On the Lighter Side > New Theories

polarisation of electromagnetic wave and light for rude people

<< < (4/7) > >>

lyner:

--- Quote ---Again you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of the physics. There is a very great difference between the behaviour of dielectrics and conducting materials to electromagnetic radiation.

--- End quote ---
That's an unfair comment. I have studied ionospheric propagation and I am well familiar with the concept of a complex refractive index. AND, if you use complex refractive index in your em calculations, you get the right answer whether you use polythene, silver, seawater or wet mud at whatever wavelength you care to use.
Composites make life harder and I have no idea what you have to do about that.

To my mind, getting the right answer is all you need to justify a theory - as far as it goes. Do you get the right answer with yours?

btw, you never did say whether you know what is meant by skin depth or evanescent modes. Or are they too humdrum for your theory?

Bored chemist:
"Probably you have learned physics like a papagal because only a incompetent confuse the polarisation by reflection with diffraction as you give the first link in the first discussion."
Sorin,
However well parrots learn physics they might be taught the difference between a diffraction grating and a polariser. That would put them one step above you.
Do you really think this
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCAKQQjfOvkis about diffraction- it's just that the guys from MIT got the name wrong?

Also it's questionable for you to say "I don't speak about refraction" when you have been on about refractive index all the time.
Similarly, to say "I presented only the conclusion of a independent study. But it seems that you are not able to read even in English " is to ignore the fact that I read and commented on the presentation. I also pointed out the fault with it specifically that it ignores thin film interference effects.
Did you forget to read that bit of my English?

Never mind, lets have a look at the second post.
"OK .... let's see how a conducting material reflect the microwave at general case and let's see how the same conducting material reflect the polarised microwave and the Brewster angle in this case."
Well that's 2 cases- for reflection from metal it's relatively easy. The microwaves are reflected from the metal surface in exacltly the same way as light. The angle of incidence is equal to the angle or reflection and practically 100% of the radiation- light or µwave is reflected.

The reflection at Brewster's andgle is more difficult because, for a conductor, the refractive index is complex (in more ways than one) and the Brewster's angle is not properly defined.
Sorry, but that bit of the question is meaningless.
"I don't think in this scientific world there aren't study about this subject."
True- the experiments are done as school physics experiments. The answers are well known. The results for reflection from a conductor are exactly the same for light as for microwaves.


I'm not sure what you mean by "Further proposed experiments (NMR and quanta hypothesis as example) will be with a clear discrimination between actual and proposed theory"
But so far your proposed "theory" seems totally devoid of validity. It gave, for example, the wrong predicted result for the magnetic field produced by a stream of charged particles or current passing through a semiconductor.

face it; your theory doesn't agree with reality and it's not because of a fault with reality.



BTW, I can't find the original post about the much loved ten euro experiments. That's a pity because I just did another of them. I got a long thin fluorescent tube and passed a large current through it to get a deflection on a compass next to it.
What happened to the original?

syhprum:
It is quite amusing running fluorescent tubes on DC which I presume is what you did, of course you have to include a resistor as the normal inductor is ineffective with a DC supply.
I used to do this in my workshop 50 years ago to avoid the annoying buzz from the choke but I found the light output migrated to one end and a I had to to periodically reverse the power supply.

lyner:
They started using fluo tubes with a conventional tungsten lamp in series before they thought of the choke idea, I believe.

Bored chemist:
They did, and it improved the colour balance too.
I did put a dropper resistor in the circuit. I didn't measure the current- it would have been limited to 3 A but I doubt it was that high.

BTW, does anyone want a second hand fluorescent tube that's as dead as Sorin's theory?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page