The Electromagnetic Engine
greysky
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19125681.400;jsessionid=NMGHKBGMCGMM
OK-- will microwaves generate an effective thrust the way described? Sounds
interesting...
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
RP
It won't fly. Contrary to what others might say, there is no radiation
reaction force as prescribed by Maxwell. The only reaction is that of
the electrons to the field impinging on them. A mass cannot
accellerate without the influence of an outside force. I believe that
Newton covered this some time ago. Light doesn't "have" momentum,
because light isn't a thing, it's just a delayed interaction between
fermions. It cannot carry momentum away in the opposite direction to
balance the equation because it is entirely virtual. Suppose that a
secondary signal were superposed over the signal from this antenna,
producing destructive interference that nulls both signals. Now there
is no radiation. Conservation of momentum would be in deep doodoo if
photons were real. You'd think that as long as this invention has been
around, that somebody would've have presented an authentic
demonstration of it by now. Well over 100 years and nobody has
succeeded. What does that tell you? Maxwell was simply incorrect.
Richard Perry
Sue...
It has some similarities with optical tweezers which
certainly work.
Note that the thrust is very low but that might not matter if
a conventional booster got it away from large masses.
It *appears* a violation of Newton's third law but likely
isn't. Coherent matter coupling to nearby gas and
dust can explain that.
I don't doubt the experiment but the theory looks
fishy. In rare space you;d have to reach out further
to find enough matter to throw backward. It might
starve for working fluid the same as a Brayton jet.
How do you put it in reverse gear? Do they say?
Sue...
RP
Coupling is the key. In empty space that can become problematic. It
might be a bit difficult to get any traction.
Richard Perry
Sue...
Yeah... that's what I meant by starving. If it could
couple magnetically, its arms would diminish
by 1/r^3 but neutral ISM would be far
greatet than 1/r^6.
My word finder comes up null looking for the word
'vacuum'. in the article so I'll agree with you. It
is getting some 'traction' that it won't find out
in space. Newton's third is safe for another day.
Sue...
>
> Richard Perry
Timo A. Nieminen
> Check out this URL for some very hoopy propulsion tech:
>
> http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19125681.400;jsessionid=NMGHKBGMCGMM
>
> OK-- will microwaves generate an effective thrust the way described? Sounds
> interesting...
Why not? Radiation pressure works, as demonstrated over a century ago.
Radiation reaction works, too, and has been measured.
The thrust per unit power sucks, though, with F = P/c. If you only need a
tiny thrust, and don't need to carry your own energy source (eg use solar
cells), it'll work.
Using radiation reaction torque is an idea going back to the '60s or
earlier, with experiments showing it works.
Some details on the paper:
The derivation of the thrust looks OK, as long as the waveguide is above
cutoff, and the final result looks OK, as long as the waveguide is above
cutoff. Given this, some effort could have been saved by just saying you
get F = P/c less some because the output beam is not a uni-directional
plane wave. Note that as the output width of the taper becomes infinite
(which would give a uni-directional beam), the thrust approaches P/c at
best (given the cutoff limit).
The experiment looks OK. It's done in a cavity of Q=5900, with a power
input of 850W, so that's about 5MW available in the cavity. F=P/c gives
expected thrust of 5/300 = 1/60, so the measured 16.6mN does indeed agree
well.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Sorcerer
"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4NARg.5119$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
| Check out this URL for some very hoopy propulsion tech:
|
|
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19125681.400;jsessionid=NMGHKBGMCGMM
|
| OK-- will microwaves generate an effective thrust the way described?
Sounds
| interesting...
|
| Greysky
My laser pointer flies out of my hand from the IR I give it. I have to take
my gloves off when I use it or I'd be in orbit by now.
Androcles
Sorcerer
"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159126731.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Newton covered this some time ago. Light doesn't "have" momentum,
| because light isn't a thing
By definition of p = mv, light doesn't have momentum.
However, by Newton's first law light travels in a right line.
Perhaps "persistence" would be an appropriate term.
Androcles
Timo A. Nieminen
> greysky wrote:
>> Check out this URL for some very hoopy propulsion tech:
>>
>> http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19125681.400;jsessionid=NMGHKBGMCGMM
>>
>> OK-- will microwaves generate an effective thrust the way described? Sounds
>> interesting...
>
> It won't fly. Contrary to what others might say, there is no radiation
> reaction force as prescribed by Maxwell. The only reaction is that of
> the electrons to the field impinging on them.
That _is_ the radiation reaction force. Note that a single electron all by
itself will not radiate. Take an antenna, lots of electrons. Use some
electrons elsewhere to produce an electric field, the electrons in the
antenna accelerate. The radiation reaction force on one electron is just
the force exerted on it by the driving field and the field of all of the
other electrons in the antenna.
> A mass cannot
> accellerate without the influence of an outside force. I believe that
> Newton covered this some time ago. Light doesn't "have" momentum,
> because light isn't a thing, it's just a delayed interaction between
> fermions.
If the field doesn't carry momentum, then you are discarding Newton's
third law, since the force exerted by the field on an object can't have an
equal magnitude, opposite direction force exerted on the field without
giving momentum to the field.
You can replace Newton 3 with a "delayed Newton 3", or rather a "Newton 3
where "instantaneous" means light-like-connected", a la Wheeler & Feynman.
> It cannot carry momentum away in the opposite direction to
> balance the equation because it is entirely virtual. Suppose that a
> secondary signal were superposed over the signal from this antenna,
> producing destructive interference that nulls both signals. Now there
> is no radiation.
So? Find the force exerted on the thing that superposes the beams.
> Conservation of momentum would be in deep doodoo if
> photons were real. You'd think that as long as this invention has been
> around, that somebody would've have presented an authentic
> demonstration of it by now. Well over 100 years and nobody has
> succeeded. What does that tell you? Maxwell was simply incorrect.
The paper linked to in the above link presents what looks like an
authentic demonstration. Radiation pressure was measured over a century
ago. Radiation torque was measured over 70 years ago. Radiation reaction
torques were measured over 40 years ago. I don't know when macroscopic
radiation reaction was first measured.
Note also that if the EM field carries energy, it must also carry momentum
(Umov, 1880s). Still, you don't need to formulate EM as a field theory;
you can replace it with a retarded action-at-a-distance theory. Then you
lose the benefits of EM as a field theory being local.
RP
Well then, if Newton said it, it must be true. But light waves don't
travel in a right line. They lands only where conditions are condusive.
Namely, where not nulled by other waves.
Spinning bullets might be a little more assertive, but I still don't
know where the electrons get those.
Richard Perry
RP
According to Feynman/Wheeler the radiation reaction force was half due
to the advanced wave, and half due to the retarded wave. This advanced
wave in foward time, is however just an emission of radiation from the
electron, to which the electron is supposed to be reacting with and
recoiling.
In this way the recieving mass that gains momentum/energy can
participate in a momentum sort of way with the source electron, wheras
conventional view says that there can be no foreknowledge of the motion
of the source. In the absorber theory, this motion is known by the
recieving charge because it was the very cause of that motion in
reverse time. Momentum is conserved bewteen the particles in the
absense of an intermediary field. This is contradictory to my analysis
of the problem, and to what you have stated above. Thus, unless one of
us is incorrect, we cannot model the interaction without the field,
unless by my method, or else the field is tangible, which corresponds
to Maxwell's view. What you say as a whole is contradictory to itself,
anyway that I look at it. Whereas you agree that the momentum is
accounted for in the geometry, which is also my view, but this does not
accord with Maxwell, wherein the momentum remains localized. Maybe I'm
misunderstanding you. But here again, you say that antenna can recoil
without feedback (coupling), meaning that you subscribe to Feynman's
view or to Maxwell's view, both of which are contradictory to non-local
conservation. Perhaps if you could string your thoughts together a bit
more lucidly, I might understand your stance a bit better.
I have seen no evidence of a valid demonstration of radiaction reaction
force without coupling between the source and an external mass. Do you
have more details of such experiments?
Richard Perry
Sorcerer
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1159126731.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > | Newton covered this some time ago. Light doesn't "have" momentum,
| > | because light isn't a thing
| >
| > By definition of p = mv, light doesn't have momentum.
| > However, by Newton's first law light travels in a right line.
| > Perhaps "persistence" would be an appropriate term.
| > Androcles
|
| Well then, if Newton said it, it must be true. But light waves don't
| travel in a right line. They lands only where conditions are condusive.
| Namely, where not nulled by other waves.
Who said anything about waves?
Certainly not Newton. Anyway, he's my lion, not yours.
I wouldn't be Androcles without a lion. You get your own
smart pussycat. I can let you have Doppler.. even Michelson
if you earn him. He was vaccinated against ego.
| Spinning bullets might be a little more assertive, but I still don't
| know where the electrons get those.
Electrons ricochet like golf balls off a vibrating cattle grid.
http://www.boston-baden.com/hazel/Pix/2005/ia1644x.jpg
In any two bridge experiment where there is a central support
river waves are diffracted
http://tinyurl.com/zkzyu
and floating tree trunks bounce.
http://www.sfu.ca/~jkoch/research/misc/duffey2.JPG
Rowing boats make it straight through and big boats turn around
and reflect back upstream.
Hadron reflecting off diffraction grating:
http://tinyurl.com/nsq55
It's all a question of the size of the semantics, the physics is the
same.
Androcles
RP
Sorcerer wrote:
> "RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159131135.0...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Sorcerer wrote:
> | > "RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> | > news:1159126731.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> | >
> | > | Newton covered this some time ago. Light doesn't "have" momentum,
> | > | because light isn't a thing
> | >
> | > By definition of p = mv, light doesn't have momentum.
> | > However, by Newton's first law light travels in a right line.
> | > Perhaps "persistence" would be an appropriate term.
> | > Androcles
> |
> | Well then, if Newton said it, it must be true. But light waves don't
> | travel in a right line. They lands only where conditions are condusive.
> | Namely, where not nulled by other waves.
>
> Who said anything about waves?
> Certainly not Newton. Anyway, he's my lion, not yours.
> I wouldn't be Androcles without a lion. You get your own
> smart pussycat. I can let you have Doppler.. even Michelson
> if you earn him. He was vaccinated against ego.
I'll take a Faraday, and maybe a Bohm. These guys were vaccinated
against the status quo. Also Faraday in particular was so hesitant to
accept first appearances that it's a wonder he found time to accomplish
as much as he did. This man avoided bias as much as is humanly
possible. In my book, even Newton pales in comarison as an exemplar.
I'd take a Descartes too but for his lunatic rants. Had he not been
under the thumb of religeous nuts, he might have accomplished something
phenomenal.
>
>
> | Spinning bullets might be a little more assertive, but I still don't
> | know where the electrons get those.
>
> Electrons ricochet like golf balls off a vibrating cattle grid.
> http://www.boston-baden.com/hazel/Pix/2005/ia1644x.jpg
>
> In any two bridge experiment where there is a central support
> river waves are diffracted
> http://tinyurl.com/zkzyu
> and floating tree trunks bounce.
> http://www.sfu.ca/~jkoch/research/misc/duffey2.JPG
> Rowing boats make it straight through and big boats turn around
> and reflect back upstream.
> Hadron reflecting off diffraction grating:
> http://tinyurl.com/nsq55
>
> It's all a question of the size of the semantics, the physics is the
> same.
> Androcles
But such a model requires them to propagate at much faster than c
covering many paths, arriving at the target with a mean speed of c.
That is quite an achievement, but then this is also precisely how
Feynman's photons behave. Maybe you should take a look at his theory
and provide us with a list of similarities/differences.
Richard Perry
Sorcerer
Ok, I'll let Aesop know it is "Richard and the spark."
Now.. you do know you'll have to take good care of him?
That bloody scot JC Maxwell stole Michael Faraday's law
and took it back to Edinburgh, it is up to you to make sure
it is returned to its rightful owner. I think it was revenge for
letting Mel Gibson play William Wallace in "Braveheart".
Anyway, you may have to snarl and spit in the newsgroups
arena but they are all mice and puppy dogs anyway, even
if they do yip and squeak. So... there is your cross to bear,
return Maxwell's thievery to its rightful owners.
| >
| > | Spinning bullets might be a little more assertive, but I still don't
| > | know where the electrons get those.
| >
| > Electrons ricochet like golf balls off a vibrating cattle grid.
| > http://www.boston-baden.com/hazel/Pix/2005/ia1644x.jpg
| >
| > In any two bridge experiment where there is a central support
| > river waves are diffracted
| > http://tinyurl.com/zkzyu
| > and floating tree trunks bounce.
| > http://www.sfu.ca/~jkoch/research/misc/duffey2.JPG
| > Rowing boats make it straight through and big boats turn around
| > and reflect back upstream.
| > Hadron reflecting off diffraction grating:
| > http://tinyurl.com/nsq55
| >
| > It's all a question of the size of the semantics, the physics is the
| > same.
| > Androcles
|
| But such a model requires them to propagate at much faster than c
| covering many paths, arriving at the target with a mean speed of c.
| That is quite an achievement, but then this is also precisely how
| Feynman's photons behave. Maybe you should take a look at his theory
| and provide us with a list of similarities/differences.
|
| Richard Perry
Nooo... If you want Faraday for a pet you'll have to forget that
Einstein c business and learn calculus or he'll desert you.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/FaradayLaw.bmp
No c in that.
c is in this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
Androcles
Timo Nieminen
> According to Feynman/Wheeler the radiation reaction force was half due
> to the advanced wave, and half due to the retarded wave. This advanced
> wave in foward time, is however just an emission of radiation from the
> electron, to which the electron is supposed to be reacting with and
> recoiling.
>
> In this way the recieving mass that gains momentum/energy can
> participate in a momentum sort of way with the source electron, wheras
> conventional view says that there can be no foreknowledge of the motion
> of the source. In the absorber theory, this motion is known by the
> recieving charge because it was the very cause of that motion in
> reverse time. Momentum is conserved bewteen the particles in the
> absense of an intermediary field.
Note that it is "conserved" in the sense that the momentum of 2 particles
connected by a light-like path is constant. Suppose the 2 particles are 1
light year apart. Particle 1 recoils, and then 1 year later, particle 2
is pushed.
This is not Newtonian conservation of momentum, but a quite different
kind. See pg 430 of Wheeler & Feynman 1949 (RMP 21).
If you prefer Newtonian conservation of momentum, then the momentum needs
to be somewhere in that 1 year interval. If the EM field doesn't carry
that momentum, where is it? Likewise for any angular momentum involved.
If you read Poynting's 1884 paper, or any good modern derivation of the
momentum of an EM field and its transport, you'll see that the change in
the field momentum is identified as equal and opposite to the change in
momentum of the matter on which the field acts.
Since there is a lag between the change in momentum of this local matter,
and the (partially) matching change in momentum of distant matter, it is
reasonable to assume that the field has this momentum.
If you prefer to assume action-at-a-distance, with no momentum or energy
in the fields, then because the action-at-a-distance happens after a
delay, you cannot have Newtonian conservation of momentum. Again, W&F
1949.
[cut]
> Maybe I'm
> misunderstanding you. But here again, you say that antenna can recoil
> without feedback (coupling), meaning that you subscribe to Feynman's
> view or to Maxwell's view, both of which are contradictory to non-local
> conservation. Perhaps if you could string your thoughts together a bit
> more lucidly, I might understand your stance a bit better.
In Maxwellian EM, momentum is conserved in the Newtonian sense, by virtue
of the EM field possessing and transporting momentum. Likewise for angular
momentum. This possesion and transport of momentum is attributed to the
fields precisely so that momentum is conserved.
Suppose a laser emits a pulse towards a distant observer. According to
Maxwellian theory, because the EM field is carrying momentum away from the
laser, the laser must recoil. Eventually, when the pulse reaches the
distant absorber, the absorber is pushed away.
Wheeler-Feynman predicts exactly the same physical effects, but with
momentum conserved in a sense along the light-cone, rather than the
Newtonian total momentum is constant over time.
The observable effects on the laser and absorber are identical. The only
difference is that Maxwell requires no absorber for there to be a recoil.
W&F say that as long as something, somewhere, will eventually absorb it,
we can't tell the difference.
> I have seen no evidence of a valid demonstration of radiaction reaction
> force without coupling between the source and an external mass. Do you
> have more details of such experiments?
If by "external mass" you mean a distant absorber, then all such
experiments may have an external mass, even if billions of light years
away. How can we tell?
Wheeler and Feynman 1945 discusses some of the evidence for radiation
reaction being real.
Given that assuming Maxwellian transport of momentum by fields matches
experiment to better than 1%, and only requires knowing what is happening
_now_, not what remote matter is doing, it's a very convenient assumption.
Of course, Maxwellian EM and Newton 3 could be wrong, but (ignoring
quantum phenomena) it agrees very well with experiment and observation.
RP
Ok then, all of this deserves a few well placed questions and comments.
Question 1)
Where and by what means has it been established that the momentum must
exist somewhere between? Perhaps it is conserved only in token form,
preserved in the geometry of the field superpositions and a
determinisic procession in which such things are naturally conserved by
reciprocal non-local exchanges. I.e. by events with no causal
connection in the present. Linked causally only indirectly by the
geometric precision gearing that underlies the entire works? When we
look at the behavior of light in the context of QED, this becomes
almost a necessary consequence.
Analogously we might ask, "when two charged plates of a capacitor are
separated, where is the potential energy located that we associate with
that system?" Suppose that we discharge the negative plate to ground
and ship the positive plate off to Alpha Centuri. Where is the PE
located then? A better example is the separation of two gravitating
bodies. When these are separated, then each is also brough closer to
some other surrounding masses. The PE between the two is thus not the
property of those two alone, since the other masses all have a stake in
it. It is clear from this example that the energy contained within a
closed system cannot be localized within that system.
As another argument, it was known even by Newton, that the KE of a
mass was entirely relative to ones FoR, and thus we cannot impute an
objectivity to KE either. How can we say that the KE is located in the
mass, when it stands as a matter of definition of velocity that it must
be taken wrt some other mass, that it has no KE unless we introduce
another mass with which to reference the motion of the first. KE is
thus also is a property of a system of masses rather than of just the
one mass.
Similar arguments of course hold for momentum.
Maybe it would be clearer for you, if I were to explain my version, so
that you'll be better able to address my critisisms of the current
notions. In my view, the reaction of charges to an impinging field,
which is in turn actaully a superposition of many fields, is not
accompanied by an interaction of those charges with any radiation that
they emit in response. If this did happen as you posit, then the radius
of curvature of an electron in a mass spectrometer would be fully twice
what is predicted. There would be two components of force acting on the
charge, the first being the force supplied by the magnetic field, and
the second the force supplied in the form of radiation reaction force.
Now if you don't believe that such a single electron can emit
radiation, then I will disagree, since the approach of a charge near a
dielectric medium will generate an inductive separation of charges
within that medium. If this momentum and energy did not come from the
electron then where? This is radiation that transfers energy and
momentum to an external mass.
Now regardless of any disputes over this, I could simply arrange a
series of dipoles to satisfy your previous suggested requirments, and
still we would have electrons experiencing forces that are greater than
those provided by the local fields alone, owing to the recoil
associated with the emitted waves. As I stated previously, Feynmans
solution was to let the local field induce 1/2 the force, and the
radiated field the other 1/2. Though this may not have been his exact
line of reasoning, it is certainly required when we assert that
momentum is locally conserved. This system would leave Ampere's and
Coulomb's Laws intact, which was my primary objection. On the other
hand, when no radiation is allowed to escaped from a system, this
theory would lead to contradiction, since now the advanced waves have
no possiblity of engaging in the process. Yet the forces as prescribed
by Ampere and Coulomb remain precisely as there were in the former
case. What is now supplying the other 1/2 of the force? This is only
one of many complications that I suppose I will never see addressed,
since the man is no longer with us.
An alternate view, mine, is that there is momentum, it is just a number
that we arbitrarily ascribe to a mass or system, and nature thus sees
no need to satisfy our expectations that it be retained perpetually
and/or locally. Nature isn't even constrained to conserve this value.
That it does is at present immaterial to the argument.
When an electron, or system of charges, interacts with an impinging
field any forces acting on those charges are supplied directly by those
fields. Outgoing radiation thus has no effect on them, and from the
"light-like" interaction perspective, it cannot, since that radiation
is just an image of changes in the superposition patterns of the fields
of those charges. It is the change in the field pattern that propagates
into the far field, and it is changes in the positions of the origins
of those fields (particles) that propagate in the near field. All
radiation is just retardation of potential. The fields of the charges
are, in an abstract sense, themselves the medium of propagation. In my
view the field is thus real, and because of the way the system is
modelled, any radiation cannot possibly have momentum, but rather it
can transmit an image of it, and this is what it does, that
transmission is a delayed image of the reordering of charges. The
reason that it cannot have momentum is that it always has the
possiblity of being nulled via destructive interference. Though the
wave's energy may be recovered somewhere else via constructive
intereference in another place, this sort of conservation occurs
non-locally.
Which for those who are reading along, means faster than light, and in
some cases backward in time fast, i.e. faster than instantaneously.
I don't know what sort of evidence there is that this device will work
in empty space, but my prediction is that it will not. Of the
experements that I've seen footage of, none were valid. Some actaully
relied upon ion wind, and of course none of the inventors cared to test
their devices in an evacuated chamber, or else if they did they never
reported the results. Electromagnetic levitation is trivially
demonstrated, but it certainly doesn't occur spontaneously, and
definitely requires something to push against other than empty space.
Even if you could get a push off of the Sun, you wouldn't feel it for 8
minutes.
That is my prediction, for better or worse.
Richard Perry
John Bailey
wrote:
>http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19125681.400;jsessionid=NMGHKBGMCGMM
Its easy enough to calculate the momentum of the engine compared with
the momentum of its emitted energy. These must balance. It takes
an enormous amount of microwave photons for their equivalent mass--
travelling at the speed of light-- to balance the momentum of
(perhaps) a 100 gram microwave generator moving at a few cm/sec.
Somewhat like trying to move a sailboat with a desk fan.
Sue...
It appears to me the device doesn't even have an ouput port for this
kind of calculation to apply. Timo seems to suggest the directon
of motion can be established by the shape of the cavity.
I remain unconvinced. If it is really moving, then there is some air
or a bench top trying to move the other way. ;-)
Sue...
RP
And when the fan is located in a field free vacuum?
Richard Perry
FrediFizzx
Hi Richard,
What makes you think the "vacuum" is field free? ;-) It can't be field
free or otherwise elementary fermions would have no mass.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Sue...
FrediFizzx wrote:
> "RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159206676.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > John Bailey wrote:
> > > On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:13:04 GMT, "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19125681.400;jsessionid=NMGHK
> BGMCGMM
> > >
> > > Its easy enough to calculate the momentum of the engine compared
> with
> > > the momentum of its emitted energy. These must balance. It takes
> > > an enormous amount of microwave photons for their equivalent
> mass--
> > > travelling at the speed of light-- to balance the momentum of
> > > (perhaps) a 100 gram microwave generator moving at a few cm/sec.
> > > Somewhat like trying to move a sailboat with a desk fan.
> >
> > And when the fan is located in a field free vacuum?
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> What makes you think the "vacuum" is field free? ;-) It can't be field
> free or otherwise elementary fermions would have no mass.
Yeah!
<< This [ISM] gas is extremely dilute, with an average density of
about 1 atom per cubic centimeter. (For comparison, the
air we breathe [and presumeabley the gas the experiment
runs in] has a density of approximately
30,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules per cubic
centimeter.) >>
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
How can RP ignore that 1 atom per cc ?
That is sloven laggerty if I've ever seen it...
...and if those are really words. ;-)
Sue...
Russell
How can he get more power out than he puts in? The thrust
can only be due to radiation that leaks out, unless you wish
to suggest that conservation of momentum is violated here.
(As the author of the paper seems to assume? He says
some distressing things in that direction, but maybe I'm
misunderstanding something in my quick read.)
The higher the Q the less leakage there is, so it seems to me
you can gain nothing at all from the resonance. Put another
way, I believe the numerator in the calc should be .85, at most,
not 5. Please correct me if I'm missing something.
Russell
Or rather, 0.00085 since I forgot the difference between MW
and KW.
RP
FrediFizzx wrote:
> "RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159206676.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > John Bailey wrote:
> > > On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:13:04 GMT, "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19125681.400;jsessionid=NMGHK
> BGMCGMM
> > >
> > > Its easy enough to calculate the momentum of the engine compared
> with
> > > the momentum of its emitted energy. These must balance. It takes
> > > an enormous amount of microwave photons for their equivalent
> mass--
> > > travelling at the speed of light-- to balance the momentum of
> > > (perhaps) a 100 gram microwave generator moving at a few cm/sec.
> > > Somewhat like trying to move a sailboat with a desk fan.
> >
> > And when the fan is located in a field free vacuum?
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> What makes you think the "vacuum" is field free? ;-) It can't be field
> free or otherwise elementary fermions would have no mass.
"Field free" meaning in this case "force free". The field(s) is/are
always present, but the force vectors can cancel approximately,
leading to what is commonly referred to as a "field free space". I
don't subscribe to the expression, but most people do, so I used it.
Not only do I not subscribe to it, but I have convinced myself that if
there were no fields superposed at every point in space, then space
wouldn't exist, because field and space are one and the same.
Why do I argue for non-local conservation of momentum then? Because the
fields have no mass, and you cannot have momentum without mass. The
momentum in the equations is that of the particles that will inevitably
gain that momentum via interaction with the retarded field of force.
The field is a force field, not a momentum field. Force has it in its
power to impart momentum upon its arrival. Or remove it, as the case
may be. The E field is what? Force per unit charge. That's all there is
to the E field, though there is another interpretation of force called
curvature of space. It is the latter that is the hidden premise to most
of my arguments. If an electron is simply following what it believes to
be a strait path, which in turn is defined by the relative positions of
other such electrons, i.e. by superpostion of fields "of curvature",
then the only way to obtain the effect of radiation is via the
curvature induced by our first charge in other locations as a function
of its motion through the local metric. Empircally there is a delay in
the influence of an electron on those distant points. This delay must
propagate through the field itself, which in this context is space
itself, and since this is really just the electron itself, then a
reaction to this outgoing wave would be a fine instance of
bootstrapping. The electron cannot collide with itself. It can never
follow the curved paths that it sets out for other electrons (and
positrons)
Richard Perry
Timo Nieminen
That's not the power out. That's the power incident on something in the
cavity, as per the author's definition of Q.
> The thrust
> can only be due to radiation that leaks out, unless you wish
> to suggest that conservation of momentum is violated here.
> (As the author of the paper seems to assume? He says
> some distressing things in that direction, but maybe I'm
> misunderstanding something in my quick read.)
>
> The higher the Q the less leakage there is, so it seems to me
> you can gain nothing at all from the resonance. Put another
> way, I believe the numerator in the calc should be .85, at most,
> not 5. Please correct me if I'm missing something.
Absent diagrams etc, I can't be certain exactly what is measured or how.
Since the numbers match the expected radiation pressure force on something
in the cavity, it looks like that was measured. Yes, this isn't useful,
unless you want to move things around in the cavity. I suppose in
principle, you could run a train inside a giant resonant cavity, but I
wouldn't want to be a passenger on it. Discounting the possibility of
deliberately conducting a misleading experiment in order to scam
investors, it's a reasonable proof-of-principle experiment to get
measurable forces without needing a multi-MW microwave source. The author
could have been more clear on this point.
Working as an engine, the thrust will be P/c or less, for sure.
Russell
> John Bailey wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:13:04 GMT, "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19125681.400;jsessionid=NMGHKBGMCGMM
> >
> > Its easy enough to calculate the momentum of the engine compared with
> > the momentum of its emitted energy. These must balance. It takes
> > an enormous amount of microwave photons for their equivalent mass--
> > travelling at the speed of light-- to balance the momentum of
> > (perhaps) a 100 gram microwave generator moving at a few cm/sec.
> > Somewhat like trying to move a sailboat with a desk fan.
>
> It appears to me the device doesn't even have an ouput port for this
> kind of calculation to apply. Timo seems to suggest the directon
> of motion can be established by the shape of the cavity.
The magnetron's power has to go somewhere. If it doesn't leak
out through the walls as microwaves, it'll radiate from somewhere
as IR. In either case, if the radiation is asymmetrical, there *will*
be a reaction force. But nothing like the magnitude that the
author claimed to observe.
>
> I remain unconvinced. If it is really moving, then there is some air
> or a bench top trying to move the other way. ;-)
Most likely air, due to convection. His paper says that in *some*
runs he sealed the device in an airtight enclosure to "calibrate out
thermal buoyancy effects" but he doesn't tell us anything about
what he means by that. At 850W input power, something in that
enclosure is going to get damn hot. And his maximum signal is
16 mN, which on his 16kg balance would mean a deficit of 1.7g
out of a total weight ~15500g. I think this measurement would
require a lot more experimental care than he has given us any
reason to believe he has exercised.
Why didn't he measure the radiation intensity in various directions
that is emanating from his device? That should have been an easy
job for an EE. The obvious question to ask is, where is all the power
going.
Raymond Yohros
RP ha escrito:
> I'll take a Faraday, and maybe a Bohm. These guys were vaccinated
> against the status quo. Also Faraday in particular was so hesitant to
> accept first appearances that it's a wonder he found time to accomplish
> as much as he did.
>
Faraday was like a kid playing all the time with
quemicals, electricity and magnets. he practicly invented
the electric motor. nobody understood his lectures on
how electricity and magnetism worked together
until maxwell came to the rescue with his equations that
provide a clear prove of everything faraday stand for.
Russell
Right, but there *is* a diagram on page 2, and it shows his true
interest here is in the difference between the F's on the respective
plates. He claims that the radiation pressure in the cavity works
somehow differently from the pressure of a normal gas, because
of some sort of argument invoking SR. That claim is, flatly, daft.
> Since the numbers match the expected radiation pressure force on something
> in the cavity, it looks like that was measured. Yes, this isn't useful,
> unless you want to move things around in the cavity. I suppose in
> principle, you could run a train inside a giant resonant cavity, but I
> wouldn't want to be a passenger on it. Discounting the possibility of
> deliberately conducting a misleading experiment in order to scam
> investors, it's a reasonable proof-of-principle experiment to get
> measurable forces without needing a multi-MW microwave source. The author
> could have been more clear on this point.
>
> Working as an engine, the thrust will be P/c or less, for sure.
Right, where P is the input power.
Timo Nieminen
> Timo Nieminen wrote:
> >
> > Absent diagrams etc, I can't be certain exactly what is measured or how.
>
> Right, but there *is* a diagram on page 2, and it shows his true
> interest here is in the difference between the F's on the respective
> plates. He claims that the radiation pressure in the cavity works
> somehow differently from the pressure of a normal gas, because
> of some sort of argument invoking SR. That claim is, flatly, daft.
I missed the "closed" part and assumed it was meant to just be a typical
taper that you'd use to couple a waveguide to free space. My mistake to
assume non-daftness as a default :)
From the discussion elsewhere in the thread, others appear to have made
the same assumption.
So, where is the error? Despite the mention of the force on the sides of
the taper in 2.4, this force appears nowhere in the derivation of the
thrust equation in 3. End of story.
> Right, where P is the input power.
Well, output power at any rate, since there will be losses.
Russell
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2006, Russell wrote:
>
> > Timo Nieminen wrote:
> > >
> > > Absent diagrams etc, I can't be certain exactly what is measured or how.
> >
> > Right, but there *is* a diagram on page 2, and it shows his true
> > interest here is in the difference between the F's on the respective
> > plates. He claims that the radiation pressure in the cavity works
> > somehow differently from the pressure of a normal gas, because
> > of some sort of argument invoking SR. That claim is, flatly, daft.
>
> I missed the "closed" part and assumed it was meant to just be a typical
> taper that you'd use to couple a waveguide to free space. My mistake to
> assume non-daftness as a default :)
>
> From the discussion elsewhere in the thread, others appear to have made
> the same assumption.
>
> So, where is the error? Despite the mention of the force on the sides of
> the taper in 2.4, this force appears nowhere in the derivation of the
> thrust equation in 3. End of story.
Right, I had just come to that conclusion myself but you
beat me to the punch. (Earlier, I just couldn't believe he'd
made that error and didn't want to wade through the actual
argument.)
It's really no different from the error you would get with a plain
old molecular gas if you neglected the oblique force on the
tapered walls.
critten...@yahoo.com
allowed. An interior field causes the unbalanced field of relativity.
The density of power is enormous to cause the true useful effect is the
only drawnback.
A measurable effect formally allows the field to exist and in the
theory world it is a nobrainer.
A better expansion is caused by the field expansion, making the open
end the correct type of waveguide. A standing wave correctly defines
the most efficient field.
A force on the end plates is a simplistic way to gain the field of
concern.
A true waveguide with the larger diameter causes a force to appear
though. And recongnition of the anomalous field is the degree of
theory effort need to remind the reader that
coriolus is the same field. A symmetric motion causes!
And the diameter imbalance is a simplistic field.
But it truly does make a force appear! It just stinks for true useful
propulsion.
greysky wrote:
> Check out this URL for some very hoopy propulsion tech:
>
> http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19125681.400;jsessionid=NMGHKBGMCGMM
>
> OK-- will microwaves generate an effective thrust the way described? Sounds
> interesting...
>
> Greysky
FrediFizzx
news:1159215815.9...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Silly Sue... ;-) What makes you think the Higgs-like field has to be
composed of matter? LOL!
Sue...
What Higgs field? The one Tajmar and de Matos don't need? ;-)
Note that the article talks about calculations in Einstein's space.
Real space is not Einstein's space with matter spriinkled in it.
Einstein's space is real space pureed into a virtual fluid.
This... because Einstein spreads particle-properties out into
the space. The theory of the engine, and several other well
known paradoxes jump between matterless space and Einstein's
space. I think RP is saying the same thing from a different POV
but the whole issue is too nebulous to claim congruence.
Sue...
Timo A. Nieminen
> Why do I argue for non-local conservation of momentum then? Because the
> fields have no mass, and you cannot have momentum without mass. The
> momentum in the equations is that of the particles that will inevitably
> gain that momentum via interaction with the retarded field of force.
> The field is a force field, not a momentum field.
Force is the rate of transfer of momentum (as per Newton). Ability to
exert force by a field implies transport of momentum, unless you're
willing to jettison Newton (which you imply you're doing above). Given
that the accelerations produced by the forces are what are observable,
what is the value in re-defining momentum so as to exclude field momentum?
You lose Newton, you lose a conservation law at the heart of theoretical
physics, and what do you gain?
> the influence of an electron on those distant points. This delay must
> propagate through the field itself, which in this context is space
> itself, and since this is really just the electron itself, then a
> reaction to this outgoing wave would be a fine instance of
> bootstrapping.
... and it comes back to whether radiation reaction forces on a single
electron exist. Macroscopic radiation reaction forces certainly exist, but
what does a single electron have to do with that? Atomic-scale radiation
reaction forces exist (eg laser cooling and atom trapping), but an atom
isn't a single electron. Particle accelerator radiation reaction forces
certainly exist, but a single electron in a particle accelerator is not a
single electron. A single electron freely falling in a gravitational field
may well be a single electron, electromagnetically speaking, and is a
topic on which many pages continue to be written.
Timo A. Nieminen
> Question 1)
>
> Where and by what means has it been established that the momentum must
> exist somewhere between?
Newton's Principia, and Emmy Noether's paper. Umov also showed that
transport of energy (other than rest mass) requires transport of momentum.
> Perhaps it is conserved only in token form,
> preserved in the geometry of the field superpositions and a
> determinisic procession in which such things are naturally conserved by
> reciprocal non-local exchanges. I.e. by events with no causal
> connection in the present. Linked causally only indirectly by the
> geometric precision gearing that underlies the entire works? When we
> look at the behavior of light in the context of QED, this becomes
> almost a necessary consequence.
Well, perhaps, but of little weight when considering the transport of
momentum by classical fields. Yes, there are lots of dragons living there
in QM and QED, often intimately connected with particular pictures of QM
and QED which don't affect observable results. I must admit to a certain
pragmatism when dealing with 10^20 photons per second, when classical EM
works very well indeed, and assuming that the fields carry momentum and
angular momentum matches experiment to better than 1%. The momentum moves
from point A to point B, assuming that momentum is conserved gives us the
mathemachinery to predict this transport of momentum exactly, we have no
reason to assume that momentum is not conserved (there is also no reason
why momentum _must_ be conserved, although IMHO it is logically and
philosophically neater if it is), so why not assume that momentum is
conserved, even though this requires that fields carry momentum?
Which is the philosophically bitterer pill, that massless fields can carry
momentum, or that momentum is not conserved?
> Analogously we might ask, "when two charged plates of a capacitor are
> separated, where is the potential energy located that we associate with
> that system?" Suppose that we discharge the negative plate to ground
> and ship the positive plate off to Alpha Centuri. Where is the PE
> located then? A better example is the separation of two gravitating
> bodies. When these are separated, then each is also brough closer to
> some other surrounding masses. The PE between the two is thus not the
> property of those two alone, since the other masses all have a stake in
> it. It is clear from this example that the energy contained within a
> closed system cannot be localized within that system.
If you assume that the potential energy is the energy of the E field, one
gets quantitative agreement. To discharge the - plate to ground, with the
capacitor in place, requires work, after which shipping to Alpha Centaurus
(at low speed) is (in an idealised world) free. To ship to Alpha Centaurus
before discharging takes work to overcome the attraction between the
plates, after which discharging is free, or even better, work can be
extracted from the act. In either case, assuming that the fields have
energy gives the right answer. Assuming that the fields have energy
requires that the fields have momentum if that energy moves from one place
to another.
> As another argument, it was known even by Newton, that the KE of a
> mass was entirely relative to ones FoR, and thus we cannot impute an
> objectivity to KE either. How can we say that the KE is located in the
> mass, when it stands as a matter of definition of velocity that it must
> be taken wrt some other mass, that it has no KE unless we introduce
> another mass with which to reference the motion of the first. KE is
> thus also is a property of a system of masses rather than of just the
> one mass.
>
> Similar arguments of course hold for momentum.
Of course. Likewise, we are free to choose whatever we want to be PE=0.
The importance and usefulness of energy and momentum is that they are
conserved quantities - that in any particular FoR, they are conserved, not
that they are the same in all FoRs.
> Maybe it would be clearer for you, if I were to explain my version, so
> that you'll be better able to address my critisisms of the current
> notions. In my view, the reaction of charges to an impinging field,
> which is in turn actaully a superposition of many fields, is not
> accompanied by an interaction of those charges with any radiation that
> they emit in response.
Then where does the energy come from? Consider Brehmsstrahlung, an
electron stopping in a Coulomb potential. It radiates, this radiation
carries energy (or at least will impart energy to an absorber). The
braking potential is conservative - what is the source of energy?
> If this did happen as you posit, then the radius
> of curvature of an electron in a mass spectrometer would be fully twice
> what is predicted. There would be two components of force acting on the
> charge, the first being the force supplied by the magnetic field, and
> the second the force supplied in the form of radiation reaction force.
Why would the two forces be the same? What does the Larmor formula say
about that, or the Feynman/Barut/whoever else anti-Larmor formula say?
> Now if you don't believe that such a single electron can emit
> radiation, then I will disagree, since the approach of a charge near a
> dielectric medium will generate an inductive separation of charges
> within that medium. If this momentum and energy did not come from the
> electron then where? This is radiation that transfers energy and
> momentum to an external mass.
An electron near a dielectric medium is not a single electron. How do you
accelerate an electron other than by other charges? Well, there is
gravity. Does a freely-falling electron radiate?
[cut]
> An alternate view, mine, is that there is momentum, it is just a number
> that we arbitrarily ascribe to a mass or system, and nature thus sees
> no need to satisfy our expectations that it be retained perpetually
> and/or locally. Nature isn't even constrained to conserve this value.
> That it does is at present immaterial to the argument.
[cut]
In the end, it comes down to philosophy, and how one wishes to define
momentum. I'm happy with the conventional definition, even if that means
that massless fields or particles can carry momentum.
> I don't know what sort of evidence there is that this device will work
> in empty space, but my prediction is that it will not.
In my first reading, I assumed that the device was a waveguide coupled to
free space via the taper. It turns out that it is actually a closed
tapered resonator, which will not work.
[cut]
> Even if you could get a push off of the Sun, you wouldn't feel it for 8
> minutes.
> That is my prediction, for better or worse.
Sounds like a matter for experiment. Now all we need to do is to find a
perfect vacuum ...
RP
>From the pure field approach, given a directional antenna consisting of
a phased dipole array, each dipole element radiates omnidirectionally.
Thus no force can be exerted on any of these elements by their own
outgoing radiation, since the radiation is emitted symmetrically from
each. By the time that these symmetrical fields superpose
constructively and destructively off of the ends of the antenna, the
radiation has already been emitted by each element at some time in the
past. End of story. There is no way for the constructive interference
to reach back in time and push the elements backward. Thus the momentum
of the outgoing radiation, if it can be said to have momentum, must
exist only in the nodes of constructive interference, and be
transferred instantly from behind the antenna to the front of the
antenna, independently of the magnitude of the radius of the expanding
spherical wave fronts. This is of course exactly the sort of non-local
conservation that I spoke of. I would only add to this, that the
momentum at that point is still really only virtual, being only a
prediction of the momentum that the wave might impart to another mass
(detector). If this wave can impart momentum, then the three options
for balancing the equation are:
1) The antenna as a whole recoils under the force of the outgoing
radiation, which of course according to the statements above, would
require the force to be secondary radiation, or IOW incoming radiation
emitted by the dipoles' neighbors, phased such that there is a net
force exerted on any one element by radiation emitted by the other
elements. *A note on a consequence of adopting this view later.
2) The antenna as a whole does not recoil under the force of the
outgoing radiation, and any momentum imparted to a detector must
therefore be either balanced by radiation incident on some other
detector or detectors at other locations in space, or else never
balanced directly, but balanced on average by probabilistic influences.
Many rolls of the dice might provide an average value that can be
construed as a constant, in this case, namely zero.
3) The antenna as a whole does not recoil under the force of the
outgoing radiation, but instead recoils as a result of reflected
radiation from the detector(s) (coupling) and would thus again be
recoiling as a result of incoming radiation.
Now for the note about possibility 1: If the dipoles can be phased such
as to bootstrap the whole, then we could theoretically phase a series
of electromagnets according to the same algorithm providing a net force
on the assembly that would be orders of magnitude greater than the
force on the antenna. I've tried to derive such a system many times,
and as far as I know it isn't possible. The forces always cancel.
Richard Perry
RP
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2006, RP wrote:
>
> > Why do I argue for non-local conservation of momentum then? Because the
> > fields have no mass, and you cannot have momentum without mass. The
> > momentum in the equations is that of the particles that will inevitably
> > gain that momentum via interaction with the retarded field of force.
> > The field is a force field, not a momentum field.
>
> Force is the rate of transfer of momentum (as per Newton). Ability to
> exert force by a field implies transport of momentum, unless you're
> willing to jettison Newton (which you imply you're doing above).
Minkowski's spacetime effectively jettisoned Newton, and I'm only
arguing special relativistic fields here. I'm also doing nothing more
than suggesting corrections to the contradictory points of view that
followed, which were in large part directed by the nearly simultaneous
publication of the photon theory of light by the same author. The
reason I bring this up, is that the equation in question is regarded as
imputing momentum to massless particles called photons. Thus we should
discuss photon for a minute.
The two two papers present mutually exclusive descriptions of light
behavior. The photon theory has however evolved since its inception to
something quite different than what was implied by Einstein, which was
a particle much like a fermion, localizable and having momentum.
But according to the 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies" any changes in em fields will expand spherically wrt all
inertial observers. It is from this premise that he derived that the
frequency of signal is found to be proportional to the energy of a
closed volume of the radiation energy associated with that signal
(spherically expanding waves), when transforming between frames of
reference. That is, the Doppler frequency shift encountered is always
accompanied by a proportional change in energy for the same bounded
region of the radiation field. The ratio E/f can be easily shown by use
of his Doppler equations to be a constant for a given bounded region of
a radiation field, and thus for the entire spherically expanding
disturbance. By quantizing radiation energy in the form E = hf, we can
see once again that E/f is constant. Quantizing the field is thus made
consistent with Einstein's derivations regarding spherical waves, and
the photon reduces to nothing more than an integrand that makes
possible the construction of these waves in terms of equal units. The
photon is thus a mathematical artifice, given the illusion of an actual
discrete particle by the relationship E=hf, which is simply a
relativistic relationship derived from consideration of spherically
expanding waves, Doppler effects, and mathematical convenience. But
where is this energy located in the context of photons in any instant?
According to Feynman it isn't localizable, because photons take every
possible path. They can even be made to avoid striking some point and
appearing somewhere else instead, by simply placing another photon's
probability wave there, producing destructive interference at that
point. All of this strange behavior of photons which is dictated by
probability waves that superpose and interfere just as ordinary em
waves do, suggests precisely what I stated above, that the photon is
just an artifice, a different way of expressing the spherical wave
interference discussed by Einstein in his 1905 paper. Added
persuasioin is introduced by the fact that atoms prefer specific energy
levels, both when losing energy, and when absorbing energy. Was it the
same energy absorbed by this atom that was emitted by that atom? No.
Energy, like momentum, isn't even tangible. It too can be transformed
away.
The reason that I provided this argument is to address one of the two
remaining possibilities for supporting the stance of reaction of a
source to the radiation that it emits, namely the ejection of real
particles (photons) from the source. Even in this case the argument
fails, because those particles are not real, or better "what
particles?"
As for the definition of Force, isn't momentum also definable in terms
of Force? Nothing a little algebra can't handle right?
But force can also be defined in terms of charge rather than momentum
and time, and when the electromagnetic field exerts a force, it isn't
clear what the momentum is going to be in every case, because when
forces are opposing there may be no change in momentum taking place.
Thus force cannot be defined universally as dp/dt, since this obviously
only applies to the "net" force acting on a mass. I don't think that
we'd allow the reciprocal view that there are opposing momentums of the
mass in order to explain the tension that develops. Add to this the
fact that momentum can be transformed away but force cannot. And of
course the E field is just a mapping of F/Q for over ever position in
space. I can't find any momentum hiding in that expression, and nor are
there masses located at every point in space in order to have that
momentum, even if momentum could be extracted from that field, which it
cannot, because the the E field acts on charge, not mass. Whatever the
tangible entity might be that we correspond the E field to, it
consists as far as we can tell by observation, of fermions in motion
wrt each other. Particles and their changing relative positions are all
that we see. What we regard as the cause of the changes in the rates of
change (acceleration) is what we call force, but what the cause really
is who knows? It certainly isn't a change in momentum though that
causes anything, since momentum is one of the very effects that we are
attempting to find the cause of.
I suggest curvature of space as a function of the charges in space, in
analogy to Einstein's curvature of space by masses. In that sense, the
field is neither momentum nor force, it is just geometry. But the
geometry provides us with the illusion of force as the cause of
acceleration, while momentum certainly does not, the latter being again
something that can be transformed away, and thus cannot even be a
consideration in this case.
>Given
> that the accelerations produced by the forces are what are observable,
> what is the value in re-defining momentum so as to exclude field momentum?
> You lose Newton, you lose a conservation law at the heart of theoretical
> physics, and what do you gain?
What we gain is the possibility of violations to that law, and the
possibilities that follow for us from that. Not to mention that we'd
gain greater understanding in general.
>
> > the influence of an electron on those distant points. This delay must
> > propagate through the field itself, which in this context is space
> > itself, and since this is really just the electron itself, then a
> > reaction to this outgoing wave would be a fine instance of
> > bootstrapping.
>
> ... and it comes back to whether radiation reaction forces on a single
> electron exist. Macroscopic radiation reaction forces certainly exist, but
> what does a single electron have to do with that? Atomic-scale radiation
> reaction forces exist (e.g. laser cooling and atom trapping), but an atom
> isn't a single electron. Particle accelerator radiation reaction forces
> certainly exist, but a single electron in a particle accelerator is not a
> single electron. A single electron freely falling in a gravitational field
> may well be a single electron, electromagnetically speaking, and is a
> topic on which many pages continue to be written.
What quanta of charge have to do with it, is that they are the actual
sources. The atom is not a thing, it is a collection of things, and it
cannot emit radiation, only its charges can. From that perspective,
what I'm saying is that your logical error lies in the supposition that
atoms are things that can radiate. Electromagnetic forces don't act on
the mass charge, they act on the electromagnetic charge. An atom isn't
a charge, it is a mass.
Radiation reaction force certainly exists, since magnets are observed
to accelerate in the presence of a magnetic field, but it is always an
external field causing the acceleration. The magnets should also
interact even over a great distances. But when you generate a new
static magnetic field, its influence will propagate at c, spherically.
If this newly created magnet accelerates another magnet that is located
93 million miles away, and which has been in existence for a year, then
the distant magnet won't be deflected until the field of the new magnet
has time to reach it, that is, the deflection of the distant magnet
will occur 8 minutes after the creation of the new magnet. But
contrarily, the field of the distant magnet already exists in the space
of the new magnet, so the new magnet will be deflected immediately,
i.e. without delay. Momentum is thus not conserved moment-by-moment,
but only on average over time, and only by coupling of two or more
sources.
In the case of the field that had already been established, where is
the momentum in that field that you are trying insert? The magnet and
its field are stationary in this case. Nothing is propagating wrt the
new magnet.
I'm quite aware that this behavior is also stated to be due to photons,
but in the end that notion is a load of garbage. Those photons cannot
be ascribed a frequency, or even a range of frequencies, and cannot be
deflected by a mirror, etc, etc, or used for any purpose other than
generating a force on the other magnet.
Richard Perry
tj Frazir
radio waves are photons too.
The heat to use photons fo thrust is allways ingorance befor any facts.
The more thrust the more HEAT stupid.
Im shure you just forgot the heat thing your using for thrust gets
hotter the harder you push.
To push the shuttle in space worth a fuck slow it would melt anything
you could biuld it with.
You can biuld one and float a boat around a pond dead slow and burn it
up too.
You could put out all the solar pannels you want and not push thier
mass worth a fuck.
What the fuck was you going to use ??
Solar electric space pannels << solar sails against >>> your thrust WITH
a loss so you wount put out enouph thrust to sit still.
....................................................................
BOTTOM LINE You wount send as many photons as the photons hit the
solar pannel.
tj Frazir
rock and let it hit you.
The only cheep free space ride is getting in front of a comet with a
200 mile bungie cord and taking a free sling .
All thrust is for navigation.
No thrust is forward thrust .
manuover and rov the sling into the commet 30 miles wide and have a
free ride up to 75000 mph .
Grab onto a 100,000 ton rock some place and make a turn on it. smaller
cord cut at turn point.
Spider man would tripppppppth in SPACE MONKEY 4.
You fuckin space junkies neverdo all the math befor ya talk off the
wall shit.
FrediFizzx
That is exactly why a relativistic medium picture is easier to
comprehend the behavior. And also why it is easier to see that photons
are "wavicles". What is wrong with a photon having an extremely low
frequency and its wave properties being huge? Photons are
instantaneously virtual fermionic pairs, IMHO. And not necessarily just
one pair; in the case of radio waves and lower frequency photons there
are many pairs envolved. Granted there is a lot of baggage that goes
along with that supposition but I just don't see any other alternatives
other than magic. But back to the relativistic medium viewpoint; the
magnetic dipole is simply "tilting" the virtual fermionic pairs in the
medium in such a way as to be a "static" magnetic field. However,
nothing in the magnet is really "static" on a microscopic level. So you
are going to have "magnetic" photons propagating thru what appears to be
a static magnetic field macroscopically. You will in fact end up with a
range of frequencies that are involved. What that range might be, I
don't really know but if not already theoretically and experimentally
determined, I would be surprised. The only thing left to figure out in
this scenario is why photons "hang together" in the medium and don't
disperse. This exact property is one reason why photons are considered
and thought of as particles when they really aren't strictly
particulate. So I agree with you on that aspect of not really being a
particle even though they have particle-like properties especially for
the hard photons. It can be shown that the quantum mechanics of the EM
field is entirely contained in the time dependence of the field. IOW,
the particle-like properties.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
motor. The physics is there. It would take great engineering. Nice part
of this marriage is they both rotate. Spinning is the best way to go.
Bert
RP
If we are to retain photons, then I think you've provided necessary
corrections to photon theory. However, in the new form in which you
have cast them, they become even more consistent with the pure field
approach. With a few more refinements along those lines the two
approaches will become perfectly equivalent to each other. Now let me
address a statement that you made concerning the microscopic reality of
the magnet. As you know, like Purcell, I derive the magnetic field in
terms of the relative motions of point charges. From this standpoint
I'm well aware that the magnetic field is actually composed of a very
large number of superposed fields. Especially in light of electron
spin (circular motion) the electron is constantly emitting radiation.
But again, this radiation is symetrically distributed, directionalily
being a matter of superposiiton and constructive/destructive
interference. We are thus back to the multi-element antenna argument,
but on a smaller scale. But in the case of the magnet, we can say that
in any successive two instants, the "net" field corresponds to an
entirely different set of electron fields. In other words the
attractive force experienced by another magnet corresponds to the
electron only when it is in the correct half of its orbital motion,
i.e. moving parallel to the recieving electrons. Because of the
cancellation effect of adjacent electron spins, the result is that the
field tends to behave as though it originates only from the periphery
of the magnet. Along the periphery we have the equilalent of a DC
current flowing.
Wrt to another magnet distantly located, the field is thus due to this
circular current (actually counter-currents of positive and negative
charge), and given that the current isn't hoogneous, but instead
composed of granules called quanta of charge, there will be
oscillations of the fields of each of these, but on averge these are
cancelled by opposing oscillations of the other quanta. The net result
in the far field is a continuous field. In other words the ripple is
almost completly filtered. In effect there is nothing propagating when
the field has already been established. Or better, the "macroscopic"
field isn't propagating and no changes are propagating. For all
practical purposes the field is perfectly static. Light consists of
oscillations in the E field, but the magnetic "radiation" is
oscillation free. Any photons that might be responsible must have a
frequency of precisely zero. Thus the entire magnetic field consists
of photons that stretch completely from one magnet to the other,
photons that haven't even been completely generated yet, and their only
possibility of being completed is the destruction of the magnetic
alignment of charge motions. The sudden loss of the seat of the field
corresponds to a collapse of the field, which of course would force the
completion of the AC cycle (wave). But if the recieving magnet is
destroyed simultaneously, then it can no longer absorb the remainder
the photon, meaning that the photons will have been fragmented. This
isn't the property of a particle, it is pure wave dynamics.
Richard Perry
Greg Hansen
> FrediFizzx wrote:
>
> Why do I argue for non-local conservation of momentum then? Because the
> fields have no mass, and you cannot have momentum without mass. The
Why would you think that you can't have momentum without mass?
Femtosecond lasers produce laser pulses with about the shape of a
pancake. The pulse is emitted at point A and time t_A, then it spends
some time travelling through a vacuum, and then it creates effects on a
target at point B and time t_B. Where was the momentum between t_A and
t_B? Or do you argue that momentum is conserved non-locally *and*
eventually?
Double-A
If this were true, then electrons would be constantly losing energy and
slowing down, unless you can show some way they are being constantly
recharged.
Double-A
RP
First, you're incorrect about the shape. See "Lasers: The Light
Fantastic". The laser is just a higher frequency version of a
directional radio frequncy signal. Perfect focus is impossible. The
field off to either side of the apparent line of motion is not
non-zero, though it falls off rather sharply, the gradient being
steeper as the directionality is increased. An electron off to the side
of the laser beam will feel some influence from the source, but it
won't necessarily be large enough to be measurable. I believe a
photographic emulsion would however show this to be correct, if given
suffient time to accumulate evidence of the beam impinging on it. Cut
a hole through the emulsion just large enough to allow the beam to pass
through, according to what you "believe" the beam's diameter to be. If
no exposure occurs on the emulsion over a sufficiently extended periiod
of time, then I'll eat my words. The exposure will be greatest near
the aperature, tapering off very quickly toward the edges of the sheet.
Given the natural exposure that will occur due to thermal radiation,
you might have to look closely in order to see the beam exposure
gradient superposed over the even layer of the thermal exposure.
And yes, I feel that there is no momentum between. Not only this, but
I feel that there is no momentum period, in an objective sense. It can
be transformed away, and thus cannot correspond to any real element in
nature. How then can it propagate? By imagination I suppose, which
would in fact be consistent, since it is only by imagination that
momentum exists.
Richard Perry
RP
Nevertheless, it follows directly from Special Realtivity and
Minkowski's formalism. Feynman was quite aware of this as well, which
was the motivation behind his abosrber model, which in my opinion was
an absolute failure, and perhaps also why it isn't discussed very
often.
Your conclusion is incorrect for two reasons:
1) The electron does not accellerate in response to waves that it
generates. Those waves are instead the result of the accelleration
that was already occuring, due in turn to the interaction of the
electron with incoming waves. Thus the electron cannot lose energy by
radiating. It is simply passing on what was just passed on to it. On
average the accelleration imposed on the electron cancels to zero.
After all, electromagnetic fields both attract and repel. In the
presense of a static field (or DC field if you will) this no longer
holds, which is what I just addressed in my reply to Freddi.
2) The average KE of the electrons is a function of the ambient
electrical temperature, and is regulated by thermal radiation,
providing a state called "thermal equilibrium," or when this doesn't
exist, there is a flow of energy from higher to lower in an attempt to
produce this state. When the KE of the electrons in mass A are lower
than those in mass B, then heat flows from the hotter to the colder, in
this case via thermal radiation, until equilibium occurs. The loss of
energy by one mass is always accompanied by a gain in energy of another
mass. Your conclusion on the other hand is premised upon the
dissapeance of energy from a closed system.
Richard Perry
hanson
oye-weh-Zion Glaser aka "G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net>
w/i news:4937-451...@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net...
Yiddishe version of the Wankel motor?... Or do you have even
greater engine marriages in mind, your Jewish kind, that
do neither spin nor rotate.... ahahahaha... ahahaha... like
when you posted your belief that == "I, -oye-weh- Zion-Glaser
do think all computers are Jewish, for they have Intel inside.
Apple computers are "kosher". Go figure Bert ==
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/184467b25852ceb4
You'll be creating and spreading even more Anti-Semitism
with your Xmas "lab top" then you do now, won't you... ahaha...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159627558.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Greg Hansen wrote:
...
>> > Why do I argue for non-local conservation of momentum
>> > then? Because the fields have no mass, and you cannot
>> > have momentum without mass. The
>>
>> Why would you think that you can't have momentum
>> without mass?
>>
>> Femtosecond lasers produce laser pulses with about the
>> shape of a pancake. The pulse is emitted at point A and
>> time t_A, then it spends some time travelling through a
>> vacuum, and then it creates effects on a target at point B
>> and time t_B. Where was the momentum between t_A
>> and t_B? Or do you argue that momentum is conserved
>> non-locally *and* eventually?
>
...
> And yes, I feel that there is no momentum between. Not
> only this, but I feel that there is no momentum period, in
> an objective sense. It can be transformed away, and thus
> cannot correspond to any real element in nature. How
> then can it propagate? By imagination I suppose, which
> would in fact be consistent, since it is only by
> imagination that momentum exists.
Lasers are used to manipulate latex balls, to move them about,
and perform "microsurgery". Lasers do impart momentum.
David A. Smith
RP
Of course they do, now use this to provide electromagnetic propulsion
of the source of the em radiation, when the source is isolated in empty
space. The problem is not whether momentum can be imparted to a mass
via retarded potentials, but whether the outgoing radiation interacts
with its source. If the device were energized within an ambient field
of correct polarization and phase, then the device will be
accellerated. When the ambient field is purely random flux, then don't
expect the device to get very far.
Note also that lasers is plural of laser. Which laser conveyed the
momentum, or did they transport the very same momentum in cooperation
with each other? Where was it located between?
Richard Perry
hanson
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
wrote in message news:AfxTg.1206$v43.578@fed1read02...
>
FrediFizzx wrote:
>>> > Why do I argue for non-local conservation of momentum
>>> > then? Because the fields have no mass, and you cannot
>>>
[Greg Hansen]
>>> Why would you think that you can't have momentum
>>> without mass?
>>> Femtosecond lasers produce laser pulses with about the
>>> shape of a pancake. The pulse is emitted at point A and
>>> time t_A, then it spends some time travelling through a
>>> vacuum, and then it creates effects on a target at point B
>>> and time t_B. Where was the momentum between t_A
>>> and t_B? Or do you argue that momentum is conserved
>>> non-locally *and* eventually?
>>
>> And yes, I feel that there is no momentum between. Not
>> only this, but I feel that there is no momentum period, in
>> an objective sense. It can be transformed away, and thus
>> cannot correspond to any real element in nature. How
>> then can it propagate? By imagination I suppose, which
>> would in fact be consistent, since it is only by
>> imagination that momentum exists.
>
... sheesh.. that's the confusion you get when you become
twisted in the strands of Einstein's Dingleberries or when
hammered by the uncertainty of QM-assters by too much
of their theories instead of experiment and observation...
>
[Smitty to Perry]
> Lasers are used to manipulate latex balls, to move them about, and perform
> "microsurgery". Lasers do impart momentum.
> David A. Smith
http://wardsci.com/product.asp?pn=IG0008978
Right, but why even go to lasers?.. There is that ancient,
classical experiment, sold as a toy, the glass bulb with a
rotating propeller in it, which demonstrates that light, photons,
EM waves, do have, carry and impart momentum onto mass,
across space, be it by momentum transfer of/and heating
the black side of the vanes that then indirectly heats the
gas molecules that give rise to gas convection effects
which in turn rotate the wheel, etc.... ahahaha....
hanson
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159636865.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
...
>> Lasers are used to manipulate latex balls, to move them about,
>> and perform "microsurgery". Lasers do impart momentum.
>
> Of course they do, now use this to provide electromagnetic
> propulsion of the source of the em radiation, when the source
> is
> isolated in empty space.
Pioneer 10.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:LZxTg.3592$Zj3.415@trnddc03...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
> wrote in message news:AfxTg.1206$v43.578@fed1read02...
...
> [Smitty to Perry]
>> Lasers are used to manipulate latex balls, to move them
>> about, and perform "microsurgery". Lasers do impart
>> momentum.
> [hanson]
> http://wardsci.com/product.asp?pn=IG0008978
> Right, but why even go to lasers?.. There is that ancient,
> classical experiment, sold as a toy, the glass bulb with a
> rotating propeller in it, which demonstrates that light,
> photons, EM waves, do have, carry and impart
> momentum onto mass, across space, be it by
> momentum transfer of/and heating the black side of the
> vanes that then indirectly heats the gas molecules that
> give rise to gas convection effects which in turn rotate
> the wheel, etc.... ahahaha....
Yes "radiometer" is the name of the toy.
I figured he'd say "I won't argue with energy transfer. Hot gas
only requires energy."
David A. Smith
RP
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> Dear RP:
>
> "RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159636865.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> ...
> >> Lasers are used to manipulate latex balls, to move them about,
> >> and perform "microsurgery". Lasers do impart momentum.
> >
> > Of course they do, now use this to provide electromagnetic
> > propulsion of the source of the em radiation, when the source
> > is
> > isolated in empty space.
>
> Pioneer 10.
>
> David A. Smith
Pure supposition. There are as many possible explanations of the
anomolous accelleration as there are effects in the universe.
Richard Perry
Sue...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
They have traction.
No traction===> No Go.
Newton's third law.
E = mc^2
http://www.bigotires.com/extranet/images/products/bigfoot-mt-cutout.jpg
Sue...
>
> David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159639696.3...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> Dear RP:
>>
>> "RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1159636865.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> ...
>> >> Lasers are used to manipulate latex balls, to move them
>> >> about,
>> >> and perform "microsurgery". Lasers do impart momentum.
>> >
>> > Of course they do, now use this to provide electromagnetic
>> > propulsion of the source of the em radiation, when the
>> > source
>> > is
>> > isolated in empty space.
>>
>> Pioneer 10.
>
> Pure supposition. There are as many possible explanations of
> the
> anomolous accelleration as there are effects in the universe.
Pure supposition. Between the thermal louvers in the main body
and the RTGs, there is sufficient thrust available to provide the
"anomalous" acceleration. And the number of "possible
explanations" is likely only limited by the number of crackpots
who like surprises. An increasing number admittedly, but never
as high as "effects in the universe".
So what you are saying, Richard, is that you don't believe that a
charged particle recoils when it absorbs then reemits a photon in
Compton scattering?
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1159640590.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Induced magnetic moment in the latex ball = traction.
> Newton's third law.
Ah! So the lasers are actually moving the Earth about! Way
cool. I thought I was feeling jerked around...
> E = mc^2
Que? With light? E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
David A. Smith
Sorcerer
The same is true for Smitty's lasers.
Androcles's third law:
For every photon there is an equal and opposite rephoton.
Androcles's first law:
Every body perseveres in its state of rotation, or of uniform motion in a
right circle, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces
impressed thereon.
Androcles' second law:
The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed;
and is made in the direction of the right spiral in which that force is
impressed.
Proof:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
RP
LOL. Let me try one more time: The electron does recoil due to the
influence of the ambient field in its vicinity. Interaction with the
ambient field causes the deflection. When an electron moves throuigh a
static magnetic field, the electron is deflected by that field, not by
any waves that the electron might emit in return. Those waves would
instead be the cause of the reaction force acting on the magnet.
The so-called incident photon is just a component of the ambient field
at the time of electron deflection that you have in mind. The recoil of
the electron is not due in any part to any waves that the electron
emits in response to its accelleration. That emitted wave is instead a
"result" of the electron's recoil, rather than the cause of it. That
reemitted wave superposes over the incident wave, partially cancelling
it with destructive interference when the electron gains energy in the
interaction, and partially amplifying it with constructive interference
when the electron loses energy in the interaction.
The communication problem here is the result of the fact that you are
considering static fields and radiation to be more or less disparate
phenomena, while I on the other hand see them as precisely the same,
the forces delayed in both instances. In special relativistic terms,
what an electron sees is the past state of the universe. The further
out we go, the further back in time we are seeing. That holds true for
the electron too. If you would just look at it this way, then you might
see that the electron is acting directly with those distant charges,
but not as they are now.
Your photons can exist only in the context of Galilean spacetime.
Richard Perry
Greg Hansen
> Greg Hansen wrote:
>
>>RP wrote:
>>
>>>FrediFizzx wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>Why do I argue for non-local conservation of momentum then? Because the
>>>fields have no mass, and you cannot have momentum without mass. The
>>
>>Why would you think that you can't have momentum without mass?
>>
>>Femtosecond lasers produce laser pulses with about the shape of a
>>pancake. The pulse is emitted at point A and time t_A, then it spends
>>some time travelling through a vacuum, and then it creates effects on a
>>target at point B and time t_B. Where was the momentum between t_A and
>>t_B? Or do you argue that momentum is conserved non-locally *and*
>>eventually?
>
>
> First, you're incorrect about the shape. See "Lasers: The Light
> Fantastic". The laser is just a higher frequency version of a
> directional radio frequncy signal. Perfect focus is impossible. The
> field off to either side of the apparent line of motion is not
> non-zero, though it falls off rather sharply, the gradient being
Knock it off. The purpose of that example wasn't to discuss Gaussian
models of laser beams, but to give an example of a field that is
isolated from source and target.
>
> And yes, I feel that there is no momentum between.
Why?
> Not only this, but
> I feel that there is no momentum period, in an objective sense. It can
> be transformed away,
How?
> and thus cannot correspond to any real element in
> nature.
It's as real as anything not currently impinging on a detector.
> How then can it propagate? By imagination I suppose, which
> would in fact be consistent, since it is only by imagination that
> momentum exists.
Um, maybe you covered this in earlier posts, I haven't been following.
But did you just say that there's no such thing as momentum?
FrediFizzx
> If we are to retain photons, then I think you've provided necessary
> corrections to photon theory. However, in the new form in which you
> have cast them, they become even more consistent with the pure field
> approach. With a few more refinements along those lines the two
> approaches will become perfectly equivalent to each other.
Sure. Photons are simply a "special excitation" of the field. As are
fermions only a different excitation. Perfectly consistent with
Volovik's views.
> Now let me
> address a statement that you made concerning the microscopic reality
of
> the magnet. As you know, like Purcell, I derive the magnetic field in
> terms of the relative motions of point charges. From this standpoint
> I'm well aware that the magnetic field is actually composed of a very
> large number of superposed fields. Especially in light of electron
> spin (circular motion) the electron is constantly emitting radiation.
> But again, this radiation is symetrically distributed, directionalily
> being a matter of superposiiton and constructive/destructive
> interference. We are thus back to the multi-element antenna argument,
> but on a smaller scale. But in the case of the magnet, we can say
that
> in any successive two instants, the "net" field corresponds to an
> entirely different set of electron fields. In other words the
> attractive force experienced by another magnet corresponds to the
> electron only when it is in the correct half of its orbital motion,
> i.e. moving parallel to the recieving electrons. Because of the
> cancellation effect of adjacent electron spins, the result is that the
> field tends to behave as though it originates only from the periphery
> of the magnet. Along the periphery we have the equilalent of a DC
> current flowing.
Yes, I think that is called the bound current. I am not sure what you
mean by "periphery". In a magnet, most of the electron spins are
aligned and pointing in the same direction. In this case, you do have
multi-element current loops.
Of course I don't think there would be photons of zero frequency. I
view it as a "static tilt" of the relativistic medium much like
polarization of a real matter medium. But I hardly think it would
really be static on a microscopic scale for any very small volume of the
field. But not completely sure about that.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159649692.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> Dear RP:
>>
>> "RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1159639696.3...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...
>> >> > Of course they do, now use this to provide
>> >> > electromagnetic
>> >> > propulsion of the source of the em radiation, when the
>> >> > source is isolated in empty space.
>> >>
>> >> Pioneer 10.
>> >
>> > Pure supposition. There are as many possible
>> > explanations of the anomolous accelleration as there are
>> > effects in the universe.
>>
>> Pure supposition. Between the thermal louvers in the
>> main body and the RTGs, there is sufficient thrust
>> available to provide the "anomalous" acceleration.
>> And the number of "possible explanations" is likely
>> only limited by the number of crackpots who like
>> surprises. An increasing number admittedly, but never
>> as high as "effects in the universe".
>>
>> So what you are saying, Richard, is that you don't
>> believe that a charged particle recoils when it absorbs
>> then reemits a photon in Compton scattering?
>
> LOL. Let me try one more time: The electron does
> recoil due to the influence of the ambient field in its
> vicinity. ...
...
> Your photons can exist only in the context of Galilean
> spacetime.
Photons as exchange particles exist and function without any
underlying spacetime at all. String virtual photons together,
and you have "a real" propagating photon.
The photoelectric effect hints at more than just "influence of
the ambient field".
You keep shying away from "discreteness"... why is that?
David A. Smith
RP
Greg Hansen wrote:
> RP wrote:
> > Greg Hansen wrote:
> >
> >>RP wrote:
> >>
> >>>FrediFizzx wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>>Why do I argue for non-local conservation of momentum then? Because the
> >>>fields have no mass, and you cannot have momentum without mass. The
> >>
> >>Why would you think that you can't have momentum without mass?
> >>
> >>Femtosecond lasers produce laser pulses with about the shape of a
> >>pancake. The pulse is emitted at point A and time t_A, then it spends
> >>some time travelling through a vacuum, and then it creates effects on a
> >>target at point B and time t_B. Where was the momentum between t_A and
> >>t_B? Or do you argue that momentum is conserved non-locally *and*
> >>eventually?
> >
> >
> > First, you're incorrect about the shape. See "Lasers: The Light
> > Fantastic". The laser is just a higher frequency version of a
> > directional radio frequncy signal. Perfect focus is impossible. The
> > field off to either side of the apparent line of motion is not
> > non-zero, though it falls off rather sharply, the gradient being
>
> Knock it off. The purpose of that example wasn't to discuss Gaussian
> models of laser beams, but to give an example of a field that is
> isolated from source and target.
Knock what off? Your description was entirely too simplistic to be
providing it in a discussion in which finer details of the events are
being discussed.
>
> >
> > And yes, I feel that there is no momentum between.
>
> Why?
Because em radiation is just a delayed interaction between charges. The
only thing between is spacetime.
>
> > Not only this, but
> > I feel that there is no momentum period, in an objective sense. It can
> > be transformed away,
>
> How?
Bullet moving to the right at 1200 meters per second. Bullet has a
mass of .1 kg.
Momentum of bullet is 120 kg m/s. Transform to frame of bullet. Bullet
has a velocity of 0m/s. Momentum is 0 kg m/s. Momentum has been
transformed away.
> > and thus cannot correspond to any real element in
> > nature.
>
> It's as real as anything not currently impinging on a detector.
"Currently" is probably the key word. Time is relative. For any
light-like delay that you observe, there exists a frame of reference in
which the delay is zero.
Wrt that frame, where is there room for a photon?
>
> > How then can it propagate? By imagination I suppose, which
> > would in fact be consistent, since it is only by imagination that
> > momentum exists.
>
> Um, maybe you covered this in earlier posts, I haven't been following.
> But did you just say that there's no such thing as momentum?
Not objectively. It's a mathematical artifice.
Richard Perry
RP
I have no idea how you derived that conclusion.
The photoelectric effect is one of my favorite subjects. I've explained
it countless times in terms of the probabilities of spherical waves
constructively interfering to recombine energy from various point
sources at various locations along the target surface. The energy that
the electron gains is the sum of much smaller quantites of energy
deriving from very many waves that superpose constructively in nodes
across the surface. An interference pattern exists along the surface in
any given instant with fringes that aren't bands, but rather have more
of an appearance of a holographic image (similar to the white noise
image on a blank TV screen). And by the way there is more than just an
anlogy between this pattern and the pattern in a holographic image. If
you'd like to discuss that topic we can have a go at it too.
The addition of a controlled source doesn't "cause" the ejection of
electrons, at least not by itself. It only increases the number of
ejections per unit time. There were already photoelectrons being
ejected before the controlled light source was even turned on.
All of the energy incident on the target from the controlled source
must inevitably find itself used up in the process of photoelectron
ejection, that is, if energy is to be conserved. The additional number
of ejected photoelectrons may or may not be equal the number of energy
transitions occuring in the source (corresponding to what you are
calling photons). It is only assumed that the "photons" and the
photelectrons ejected are equal in number. You can't count photons,
but you can count photoelectrons.
Richard Perry
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159672226.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
...
>> > Your photons can exist only in the context of Galilean
>> > spacetime.
>>
>> Photons as exchange particles exist and function without any
>> underlying spacetime at all. String virtual photons together,
>> and you have "a real" propagating photon.
>>
>> The photoelectric effect hints at more than just "influence of
>> the ambient field".
>>
>> You keep shying away from "discreteness"... why is that?
>
> I have no idea how you derived that conclusion.
Because you keep invoking answers involving "the field".
> The photoelectric effect is one of my favorite subjects.
> I've explained it countless times in terms of the
> probabilities of spherical waves constructively
> interfering to recombine energy from various point
> sources at various locations along the target surface.
> The energy that the electron gains is the sum of
> much smaller quantites of energy deriving from very
> many waves that superpose constructively in nodes
> across the surface.
Resonance, such as you describe, is disallowed by experiment.
Any intensity of light, without the right wavelength generates no
electrons. Well up until you heat the surface, and lower the
threshold...
> An interference pattern exists along the surface in
> any given instant with fringes that aren't bands, but
> rather have more of an appearance of a holographic
> image (similar to the white noise image on a blank
> TV screen). And by the way there is more than just
> an anlogy between this pattern and the pattern in a
> holographic image. If you'd like to discuss that
> topic we can have a go at it too.
No, that's OK. I've heard similar arguments to yours from a
couple of Russians. Their explanations are uncompelling, because
they keep resorting to all sorts of unphysical models.
> The addition of a controlled source doesn't "cause"
> the ejection of electrons, at least not by itself. It
> only increases the number of ejections per unit time.
No, the number of electrons ejected below threshold is described
entirely by natural background radiation. They simply turn off.
> There were already photoelectrons being ejected before
> the controlled light source was even turned on.
Not supported by experiment.
> All of the energy incident on the target from the
> controlled source must inevitably find itself used up
> in the process of photoelectron ejection, that is, if
> energy is to be conserved.
Compton scattering involves conservation of momentum, energy and
spin. But does not require ejection of an electron.
> The additional number of ejected photoelectrons may
> or may not be equal the number of energy transitions
> occuring in the source (corresponding to what you are
> calling photons). It is only assumed that the "photons"
> and the photelectrons ejected are equal in number.
... or proportional, since it is unlikely you get all of the
photons to end up only one place.
> You can't count photons, but you can count photoelectrons.
It takes two photons to convert a "pixel" on photographic film.
You can record gamma photons in chemical reactions. You can even
measure photons trapped in quantum wells, without absorbing them.
How sure are you that photons will never be counted?
David A. Smith
RP
How sure are you that the interpretation of the observed data actually
reflects the events?
I don't recall saying anything about resonance. Are you convinced that
a single wave isn't sufficient for the task? Suppose that the surface
is pumped, which you should, because it is.
Richard Perry
RP
Nevertheless, it is the current around the outside diameter that is
going to cause the magnet to stick to the fridge. As an experiment to
prove this, just get a disk shaped magnet, break it into pieces. glue
these back together leaving spaces between the pieces. The composite
magnet will now have a sticking power that has increased proportionaly
to the total length of the edges.
Each of the pieces has a current flowing around its edge of the same
density as before. Because the total outer edge surface is longer, the
length of the conductor<sic> is greater than it was before. If it is
twice as long, then you will get twice the force between it and the
fridge.
Magnets have always been a source of fascination for me. I attempted at
a young age to understand the mechanism, and read a ton of books on the
subject to that end. Then I read, and read and read some more, and
never could find such an explanation. And am still reading, and have
yet to find a satisfactory answer in any published literature. It was
for that reason, and that reason alone that I set out to solve the
problem of magnetism myself. The result of that head scratching is the
paper that I published to my web page that most of you have probably
scanned through once or twice. It isn't there anymore so don't bother
looking. It is essentially the same approach that Purcell takes, and
I think the only correct approach, namely just a superposition of many
E fields emanating from both the positive and negative charges in a
conductor, or ferrous material. Both types of charges are requried to
produce a B field. An electron beam directed into a circular path will
not produce a B field, which is why I said that the current around the
circumference of the magnet was composed of a counterflow of positive
and negative charge, but I digress.
Now take a look at the magnetic domains in a magnetic crystal. The
current flowing at one point along the outer edge of any given magnetic
domain is opposed by a counterflowing current along the adjacent edge
of its neighboring domain. The magnetic field emanating from this
region is thus null. The only place where such a nulling effect
doesn't take place is along the outer edge of the magnet proper. It is
electron and positron spin that causes the field, but only if you care
to regard spin as synonymous with an orbit around some point. A
spinning charged sphere, I'm sorry, will not produce a magnetic field.
Richard Perry
Greg Hansen
> FrediFizzx wrote:
> Magnets have always been a source of fascination for me. I attempted at
> a young age to understand the mechanism, and read a ton of books on the
> subject to that end. Then I read, and read and read some more, and
> never could find such an explanation. And am still reading, and have
> yet to find a satisfactory answer in any published literature. It was
What are the criteria of a satisfactory explanation?
Sorcerer
"Greg Hansen" <glha...@tcq.net> wrote in message
news:efog9...@enews3.newsguy.com...
1) Don't interrupt, it's rude.
2) Magnetism should be explained to the level of explaining a rainbow
in terms of internal reflection and refraction of raindrops - if you can.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159673522.1...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> Dear RP:
>>
>> "RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1159672226.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
...
>> >> > Your photons can exist only in the context of Galilean
>> >> > spacetime.
...
>> > The photoelectric effect is one of my favorite subjects.
>> > I've explained it countless times in terms of the
>> > probabilities of spherical waves constructively
>> > interfering to recombine energy from various point
>> > sources at various locations along the target surface.
>> > The energy that the electron gains is the sum of
>> > much smaller quantites of energy deriving from very
>> > many waves that superpose constructively in nodes
>> > across the surface.
>> Resonance, such as you describe, is disallowed by
>> experiment. Any intensity of light, without the right
>> wavelength generates no electrons. Well up until you
>> heat the surface, and lower the threshold...
...
>> > An interference pattern exists along the surface in
>> > any given instant with fringes that aren't bands, but
>> > rather have more of an appearance of a holographic
>> > image (similar to the white noise image on a blank
>> > TV screen). And by the way there is more than just
>> > an anlogy between this pattern and the pattern in a
>> > holographic image. If you'd like to discuss that
>> > topic we can have a go at it too.
...
>> > The addition of a controlled source doesn't "cause"
>> > the ejection of electrons, at least not by itself. It
>> > only increases the number of ejections per unit time.
...
>> > All of the energy incident on the target from the
>> > controlled source must inevitably find itself used up
>> > in the process of photoelectron ejection, that is, if
>> > energy is to be conserved.
...
>> > The additional number of ejected photoelectrons may
>> > or may not be equal the number of energy transitions
>> > occuring in the source (corresponding to what you are
>> > calling photons). It is only assumed that the "photons"
>> > and the photelectrons ejected are equal in number.
...
>> > You can't count photons, but you can count photoelectrons.
>>
>> It takes two photons to convert a "pixel" on photographic
>> film.
>> You can record gamma photons in chemical reactions. You can
>> even
>> measure photons trapped in quantum wells, without absorbing
>> them.
>> How sure are you that photons will never be counted?
Since you ignored every point I made, and every question I asked
except the last, I just snipped them out.
> How sure are you that the interpretation of the observed
> data actually reflects the events?
I am really sure:
1) that I have no access to Reality, only measurement, and
2) that no amount of "constructive interference" can liberate
photoelectrons, if the light is of insufficient
energy-to-threshold.
> I don't recall saying anything about resonance.
"all energy incident used up in ejecting an electron"
"energy concentrated by diffuse nodes, at the confluence of
spherical waves"
... aka. resonance. Just because you walk around the thing, and
point at the various features of the thing, doesn't mean you
aren't naming the thing.
> Are you convinced that a single wave isn't
> sufficient for the task? Suppose that the surface
> is pumped, which you should, because it is.
I'm really OK with *wavelette*, yes. Because light is neither
wave nor particle, both being macroscopic (aka. wrong) models of
discrete behaviors.
As to "pumped", you can embed a conductor in a supercold Faraday
cage, and still get photoemission. "Pumped" is just noise... not
signal. Don't let it distract you.
David A. Smith
RP
You can also embed a conductor in a supercold Faraday cage and get
photoemission with no apparent source of light impinging on it. At a
lower temperature the conductor will simply be less pumped, i.e. lower
probability of correctly phased nodes, and thus lower probability for
photoelectron emission. Cooleth doesn't exist.
It's just stimulated evaporation occurring, no?
If you bombard the the surface of an open container of water with sound
waves of various frequencies, then I believe you would witness a very
good analogy to photoelectron emission. The energy required for an H2O
molecule to escape the surface can be considered to be the work
function of the fluid (water in this case) The incoming sound waves
are anolougously the added controlled impetus for extra evaporation.
Let me know how that turns out.
Richard Perry
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159733989....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
...
>> > Are you convinced that a single wave isn't
>> > sufficient for the task? Suppose that the surface
>> > is pumped, which you should, because it is.
>>
>> I'm really OK with *wavelette*, yes. Because light
>> is neither wave nor particle, both being macroscopic
>> (aka. wrong) models of discrete behaviors.
>>
>> As to "pumped", you can embed a conductor in a
>> supercold Faraday cage, and still get
>> photoemission. "Pumped" is just noise... not
>> signal. Don't let it distract you.
>
> You can also embed a conductor in a supercold
> Faraday cage and get photoemission with no
> apparent source of light impinging on it.
Not unless you have thermionic emission (the surface itself is
hot), you have exceeded the cornoa inception voltage, or you are
counting turning your photoemission apparatus into a
Geiger-Mueller tube.
> At a lower temperature the conductor will simply
> be less pumped, i.e. lower probability of correctly
> phased nodes, and thus lower probability for
> photoelectron emission. Cooleth doesn't exist.
>
> It's just stimulated evaporation occurring, no?
I'd say no.
> If you bombard the the surface of an open
> container of water with sound waves of various
> frequencies, then I believe you would witness a very
> good analogy to photoelectron emission.
Resonance. No, because if I increase the frequency, the
"droplette emission" stops... until I hit another resonance mode.
> The energy required for an H2O molecule
... droplette ..
> to escape the surface can be considered to be
> the work function of the fluid (water in this case)
Are you talking about evaporation now? You need partial
pressures for that.
> The incoming sound waves are anolougously the
> added controlled impetus for extra evaporation.
> Let me know how that turns out.
It doesn't. Nice try though.
David A. Smith
Timo Nieminen
> From the pure field approach, given a directional antenna consisting of
> a phased dipole array, each dipole element radiates omnidirectionally.
> Thus no force can be exerted on any of these elements by their own
> outgoing radiation, since the radiation is emitted symmetrically from
> each.
Sure. Just find the force exerted on each element by all of the other
elements.
> By the time that these symmetrical fields superpose
> constructively and destructively off of the ends of the antenna, the
> radiation has already been emitted by each element at some time in the
> past. End of story. There is no way for the constructive interference
> to reach back in time and push the elements backward. Thus the momentum
> of the outgoing radiation, if it can be said to have momentum, must
> exist only in the nodes of constructive interference,
Seems reasonable.
> and be
> transferred instantly from behind the antenna to the front of the
> antenna, independently of the magnitude of the radius of the expanding
> spherical wave fronts. This is of course exactly the sort of non-local
> conservation that I spoke of.
No, not at all. Why do you think that the momentum needs to go from one
side of the antenna to the other? Consider the case where you have a
single dipole antenna radiating. Put another dipole antenna 1/4 wavelength
away, and turn it on, with 1/4 cycle phase lag relative to the original
antenna. This gives you a directional field, but not instantly - the
radiation field from the 2nd antenna has to spread out before you get the
asymmetric distribution of momentum in the far field. Why do you say
instant?
Just keep track of the energy density and Poynting vector, and you can
track where the energy is and how it moves. Because you're moving energy
around, you have momentum.
OK, if you think about each antenna emitting photons symmetrically that
somehow interfere with each other, one would need to instantly move
momentum. But the photons are just quanta of excitation of the field, to
which both antennas contribute, not particles in the classical sense. One
can say that, when both antennas are transmitting, each photon comes from
both antennas.
> I would only add to this, that the
> momentum at that point is still really only virtual, being only a
> prediction of the momentum that the wave might impart to another mass
> (detector). If this wave can impart momentum, then the three options
> for balancing the equation are:
>
> 1) The antenna as a whole recoils under the force of the outgoing
> radiation, which of course according to the statements above, would
> require the force to be secondary radiation, or IOW incoming radiation
> emitted by the dipoles' neighbors, phased such that there is a net
> force exerted on any one element by radiation emitted by the other
> elements. *A note on a consequence of adopting this view later.
This is the Maxwellian prediction.
[cut]
> Now for the note about possibility 1: If the dipoles can be phased such
> as to bootstrap the whole, then we could theoretically phase a series
> of electromagnets according to the same algorithm providing a net force
> on the assembly that would be orders of magnitude greater than the
> force on the antenna. I've tried to derive such a system many times,
> and as far as I know it isn't possible. The forces always cancel.
You mean by using the near field? Think about the 2 dipoles 1/4 wavelength
apart. 1/4 cycle out of phase. It's directional because of the phase lag
due to propagation from one antenna towards the other. You can't do the
same thing with the near field, which is basically what your electromagnet
example would be. You could use the radiation field from the
electromagnets, since they're basically just circular loop magnetic dipole
antennas. Better drive them at a high frequency, else 1/4 wavelength will
be a long way away.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
RP
I agree with the last statment. However, you wouldn't need a tremendous
separation in order to measure an effect, especially if you could
arrange for it to accumulate. For instance, a set of electromagnets
arranged along the edge of circular disk, with the disk suspended by a
fine thread, and the power source located at the center of the disk. By
phasing the currents you should be able to produce a net angular
velocity of the disk, with no apparent angular momentum generated in
order to balance the equation. You're suggestion, is the the radiation
emitted by the system will carry away that compimentary angular
momentum. The only problem, is that there will be no angular momentum
to carry away. When a current is generated in a conductor that is
located within an ambient magnetic field, the impedance is greater. Any
energy supplied in the form of KE of the wire or magnet, is supplied by
the power source. This is energy required in addition to the energy
required to overcome the resistance of the wire in field free space.
Thus if a rotation of the system occurs, all of that energy will have
been supplied by the power source, and all of that will have been
dellivered to the system in the form of KE. There will thus be no
energy left over for this supposed outgoing radiation.
Feynman ran into the same problem with his absorber theory. In the
context of inertial reaction force, the inertia of an accellerated mass
was explained as half due to an advanced graviational wave, and half
due to a retarded gravitational wave. The total reaction force was then
due to the sum of these two waves. The problem is that all of the
energy input into accellerating the mass is converted directly into the
KE of the mass. There is thus an outgoing wave (energy) that seems to
be entirely free of charge, arising out of thin air. In other words
there is no reaction force to account for.
Try sleeping on that before answering.
Richard Perry
Timo Nieminen
> For instance, a set of electromagnets
> arranged along the edge of circular disk, with the disk suspended by a
> fine thread, and the power source located at the center of the disk. By
> phasing the currents you should be able to produce a net angular
> velocity of the disk, with no apparent angular momentum generated in
> order to balance the equation. You're suggestion, is the the radiation
> emitted by the system will carry away that compimentary angular
> momentum.
It's been done:
F. S. Chute
"The reaction torque on an axial multipole radiator"
IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 15, 585-587 (1967)
> The only problem, is that there will be no angular momentum
> to carry away. When a current is generated in a conductor that is
> located within an ambient magnetic field, the impedance is greater. Any
> energy supplied in the form of KE of the wire or magnet, is supplied by
> the power source. This is energy required in addition to the energy
> required to overcome the resistance of the wire in field free space.
> Thus if a rotation of the system occurs, all of that energy will have
> been supplied by the power source, and all of that will have been
> dellivered to the system in the form of KE. There will thus be no
> energy left over for this supposed outgoing radiation.
You think an electromagnet driven by an AC source doesn't radiate?
Note that to get any effect, you need to drive them with AC, otherwise
you'll have no phase lag from one to the next - it's this phase lag that
stops the forces from being perfectly symmetric.
Magic words: "radiation resistance"
> Feynman ran into the same problem with his absorber theory. In the
> context of inertial reaction force, the inertia of an accellerated mass
> was explained as half due to an advanced graviational wave, and half
> due to a retarded gravitational wave. The total reaction force was then
> due to the sum of these two waves. The problem is that all of the
> energy input into accellerating the mass is converted directly into the
> KE of the mass. There is thus an outgoing wave (energy) that seems to
> be entirely free of charge, arising out of thin air. In other words
> there is no reaction force to account for.
Which is quite another matter entirely, as we already know gravity doesn't
behave the same as electromagnetism. I'm not familiar with this particular
case. In classical electrodynamics, you don't have that problem - if the
accelerated charge radiates, you need to provide energy for that
radiation. Again, radiation resistance in an antenna.
RP
Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2006, RP wrote:
>
> > For instance, a set of electromagnets
> > arranged along the edge of circular disk, with the disk suspended by a
> > fine thread, and the power source located at the center of the disk. By
> > phasing the currents you should be able to produce a net angular
> > velocity of the disk, with no apparent angular momentum generated in
> > order to balance the equation. You're suggestion, is the the radiation
> > emitted by the system will carry away that compimentary angular
> > momentum.
>
> It's been done:
>
> F. S. Chute
> "The reaction torque on an axial multipole radiator"
> IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 15, 585-587 (1967)
Yes, as you mentioned here:
| As far as I know, nobody has bothered to do any experiments in a
| vacuum - for most purposes, one linear isotropic medium is as good as
| another. There have been experiments done in air. Most of our own
| experiments have been done in water or kerosene (the beam spends most
| of its time travelling through air, but the actual final detection of
| the OAM is in the optical trap, in which the sample is usually in
| water). The theory for vacuum or some other linear isotropic medium
is
| identical (but see below), so this evidence is genrally considered to
| be "good enough" evidence that it all works in vacuum, too. Certainly
| the effect is not due to any non-linear property of the media.
I'm assuming free space in my arguments. And a distance between the
source and nearest matter greater than r when the time interval in
which the effect is obsevered is r/c. A vacuum chamber won't even do in
that case unless the frequency is very high, and the measurement made
within a femtosecond or so. Thus the experiment has "not" been done.
Let me add a bit more to the story. According to absorber theory, this
lost angular momentum (radiation) is a reaction to the matter in the
far reaches of the universe. And of course, as I noted elsewhere,
momentum is meaningless without reference to that matter (Mach).
However this would require a recoil of that matter as well, and
supposing the momentum to eventually be transfered to it, this would
result in a net angular velocity of the out edge of the universe. But
what would it be rotating wrt to? The source right? But according to
the source, the distant matter serves as a fixed frame, and thus from a
local standpoint, the angular momentum simply isn't exchanged. It is
required then, that the exchange must occur with local matter instead,
which of course has been provided in the experiments that you
referenced in that older thread. There is coupling to local matter.
The more I think about the problems involved with the time delay, the
more unreasonable the universe seems. I'm going to stop at this point
in the argument to do some more research on absorber theory and
comments made about it, alternate solutions, etc. Those that I've read
all seem unsatisfactory to me for one reason or another. Maybe I'll end
up seeing the value in the photon approach as a result, who knows. :)
Richard Perry
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Make me one with everything!
Has said one to the hot dog vendor!
-- Anonymous
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159870919....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...