[Physics] EM waves

Sun Dec 3 05:18:01 CET 2017

Dear Randy,

Yes! We are also thinking the same way that resonance frequency of gravity
should be related to spin of proton, but we are not finding the appropriate
way to approach this problem. While working with Ruud Loeffen(a member of
this group)over last months, we have got equations through which it should
be possible to model the solar system as an hydrogen atom which will have
its own equivalent of Fine Structure Constant ( different in value from
fine structure constant of hydrogen atom)  and a Probability Wave Function
of Solar Electron as well, similiar to Atomic Electron. But the paper that
we are writing on this is still not in a demonstrable form. Once it is
ready, we will share with "Task Force Gravitation" and "Physics List".

You must be aware that  a Bohr Atom can also be modelled as LC Resonance
Circuit.( Refer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_LC_circuit). So why
can't the solar atom be modelled likewise. You may also be aware of recent
technologies being developed for wireless power transmission using
magnetically coupled circuits, which could be related. That is why I was
thinking that possibly we could get the clue by studying chlorophyl, as we
are yet to conclude the value of thar resonance frequency for gravity and
about explaination of its physical significance.

For average wavelength of graviton decreasing with time, I do not endorse
this view. However that difference in opinion/view is not of much
importance , since it is regarding distant past, and I am more interested
in present.

Regards,

Tufail Abbas

On 2 Dec 2017 3:30 pm, "Randy O. Wayne" <row1 at cornell.edu> wrote:

Dear Tufail,

You have an interesting idea that there could be some kind of resonance
frequency for gravity. I suppose that it would relate primarily to the
resonance frequency of the spin of the proton…but I don’t know. Taking the
expansion of the universe into consideration, the average wavelength of the
gravitons may have decreased since the beginning of the universe (just as
the average wavelength of the black body radiation has decreased) so that
the force of gravity may have changed over time (just as the counterforce
that causes resistance to the movement of the galaxies etc. may have
decreased over time (http://labs.plantbio.cornell.edu/wayne/pdfs/radiation%
20friction.pdf)

I only wrote a chapter for the Handbook of Photosynthesis so I do not have
the whole book. You can see some of it on Google Books.

https://books.google.com/books?id=5k3OCwAAQBAJ&pg=
PA785&lpg=PA785&dq=handbook+of+photosynthesis+third+edition&source=bl&ots=
RdQvmlzamS&sig=SGflDTknOpTKL8tpD3J7TbhrRSo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=
0ahUKEwi69u6pnOvXAhUB2iYKHXVoDP8Q6AEIUzAI#v=onepage&q=handbook%20of%
20photosynthesis%20third%20edition&f=false

Thanks for your interesting ideas,

randy

*From:* Physics [mailto:physics-bounces at tuks.nl] *On Behalf Of *Tufail Abbas
*Sent:* Saturday, December 2, 2017 12:59 AM

*To:* General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list <
physics at tuks.nl>
*Subject:* Re: [Physics] EM waves

Dear Randy,

I had read your paper that you previously shared about gravitons, where you
have discussed that gravitons(if we want to give a name) should be of large
wavelength, and gravity should be an outcome of Compton like Scattering,
reciprocal shielding and a characteristic radius at which gravity should
work. And I agree with those, although we don't have the actual value of
wavelength and radius.

I think, if there is some particular wavelength/frequency is involved for
gravity then the *selection* of that frequency for energy exchange/flow
should be happening through some kind of *resonance*. For example, possibly
in our system there should be a central frequency around which frequencies
of planets are distributed just like *bandwidth* of resonance circuits.

Resonance is also happening *naturally* in chlorophyl. Hence from the
perspective of biologist, would a better understanding of chlorophyl lead
to better understanding of Gravity and how?

It seems that for photons you have shared one  chapter of a book titled
"Handbook of Chlorophyll" . I am interested in Full Handbook,

Regards,

Tufail Abbas

On 1 Dec 2017 11:57 pm, "Randy O. Wayne" <row1 at cornell.edu> wrote:

Dear Tufail,

What I have to say to answer your questions depends on my model of the
photon. You may or may not accept it.

I think that the photons created as the beginning of the universe have very
very long wavelengths—and actually act as gravitons:

http://labs.plantbio.cornell.edu/wayne/pdfs/gravitons.pdf

About photons in general:

If the emitter (creator of the photon) does has a charge, and I am assuming
that charges do exist, then the E and B fields should be out of phase. In
my model of the photon, the photon is neutral, although the neutrality
comes from the sum of equal and opposite charges—yes my photon is not an
elementary particle but a composite where the two particles are
complementary in terms of charge, parity and mass (as opposed to time). In
this photon, the E and B fields remain a quadrature out of phase. See my
model of the photon here: http://labs.plantbio.cornell.
edu/wayne/pdfs/whatisaphoton.pdf

*From:* Physics [mailto:physics-bounces at tuks.nl] *On Behalf Of *Tufail Abbas
*Sent:* Friday, December 1, 2017 2:39 PM

*To:* General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list <
physics at tuks.nl>
*Subject:* Re: [Physics] EM waves

Dear Randy,

>>>>>Maxwell made a simplification that makes no sense to take seriously in
terms of mechanism.

Saying that Maxwell"s simplification makes no sense is ok. But saying that
it should not be taken seriously sound a bit unreasonable. Possibly (div
E=0) carry some special meaning in physical context and not absence of
source.

Every wave has a time period T. What would be the nature and properties of
wave with a time period equal to the Age of the Universe?

Actually there are many issues about Electricity and Magnetism, which still
makes limited sense, particularly the unit of Electrical Charge itself.

We have never directly detected the charge except by measuring the
force(which can easily be expressed in terms of kg, meter and second)
between current carrying conductors. So why do we have a new unit of charge
called Coulumb. Is it only because, in early nineties, square root of mass
and square root of length made no sense? Or possibly it was difficult
assign a physical meaning to square of a second?

We have accepted that time as a physical parameter is same like space, so
we call it space-time? Therefore, if square of a length means area, then
why can't square of a second have similar meaning? I am really interested
to know that why it does not makes sense , if so?

Regards,

Tufail Abbas.

On 1 Dec 2017 8:01 pm, "Randy O. Wayne" <row1 at cornell.edu> wrote:

Dear Art,
The E and B are only in phase when there is no source of the wave (div E =
0). Because there is always a source of the waves div E > 0 (as you see in
antennas). Maxwell made a simplification that makes no sense to take
seriously in terms of mechanism.
I ended my class today with two quote from Maxwell:
I hope that I have fulfilled James Clerk Maxwell's goal as a teacher. He
wrote, "In this class, I hope you will learn not merely results, or
formulae applicable to cases that may possibly occur in our practice
afterwards, but the principles on which those formulae depend, and without
which the formulae are mere mental rubbish. I know the tendency of the
human mind is to do anything rather than think. But mental labour is not
thought, and those who have with labour acquired the habit of application
often find it much easier to get up a formula than to master a principle."
And
Maxwell also wrote, "My duty is to give you the requisite foundation and to
allow your thoughts to arrange themselves freely. It is best that every man
should be settled in his own mind, and not be led into other men's ways of
thinking under the pretence of studying science. By a careful and diligent
study of natural laws I trust that we shall at least escape the dangers of
vague and desultory modes of thought and acquire a habit of healthy and
vigorous thinking which will enable us to recognise error in all the
popular forms in which it appears and to seize and hold fast truth whether
it be old or new."
Thanks,
Randy

Randy Wayne,
Providing a Second Opinion on Scientific Issues Since 1982

http://labs.plantbio.cornell.edu/wayne/

-----Original Message-----
From: Physics [mailto:physics-bounces at tuks.nl] On Behalf Of Hans van Leunen
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 10:06 AM
To: General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list <physics at tuks.nl>
Subject: Re: [Physics] EM waves

This only happens in conditions in which the total change of the underlying
field equals zero. It is a general feature of all basic fields. See The
Mother of all Field Equations. http://vixra.org/abs/1709.0324 Greetings,
Hans
>----Origineel Bericht----
>Van : art at funkhouser.ch
>Datum : 01/12/2017 15:49
>Aan : physics at tuks.nl
>Onderwerp : [Physics] EM waves
>
>Hi,
>
>When I first learned about E and B fields, I was told that the E field
>is at its maximum when the B field is changing the most rapidly.
>
>And the same for the B field.
>
>This would imply that the E and B vectors in a plane polarized EM wave
>would be shifted 90° in phase.
>
>Maxwell's equations, though, predict that they would be in phase (i.e.,
>no phase shift).
>
>If the energy of an EM wave is proportional to E^2 (also to B^2), then
>it (the energy) would be pulsed (if they are in phase).
>
>Apparently EM waves start out from an antenna with a 90° phase shift
>(near field) and are later in phase (far field).
>
>As the EM wave proceeds from the near field to the far field, the E
>vector and the B vector must slowly shift phase in order to end up
>being in phase.
>
>At some time this must have been experimentally verified.
>
>Can someone point me to the paper (maybe even in the 1800s) where this
>was shown to be true?
>
>Or later replication(s)?
>
>Thank you.
>
>Best,
>
>Art Funkhouser, Bern, Switzerland
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Physics mailing list
>Physics at tuks.nl
>http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>

_______________________________________________
Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics

----IF CLASSIFICATION START----

----IF CLASSIFICATION END----

_______________________________________________
Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics

_______________________________________________
Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics

_______________________________________________
Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20171203/536722b2/attachment.html>