a and b have the point A in common,” etc.
2. Any two distinct points of a straight line completely determine
that line; that is, if AB = a and AC = a, where B ≠ C, then also BC =
a.
3. Three points A, B, C not situated in the same straight line always
completely determine a plane α. We write ABC = α. We employ also the
expressions: “A, B, C, lie in α”; “A, B, C are points of α”, etc.
(snipped)
III. Parallels
1. In a plane α there can be drawn through any point A, lying outside
of a straight line a, one and only one straight line which does not
intersect the line a. This straight line is called the parallel to a
through the given point A.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
Most of us, Glen, recognize the above from High School geometry, but
physicists seldom know the meaning of what axioms are in relation to
their entire subject field of study, whereas mathematicians over years
of time spending on their subject realize slowly but surely what
axioms mean relative to the rest of the subject.
Now let me point out the Maxwell Equations, just the 4 that are
recognized as Maxwell Equations, not the extra two that I insist must
be 5th and 6th Maxwell Equations. And let me use Halliday and Resnick.
The paranthesis below are my inclusion.
Page 838 Fundamentals of Physics
Halliday & Resnick 3rd edition, 1988
Gauss's law for electricity E*dA = q/e_0
Charge and the electric field
(Coulomb law)
Gauss's law for magnetism B*dA = 0
The Magnetic field
(No Monopole law)
Faraday's law E*ds = dB/dt
An electric field produced by a changing magnetic
field
Ampere Maxwell law B*ds = u_0e_0 dE/dt + u_0i
A magnetic field produced by a changing electric
field or by a current or both
Glen, the mistake you make is the same mistakes that DRosen (Darwin
123) makes.
Notice in the first axiom of geometry listed above that we can write a
algebraic expression such as AB= a or BA = a. That algebraic
expression is the same type of expression in terms of div or curl or
line integral as given mathematical expression.
The written language Maxwell Equations or the written language of
parallel lines in mathematics axiom is another representation of the
same axiom.
The mistake that Glen makes, and what DRosen make, is a mistake that a
mathematician would not make. They would realize that the language
expression of the Maxwell Equations
such as Faraday's law
"An electric field produced by a changing magnetic
field"
That expression of Faraday's law cannot be made into a "more lower
expression".
Just as the expression of the Parallel Postulate above:
1. In a plane α there can be drawn through any point A, lying outside
of a straight line a, one and only one straight line which does not
intersect the line a. This straight line is called the parallel to a
through the given point A.
Cannot be lowered in composition of its elements of a plane, a
straight line, a point outside the straight line a new second line
that is uniquely parallel.
So, Glen, your objection is in error. That the Faraday law cannot be
lowered. That the Faraday law is a form of at least two forces, the
force of a accelerating bar magnet and it thus must have mass. And the
second force of a moving electric current which must have mass also.
So in Faraday's law there are two places that must have mass for F=ma
and that mass must reside in a bar magnet and also reside in the
closed loop wire and reside in the moving electrons. Your mistake,
Glen, is that you idealized away what are required basic elements for
there to ever be a Faraday's law.
What I am arguing is that those masses:
(1) closed loop wire
(2) moving electrons
(3) bar magnet
Require the Faraday law to have metals in the World, in that without
metals existing, then
there would be no Faraday law, thus no Maxwell Equations.
Probably no physicist would ever realize that, but a physicist who is
also a mathematician
can quickly realize that the Maxwell Equations require the world to
have metals and that metals are an essential required element of the
Maxwell Equations.
Now I think DRosen argues that a doped semiconductor is sufficient to
create a capacitor. But I would rejoinder, that is that doped
semiconductor sufficient to be the bar magnet in Faraday's law.
In other words, the Maxwell Equation do not exist, unless there are
metals in the world that have that property of making bar magnets,
capacitors and closed loop wires.
These three items are as essential for the Maxwell Equations-- bar
magnets, capacitors, closed loop wire, and thus metals must exist,
just as point and lines and planes exist for the axioms of geometry.
I feel it is a common mistake made at the highest levels of
physicists, that they so often fall into the abyss of idealism, that
they fail to really know what the ground floor true physics of the
world is.
Glen, and DRosen, the Maxwell Equations cannot be lowered down into a
more ideal physics. And that means metals are essential in the Maxwell
Equations.
Now I hope the both of you can stomach being taught something new
about the Maxwell Equations.
the Maxwell Equations, and it appears that DRosen in another thread
makes the same mistake as you do. Of course, that is one of the
purposes of the newsgroups is to discuss science and to learn. On this
topic I am not wrong and you are wrong.
One advantage I have over most other physicists is that I am fluent in
both mathematics and physics. There is not too many physicists that
can correct the Euclid proof of the Infinitude of Primes and show
where 87% of the professors of mathematics could not even do a valid
Euclid proof of the Infinitude of Primes. The last time we had a
person fluent in both physics and mathematics was Poincare and before,
it was Gauss. Ever since Poincare, there has been no physicist that is
able to master both physics and mathematics.
So let me show you and DRosen where you are wrong.
From Wikipedia gives a good synopsis of the axioms that make up
Euclidean Geometry:
--- quoting some of the Geometry axioms from Wikipedia ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_axioms
I. Combination
1. Two distinct points A and B always completely determine a straight
line a. We write AB = a or BA = a. Instead of “determine,” we may also
employ other forms of expression; for example, we may say “A lies upon
a”, “A is a point of a”, “a goes through A and through B”, “a joins A
to B”, etc. If A lies upon a and at the same time upon another
straight line b, we make use also of the expression: “The straight
lines a and b have the point A in common,” etc.
2. Any two distinct points of a straight line completely determine
that line; that is, if AB = a and AC = a, where B ≠ C, then also BC =
a.
3. Three points A, B, C not situated in the same straight line always
completely determine a plane α. We write ABC = α. We employ also the
expressions: “A, B, C, lie in α”; “A, B, C are points of α”, etc.
(snipped)
III. Parallels
1. In a plane α there can be drawn through any point A, lying outside
of a straight line a, one and only one straight line which does not
intersect the line a. This straight line is called the parallel to a
through the given point A.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
Most of us, Glen, recognize the above from High School geometry, but
physicists seldom know the meaning of what axioms are in relation to
their entire subject field of study, whereas mathematicians over years
of time spending on their subject realize slowly but surely what
axioms mean relative to the rest of the subject.
Now let me point out the Maxwell Equations, just the 4 that are
recognized as Maxwell Equations, not the extra two that I insist must
be 5th and 6th Maxwell Equations. And let me use Halliday and Resnick.
The paranthesis below are my inclusion.
Page 838 Fundamentals of Physics
Halliday & Resnick 3rd edition, 1988
Gauss's law for electricity E*dA = q/e_0
Charge and the electric field
(Coulomb law)
Gauss's law for magnetism B*dA = 0
The Magnetic field
(No Monopole law)
Faraday's law E*ds = dB/dt
An electric field produced by a changing magnetic
field
Ampere Maxwell law B*ds = u_0e_0 dE/dt + u_0i
A magnetic field produced by a changing electric
field or by a current or both
Glen, the mistake you make is the same mistakes that DRosen (Darwin
123) makes.
Notice in the first axiom of geometry listed above that we can write a
algebraic expression such as AB= a or BA = a. That algebraic
expression is the same type of expression in terms of div or curl or
line integral as given mathematical expression.
The written language Maxwell Equations or the written language of
parallel lines in mathematics axiom is another representation of the
same axiom.
The mistake that Glen makes, and what DRosen make, is a mistake that a
mathematician would not make. They would realize that the language
expression of the Maxwell Equations
such as Faraday's law
"An electric field produced by a changing magnetic
field"
That expression of Faraday's law cannot be made into a "more lower
expression".
Just as the expression of the Parallel Postulate above:
1. In a plane α there can be drawn through any point A, lying outside
of a straight line a, one and only one straight line which does not
intersect the line a. This straight line is called the parallel to a
through the given point A.
Cannot be lowered in composition of its elements of a plane, a
straight line, a point outside the straight line a new second line
that is uniquely parallel.
So, Glen, your objection is in error. That the Faraday law cannot be
lowered. That the Faraday law is a form of at least two forces, the
force of a accelerating bar magnet and it thus must have mass. And the
second force of a moving electric current which must have mass also.
So in Faraday's law there are two places that must have mass for F=ma
and that mass must reside in a bar magnet and also reside in the
closed loop wire and reside in the moving electrons. Your mistake,
Glen, is that you idealized away what are required basic elements for
there to ever be a Faraday's law.
What I am arguing is that those masses:
(1) closed loop wire
(2) moving electrons
(3) bar magnet
Require the Faraday law to have metals in the World, in that without
metals existing, then
there would be no Faraday law, thus no Maxwell Equations.
Probably no physicist would ever realize that, but a physicist who is
also a mathematician
can quickly realize that the Maxwell Equations require the world to
have metals and that metals are an essential required element of the
Maxwell Equations.
Now I think DRosen argues that a doped semiconductor is sufficient to
create a capacitor. But I would rejoinder, that is that doped
semiconductor sufficient to be the bar magnet in Faraday's law.
In other words, the Maxwell Equation do not exist, unless there are
metals in the world that have that property of making bar magnets,
capacitors and closed loop wires.
These three items are as essential for the Maxwell Equations-- bar
magnets, capacitors, closed loop wire, and thus metals must exist,
just as point and lines and planes exist for the axioms of geometry.
I feel it is a common mistake made at the highest levels of
physicists, that they so often fall into the abyss of idealism, that
they fail to really know what the ground floor true physics of the
world is.
Glen, and DRosen, the Maxwell Equations cannot be lowered down into a
more ideal physics. And that means metals are essential in the Maxwell
Equations.
Now I hope the both of you can stomach being taught something new
about the Maxwell Equations.
Szczepan Bialek
Jan 26, 2012, 3:56:45 AM1/26/12
to
"Archimedes Plutonium" <plutonium....@gmail.com> napisal w
wiadomosci
news:05cc220f-0cc7-41a0...@p21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> I was looking to see if metal is essential, or what a mathematician
> would call
> necessary to have an antenna. I found nothing in the literature,
> except that liquid
> metal makes an excellent antenna.
The water flowing out from the hose is an excelent antenna. Also the tree.
> I was looking to see if metal is essential, or what a mathematician
> would call
> necessary to have an antenna. I found nothing in the literature,
> except that liquid
> metal makes an excellent antenna.
S*
Salmon Egg
Jan 29, 2012, 2:08:02 PM1/29/12
to
In article <jfqgvc$a7$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
Don't mix up classical Maxwell equations with quantum theory of atoms.
Although quantum electrodynamics is important, what we normally ascribe
as classical Maxwellian theory does not describe light emission from
atoms.
For use with Maxwell's equations, metals are just another medium. The
are defined in terms of complex values of refractive index. These values
can be functions of frequency or intensity (nonlinear). The real part is
associated with transparent materials.
As the imaginary part increases, the medium becomes more "metal" like.
This imaginary part leads to attenuation of a wave traveling through the
medium. Skin effect is a manifestation og a very high imaginary
component.
You should be able to find tables of materials that give real and
imaginary components of index. Often, these are listed for metallic
films.
--
Sam
Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
Although quantum electrodynamics is important, what we normally ascribe
as classical Maxwellian theory does not describe light emission from
atoms.
For use with Maxwell's equations, metals are just another medium. The
are defined in terms of complex values of refractive index. These values
can be functions of frequency or intensity (nonlinear). The real part is
associated with transparent materials.
As the imaginary part increases, the medium becomes more "metal" like.
This imaginary part leads to attenuation of a wave traveling through the
medium. Skin effect is a manifestation og a very high imaginary
component.
You should be able to find tables of materials that give real and
imaginary components of index. Often, these are listed for metallic
films.
--
Sam
Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
glen herrmannsfeldt
Jan 29, 2012, 4:06:58 PM1/29/12
to
Salmon Egg <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article <jfqgvc$a7$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
(snip)
quantum rules. You can't really ask how things really would be without
metals, and forget about quantum mechanics. Well, metals only exist
because of quantum rules on electrons, and the shape of the Fermi
surface.
> For use with Maxwell's equations, metals are just another medium. The
> are defined in terms of complex values of refractive index. These values
> can be functions of frequency or intensity (nonlinear). The real part is
> associated with transparent materials.
As far as capacitors (the OP asked), as I understand it the original
capacitors were water (prsumably with some ions) filled glass jars.
-- glen
> In article <jfqgvc$a7$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
(snip)
>> > I was looking to see if metal is essential, or what a mathematician
>> > would call necessary to have an antenna. I found nothing in
>> > the literature, except that liquid metal makes an excellent antenna.
>> > Apparently this question has never been raised in physics. So I raise
>> > the question.
>> A single atom can emit light, and another can absorb it, and that
>> is true even for non-metals.
>> Even electrons aren't needed, as gamma rays come from the nucleus.
>> Non-metallic dye molecules absorb and emit light.
>> Metals do make it a lot easier, though.
>> > would call necessary to have an antenna. I found nothing in
>> > the literature, except that liquid metal makes an excellent antenna.
>> > Apparently this question has never been raised in physics. So I raise
>> > the question.
>> A single atom can emit light, and another can absorb it, and that
>> is true even for non-metals.
>> Even electrons aren't needed, as gamma rays come from the nucleus.
>> Non-metallic dye molecules absorb and emit light.
>> Metals do make it a lot easier, though.
> Don't mix up classical Maxwell equations with quantum theory of atoms.
> Although quantum electrodynamics is important, what we normally ascribe
> as classical Maxwellian theory does not describe light emission from
> atoms.
I agree that one shouldn't mix them, but in the real world, the
> Although quantum electrodynamics is important, what we normally ascribe
> as classical Maxwellian theory does not describe light emission from
> atoms.
quantum rules. You can't really ask how things really would be without
metals, and forget about quantum mechanics. Well, metals only exist
because of quantum rules on electrons, and the shape of the Fermi
surface.
> For use with Maxwell's equations, metals are just another medium. The
> are defined in terms of complex values of refractive index. These values
> can be functions of frequency or intensity (nonlinear). The real part is
> associated with transparent materials.
capacitors were water (prsumably with some ions) filled glass jars.
-- glen
0 new messages