[SI-LIST] Re: Circle bus topology; Circular Firing Squad?
- From: olaney@xxxxxxxx
- To: erdinih@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 14:24:53 -0700
Ihsan:
Your reply is even more flawed than the previous one. You are still
waving your arms about QED. I?m not designing circuits small enough for
that to matter, and I doubt you are. They don?t make soldering irons
small enough. To QED or not QED is not the question. The phenomena
under discussion are described by Maxwell?s equations to the complete
satisfaction of SI needs. OK, perhaps our fields and waves are
statistical aggregates, or maybe they are the creation of Electromagnetic
Pixies, as suggested by one observer. So what? When I asked for the
relevance of QED to our discussion, you dodged by citing your personal
reasons for including it ? but not the connection to waves on
transmission lines!
Photoelectric effect? You replied ?The relevance of photoelectric
effect... This is just to give a historical background to the fact that
EM energy is made up of photons and that photoelectric effect is the
first proof of this fact.? Same dodge, same irrelevance. Any SI
engineers out there working in the GHz range using photons as a unit of
measure? Raise your hands. How about photoelectric effect from GHz
photons? Raise your hands. Ihsan, in our discipline, fields and waves
described by Maxwell?s equations are the only necessary tool. Nowhere in
my bookshelf of EM texts is anything else ever invoked for TL theory.
These side issues should be dropped. In the interest of progress, I
explicitly pointed to the fundamental issues. There were two ? the
physical issue, and the related issue of the math used to describe it.
To refresh your memory, I repeat them below.
?To contribute to this discussion, you need to speak to the kernel of the
controversy. First, the physics. We started with two identical waves
meeting from opposite directions on a uniform transmission line, but as
soon as a variant in one wave was proposed as an identity tag, the
fallback position was that the *difference* would continue around the
loop, but that you still couldn't tell whether the identical portions
rebounded or not. When asked why there should be any difference between
the two cases, the response was more along the lines of "you still get
the right answer", and to my ears, seemed mumbled.
That leads us to the related mathematical issue. We all agree that which
model you use is mox nix in terms of mathematical results. The "you
still get the right answer" argument fails to address the point that, if
the waveforms can be explained completely and more simply by linear
superposition, why distinguish two modes of interaction when one will do?
Not only is that an unnecessary complication, but insistence on the
rebound/collision model, even if only for the special case of identical
waves, suggests that the goal is to protect that viewpoint by arranging
all else to fit it, and complication be damned. Mox nix!?
So I ask you again, point blank, to address the issues in these two
paragraphs. Your last reply said, ?I think in an earlier posting I made
myself very clear that this is a matter of perception and modeling. For
an unbiased observer it doesn't matter whether the waves are bouncing or
passing through each other. I've seen some very good postings that
phrase this better than I did and need to add no more.? Some of those
postings were mine, Ihsan. Yes, the results are the same, but you did
not address the questions. Paragraph one: why should there be any
difference between the two cases? Paragraph two: in the math, why
distinguish two modes of interaction when one will do? The answers
should matter to an unbiased observer. What are your answers?
People from Alaska to Australia are listening in. The entire list awaits
your reply.
Orin
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 06:08:48 -0400 "Ihsan Erdin" <erdinih@xxxxxxxxx>
writes:
> Orin,
>
> My answers follow in-line.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ihsan
>
>
> On 8/2/07, olaney@xxxxxxxx <olaney@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> > Ihsan:
> >
> > Yours was a disappointing answer. The use of the term "action at
> a
> > distance" was a specific reference to a quote in a previous email.
> For the
> > *3rd* time: "As discussed in Lesson 2, some forces result from
> contact
> > interactions (normal, frictional, tensional, and applied forces
> are examples
> > of contact forces) and other forces are the result of
> action-at-a-distance
> > interactions (gravitational, electrical, and magnetic forces)."
> >
> http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/newtlaws/u2l4a.html
> > If you read the previous emails containing this, did you forget
> or not
> > understand them? There is no point in trying to have a discussion
> if your
> > only memory is the last email. Suffice to say, those who cling to
> a
> > collision (contact interaction) model are using the wrong
> paradigm. Yet,
> > there are respondents who keep speaking of electrons colliding
> (which due to
> > repulsion cannot happen at ordinary energies), and yes, even of
> billiard
> > balls smacking into each other.
>
> All I'm trying to tell is that action at a distance is one of the
> fundamental principles of classical physics that gave birth to
> Maxwell's equations in the 19th century. It is doing an excellent
> job
> for our macro world but fails to explain some bizarre phenomena in
> the
> micro cosmos. Modern physics helps here by bringing a new
> interpretation to the field theory (or action at a distance as you
> prefer to call it) with its "standard model." Everything: weak
> force,
> strong force, gravity and EM force are explained by particles. When
> you talk about electrons in the micro cosmos I was surprised to see
> you can also make reference to the action at a distance with the EM
> fields in mind. I'm sorry but this mix-and-match will not work in the
> quantum world. If Maxwell's equations were successful in the
> subatomic
> region there would be no need for QED.
>
> >
> > Second, your brief tour of 20th century physics is not a line of
> reasoning.
> > You make several statements that amount to proof by assertion,
> which is
> > really just a polite way of having a back and forth "Is too! - Is
> not!"
> > argument. The photoelectric effect lacks relevance here, but if
> it does,
> > explain it.
>
> The relevance of photoelectric effect... This is just to give a
> historical background to the fact that EM energy is made up of
> photons
> and that photoelectric effect is the first proof of this fact. In
> the
> last two years of my subscription to this list I don't remember EM
> energy has ever been mentioned in terms of its particle nature.
> Considering the broad audience spectrum of this list, I think citing
> a
> reference to dig deeper is a justifiable attempt to some suspicious
> minds.
>
> It is not necessary to invoke QED to understand the phenomena
> > under discussion, but if it is, explain it.
>
> It was originally asked whether the wave-particle duality helps to
> resolve the issue here. Answering this question without mentioning
> QED
> is like solving the wave propagation on a transmission line without
> referring to Maxwell's eq.s.
>
>
> Do (you) really believe that the EM
> > fields that we are dealing with on a transmission line require
> invoking a
> > particle nature? Or that photons don't pass through each other
> > effortlessly?
>
> Probably not. But I didn't jump in waving the QED flag right from
> the
> start. Indeed, I had no intention of even mentioning it until the
> wave-particle duality was raised and your explanations came in. I
> simply raised my objections to some of your ideas and tried to
> explain
> the problem as far as the particle nature of the EM force is
> concerned.
>
> I see your rhetorical arms waving in the general direction of
> > physics beyond what is relevant or needed to competently deal with
> the waves
> > under discussion. This is mere obfuscation.
>
> Let me rephrase what I said before: interference is not a well
> understood phenomenon in the micro cosmos and using the particle
> nature of the EM force wouldn't take us anywhere further than the EM
> field theory would do. Is this statement clear enough to dispel the
> confusion here?
>
> >
> > To contribute to this discussion, you need to speak to the kernel
> of the
> > controversy. First, the physics. We started with two identical
> waves
> > meeting from opposite directions on a uniform transmission line,
> but as soon
> > as a variant in one wave was proposed as an identity tag, the
> fallback
> > position was that the *difference* would continue around the loop,
> but that
> > you still couldn't tell whether the identical portions rebounded
> or not.
> > When asked why there should be any difference between the two
> cases, the
> > response was more along the lines of "you still get the right
> answer", and
> > to my ears, seemed mumbled.
>
> I think in an earlier posting I made myself very clear that this is
> a
> matter of perception and modeling. For an unbiased observer it
> doesn't
> matter whether the waves are bouncing or passing through each other.
> I've seen some very good postings that phrase this better than I did
> and need to add no more.
>
>
> > Orin
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 08:09:35 -0400 "Ihsan Erdin"
> <erdinih@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > Good summary, Orin. But the term "action at a distance" or
> > > mathematically " the field concept" is more of a macroscopic
> > > property
> > > that could be better explained at the subatomic level with the
> > > quantization of matter and energy.
> > > At the turn of the 20th century, it was understood that energy
> is
> > > quantized just like matter is made up of atoms. With his seminal
> > > paper
> > > on photoelectric effect, Einstein showed light (electromagnetic
> > > energy) is made up of particles called photons. Quantum
> > > electrodynamics (QED) which was pioneered by R. Feynman deals
> with
> > > photon-matter interaction and attempts to resolve the
> wave-particle
> > > duality by considering the particle nature of the
> electromagnetic
> > > energy rather than its wave nature which we are all used to as
> > > electrical engineers. QED successfully accounts for reflection,
> > > refraction and photoelectric effect but falls short of
> explaining
> > > other EM effects like interference, polarization and diffraction
> > > which
> > > are successfully accounted by the wave nature of the light.
> Quite
> > > interestingly, wave theory can't explain the photoelectric
> effect...
> > > Since the issue we're discussing here seems more in the domain
> of
> > > interference, I don't think treating the EM energy with its
> particle
> > > nature will help us resolve whether the photons are bouncing
> like
> > > Arpad's billiard balls or passing through. Having mentioned that
> > > example, later on a personal correspondence, Arpad corrected me
> for
> > > the conservation of kinetic energy and momentum in an elastic
> > > collision. So, yes his example would be the perfect case for the
> > > interaction of two particles where you can't tell whether they
> hit
> > > each other or pass through due to the symmetry.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Ihsan
> > >
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from si-list:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
For help:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
List technical documents are available at:
http://www.si-list.net
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
or at our remote archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
Other related posts:
