Radiative and Reactive EM Fields

[IanC]

Nothing magic about it ian. Apparently it is true that anything sufficiently advanced will appear to be magic. Photons cancelling each other out, isn't even that advanced ian, sorry that it seems like magic to you. Perhaps you might do a google search on the topic of photons cancelling each other out.

I have linked to a reference that describes how the waveforms interact when the photons pass each other, and it states that photons pass through each other and carry on as if nothing had happened once they leave the area of interference. you have made the claim that they have been obliterated, destroyed, cancelled out. I would like you to present evidence that I am wrong and you are right. one of us has to be wrong. so far you have ducked the question. the only photons that disappear are virtual photons but we have been discussing radiative photons.

Here ian, a simple, observable, repeatable experiment demonstrating photons cancelling each other out without the benefit of a bit of matter to crash into. And again, virtual photons have no place within this discussion. Virtual photons are theoretical carriers of energy within the confines of an atom between electrons and neutrons or protons. I do wish you would learn that bit of information as well. Your incessant talk of virtual photons in this discussion is one more bit of clear evidence that you just don't know enough about this topic to discuss it intelligently.

Single Particle Interferance

Here is another article that speaks to photons cancelling each other out. You won't find much information on how they cancel each other out or why ian, because the process is not understood. The fact that they do cancel each other out, however, is not disputed because the phenomenon can be seen in the lab.

Successful quantum teleportation between two unconnected atoms one meter apart

and another; see destructive interference.

photons - Anti-laser: How sure we are that energy is transported? - Physics - Stack Exchange

and another; see long term integration.

W6AMT's pointers to pointers

The bottom line ian, is that photons can and do cancel each other out and don't need a brick wall to collide into in order for it to happen. Your knowledge base on this topic is just to thin and your unwillingness to even attempt to grasp what wave particle duality means and its ramifications on the behavior and interaction of EM fields leaves you completely in the dark.

It isn't magic ian, but till you wake up and realize that you are, and have been wrong on this topic all along and start to do some actual research towards learning what is rather than grasping at whatever you believe proves you right, you are going to remain behind the curve.

your first link is just a rewrite of the standard 2 slit diffraction experiment. the photon always shows up somewhere, the probability is greater in some places than others.

the second link is about superposition, a very interesting topic, but no photons disappear they just take specific paths due to the intrinsic qualities of the photons.

the third link is a highly speculative theory about photons not carrying energy themselves but just inducing the vacuum to give up energy.

the fourth link is about radio operators. a quick scan of the numerous topics did not show anything that pertains to our discussion. perhaps you could be more specific.


cant you find a source that talks about everyday conditions, preferably talking about standard radiative tranfers of energy, where photons destroy each other? where does the energy go? what is the mechanism? the references I have seen say that there is no energy transfer in constructive or destructive interference, and that the photons leave the area of interference exactly as they enter.

 

[IanC]

I re-read your radio operator link looking for LTI and found what you were indicating. it was talking about methods for statistically removing white noise. the photons dont physically disappear, they just get cancelled out in the measurement. not unlike how the identical sets of radiation from both sides get cancelled in the Stefan-Boltzmann equations to give the net power results. again, the photons do not disappear, their effect just cancel out therefore they are ignored when doing the calculation

 

[wirebender]

Sorry that your understanding is so limited ian. It is abundantly clear that this whole topic is just too far over your head. What exactly do you believe the authors at the links I provided to you mean when they say that the photons "cancel" each other out? If they did not, then there are other expressions that would be used. I suggest that you grab yourself a science dictionary and look up the term cancel out. It does not mean what you claim.

Your take on the SB equations are as wrong as the rest of your feelings on this topic ian. The SB equations describe a one way energy flow between cool and warm, not a two way flow with a net result. I showed you what the equation would have to look like if it described a two way flow and that went straight over your head as well.

Just more examples of why you fail to grasp this topic.

 

[IanC]

Sorry that your understanding is so limited ian. It is abundantly clear that this whole topic is just too far over your head. What exactly do you believe the authors at the links I provided to you mean when they say that the photons "cancel" each other out? If they did not, then there are other expressions that would be used. I suggest that you grab yourself a science dictionary and look up the term cancel out. It does not mean what you claim.

Your take on the SB equations are as wrong as the rest of your feelings on this topic ian. The SB equations describe a one way energy flow between cool and warm, not a two way flow with a net result. I showed you what the equation would have to look like if it described a two way flow and that went straight over your head as well.

Just more examples of why you fail to grasp this topic.

here is what I mean by cancel out, and what everyone else but you and gslack mean by cancelling out.

the top curve of the warmer body totally encompasses the lower curve of the cooler body. for every bit of radiation that the cooler body sends to the warmer one there is a one-to-one set of radiation going back to the cooler one. the area above the lower temp curve is the net flow going from warmer to cooler, the area of the lower curve is exactly cancelled out because that amount of radiation is being passed back and forth between the two bodies for zero net effect. that is exactly what is being shown by this equation-

the radiation for Tcooler is subtracted from the radiation of Twarmer leaving the net flow going from warm to cool. it always goes from warm to cool because warmer always emits more radiation than cooler as can be seen by the graph above.

 

[wirebender]

Sorry you don't get it ian. You won't till you accept the laws of physics and wave particle duality. I am finished with trying to explain what is happening to you.

 

[IanC]

Sorry you don't get it ian. You won't till you accept the laws of physics and wave particle duality. I am finished with trying to explain what is happening to you.

I'm sorry you dont get it. you seem unable to understand the processes that define why the general laws are what they are. eg you falsely think the 2nd law of thermodynamics controls individual atomic scale interactions rather than understand how the probabilities of individual interactions multiply up in a system to favour certain results. making a parlay bet for ten reds in a row at the roulette table isnt impossible to win but it is not the likely result. ten number 7's in a row is even more unlikely but still not impossible. nature works with incredibly large numbers of interactions every second. that is why any process or direction that is favoured quickly becomes dominant. by probabilities not prohibitions.

in radiation tranfers you see the phrase 'cancelled out' and you believe that photons magically disappear. you cant link to any citation that explains how this happens, and you ignore citations that say it doesnt happen but you claim that it is I who am lacking understanding!

I have had a lot of fun bouncing around looking for information on this topic. my general understanding is left intact but I have also learned a lot. and for that I thank you. I wouldnt have looked around if you hadnt bullheadedly insisted that your misunderstandings were correct. I just wish you had done a little more reading yourself. as far as I can tell, the only main mistake you corrected was that CO2 emits and absorbs the same wavelengths. not that you admitted being wrong, but one day your story of how CO2 cant absorb the same frequencies that it emitsjust changed. you need to change a bunch more of your distorted ideas about physics.

 

[wirebender]

Talk to yourself ian, at least someone will be listening. I have proven my points, and my proofs still stand. You, on the other hand continue to mumble while being able to prove nothing. Hold on to your faith and have yourself a wonderful life.

 

[IanC]

I thought you said you were through with responding? if you are going to post, then show how the 2nd law prohibits photons from reaching the surface. at least explain how you delusionally think photons magically disappear into thin air.

 

[wirebender]

I thought you said you were through with responding? if you are going to post, then show how the 2nd law prohibits photons from reaching the surface. at least explain how you delusionally think photons magically disappear into thin air.

I already have ian. You were unable to comment the first time you were involved in the conversation and clearly, you remain unable to comment.

One more bit of information and I am finished with you ian. You might take a moment to consider the fact that photons are not matter and apply it to your belief that photons go on forever till they hit some bit of matter. They are energy and it is well known that one source of energy can act upon and interact with another energy source.

You are stuck in a place with blinders on ian and are not able to see beyond your narrow misunderstanding of what a photon is. Till you get past that, you can't begin to understand what is going on within the EM field radiated by the earth and the very tiny EM field radiated by a CO2 molecule. Your belief that such a tiny field could move in opposition to the overwhelming field emitted by the earth is just silly but clearly you believe and no matter how much evidence you are shown to the contrary, you continue to believe even in the face of the laws of physics.

As to the second law, it states explicitly that it is not possible for energy to move from cool objects to warm objects. Your belief in net energy flows is at the root of your misunderstanding. The 2nd law speaks in terms of absolutes. Energy can not and will not move spontaneously from cool to warm. That is an absolute statement, not a statement of net energy flows. You have been shown the corrupted SB equations that pretend to illustrate net energy flows, but they do not describe any physical process.

Wake up and grasp the reality and you won't need my explanations.

 

[IanC]

I thought you said you were through with responding? if you are going to post, then show how the 2nd law prohibits photons from reaching the surface. at least explain how you delusionally think photons magically disappear into thin air.

I already have ian. You were unable to comment the first time you were involved in the conversation and clearly, you remain unable to comment.

One more bit of information and I am finished with you ian. You might take a moment to consider the fact that photons are not matter and apply it to your belief that photons go on forever till they hit some bit of matter. They are energy and it is well known that one source of energy can act upon and interact with another energy source.

You are stuck in a place with blinders on ian and are not able to see beyond your narrow misunderstanding of what a photon is. Till you get past that, you can't begin to understand what is going on within the EM field radiated by the earth and the very tiny EM field radiated by a CO2 molecule. Your belief that such a tiny field could move in opposition to the overwhelming field emitted by the earth is just silly but clearly you believe and no matter how much evidence you are shown to the contrary, you continue to believe even in the face of the laws of physics.

As to the second law, it states explicitly that it is not possible for energy to move from cool objects to warm objects. Your belief in net energy flows is at the root of your misunderstanding. The 2nd law speaks in terms of absolutes. Energy can not and will not move spontaneously from cool to warm. That is an absolute statement, not a statement of net energy flows. You have been shown the corrupted SB equations that pretend to illustrate net energy flows, but they do not describe any physical process.
Wake up and grasp the reality and you won't need my explanations.

you have forgotten or misunderstood even high school physics. the air above a pot of boiling water still sends occasional water molecules back into the water even though more molecules are leaving, taking energy with them. it is a bad joke that you think the 2nd law prohibits individual interactions rather than just describing the overall direction of the movement of heat by the build up of probabilities over vast numbers of interactions. explain the physical process by which an individual molecule cannot build up energy to go against the flow, or how an individual molecule can be stopped from radiating a photon in a certain direction, or how a photon once emitted can be removed without interacting with matter. the 2nd law is just describing a casino, there are individual winners and losers but the house always wins in the end.

 

[wirebender]

you have forgotten or misunderstood even high school physics. the air above a pot of boiling water still sends occasional water molecules back into the water even though more molecules are leaving, taking energy with them.

Geez ian, are you really this far behind the curve? We aren't talking, and never have been talking about molecules. We are talking about radiation. You can pour a whole bucket of cold water in a pot of boiling water and not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. While molecules from the steam may go back into the pot, heat is not transferred from the steam back to the pot unless the steam is superheated in which case it is warmer than the 212 degrees of the water in the pot and would be in accordance with the 2nd law. Learn something ian.

 

[IanC]

you have forgotten or misunderstood even high school physics. the air above a pot of boiling water still sends occasional water molecules back into the water even though more molecules are leaving, taking energy with them.

Geez ian, are you really this far behind the curve? We aren't talking, and never have been talking about molecules. We are talking about radiation. You can pour a whole bucket of cold water in a pot of boiling water and not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. While molecules from the steam may go back into the pot, heat is not transferred from the steam back to the pot unless the steam is superheated in which case it is warmer than the 212 degrees of the water in the pot and would be in accordance with the 2nd law. Learn something ian.

actually I thought we were talking about the 2nd law and your crazy notion that it is a physical process that somehow prohibits individual interactions. you said it stops CO2 molecules from emitting photons towards the earth's surface and I say you are full of crap. you refuse to explain in any way, shape or form how this actually happens.

as far as water molecules going from the cooler air into the hotter pot of boiling water, this shows that energy can flow from cool to hot but then you turn around and twist it and accuse me of saying that it is heating the pot of water. I have never said a cooler object can warm the hotter object. I have said, and show why, a cooler object can slow the flow of heat from a warm object. my water molecule example shows that energy can and does go in the opposite direction of the net flow in a local fashion. the Planck curves show that radiation from two bodies move into and out of each other in a fashion that cancels out a certain fraction of the radiation, leaving the excess radiation from the warmer body to heat the cooler one. you mistakenly believe that the 2nd law is something other than a statistical description of what the net result of a vast number of individual interactions will be. the individual interactions are based on physics, a radiated photon of a specific wavelength is exactly the same whether it comes from a source at 100K, 1000K or 10,000K.

you seem to believe that photons can cancel each other out and simply remove the energy, without the need of matter to mediate. I have posted up a physics page that described how the waveforms can interact to form standing waves of all types, from double amplitude to zero amplitutde. it also specifically stated that no energy is transfered, and that the photons are left exactly as they were once they passed through the area of interference. do you have some source that describes you mutual annihilation theory? I have no doubt that you will duck this question again, just as you have dozens of times in the past. but why do you think people should believe you when you are unwilling or unable to provide any outside confirmation of your bizarre beliefs?

 

[IanC]

wirebender says that photons are magically obliterated in thin air when a cooler body radiates towards a warmer body. this should be easily seen by experiment.

because the radiation 'cancels out' and is lost, then the full amount of radiation must always be radiating away from the warmer body no matter what the temperature of the surroundings, from zero degrees kelvin to the temperature of the body. a cup of coffee would cool down at the same rate in minus 50 conditions or on your kitchen table (ignoring convection and conduction). obviously the cooler body would also radiate away its full compliment of radiation only to be obliterated in thin air, with only the excess radiation from the warmer body to replace it. if the two bodies are close in temperature then it would be a losing proposition for both.

care to explain your 'theory' in more detail wirebender? it doesnt seem to match reality very well.

 

[wirebender]

Appealing to the board for encouragement is pathetic ian.

 

[IanC]

Appealing to the board for encouragement is pathetic ian.

I'm not appealing to anyone. I'm pointing out how foolish and illogical your thinking and your 'theory' is.

 

[wirebender]

Appealing to the board for encouragement is pathetic ian.

I'm not appealing to anyone. I'm pointing out how foolish and illogical your thinking and your 'theory' is.

You are whining for someone to take your side ian. Send an im to rocks he will be glad to give you some sugar and wave his pom poms about a bit and tell you how great you are and how mean I am. It certainly won't make you any less pathetic.

 

[IanC]

Appealing to the board for encouragement is pathetic ian.

I'm not appealing to anyone. I'm pointing out how foolish and illogical your thinking and your 'theory' is.

You are whining for someone to take your side ian. Send an im to rocks he will be glad to give you some sugar and wave his pom poms about a bit and tell you how great you are and how mean I am. It certainly won't make you any less pathetic.

hahaha. I dont need or ask for any cheerleaders. I can hold my own quite nicely thank you very much. I am just trying to goad you into explaining your side of this debate. so far all you do is spout ad homs and pretend that you laid out your case in some past post that no one has seen, and that you wont bump up for people to see. anytime you actually put something down in your own words it only shows how confused you are.

when are you going to explain how photons magically disappear? you have cravenly ducked the question for months. you simply dont have an answer, do you? its all just Cliff Clavin bullshit. I just want everyone here to know that you have nothing when push comes to shove.

 

[wirebender]

hahaha. I dont need or ask for any cheerleaders. I can hold my own quite nicely thank you very much.

Which explains why you are incessantly appealing to the board. So much so that I have commented on the habit before. Don't kid yourself ian. You lost this discussion and are and have been actively appealing to the membership of the board for anyone who will take your side.

As to my explanation, I have explained my position down to the smallest detail in both this and other threads. Asking me to repeat them ad nauseum will not result in a different answer; unlike you whose argument has mutated several times as you painted yourself into a corner you couldn't get out of. Sorry you can't understand what I have told you and equally sorry that it appears like magic to you. I have told you what you must learn in order for it to make sense and you have apparently rejected the advice.

As to goading me? You aren't bright enough to goad me ian. You have been goaded and had your buttons pushed repeatedly and reacted as admirably and predictably as one of Pavlov's dogs but goad me? Don't kid yourself.

 

[IanC]

hahaha. I dont need or ask for any cheerleaders. I can hold my own quite nicely thank you very much.

Which explains why you are incessantly appealing to the board. So much so that I have commented on the habit before. Don't kid yourself ian. You lost this discussion and are and have been actively appealing to the membership of the board for anyone who will take your side.

As to my explanation, I have explained my position down to the smallest detail in both this and other threads. Asking me to repeat them ad nauseum will not result in a different answer; unlike you whose argument has mutated several times as you painted yourself into a corner you couldn't get out of. Sorry you can't understand what I have told you and equally sorry that it appears like magic to you. I have told you what you must learn in order for it to make sense and you have apparently rejected the advice.

As to goading me? You aren't bright enough to goad me ian. You have been goaded and had your buttons pushed repeatedly and reacted as admirably and predictably as one of Pavlov's dogs but goad me? Don't kid yourself.

wirebender said-"As to my explanation, I have explained my position down to the smallest detail in both this and other threads."

please quote the message in this thread that explains the method by which the CO2 photon disappears, and the position between the CO2 molecule emitting it and the earth's surface that would absorb it if it hadnt magically disappeared into thin air, taking its energy with it.

I have been watching your responses and it would be pretty close to impossible for me to miss it. I think you are just lying again.

 

[IanC]

from the other recent thread-

IanC
Registered User
Member #21028 Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,002
Thanks: 249
Thanked 635 Times in 488 Posts
Rep Power: 52



Quote: Originally Posted by wirebender
ian, I have answered all your questions ad nauseum. As I have said, you won't find much information on the how because the how is not understood. The fact that opposing EM fields reduce each other's magnitude however is well known, observable, and repeatable science. The energy can not be destroyed but is gone none the less. Since the energy is composed of its carrier, ie photons, it is the number of photons that is being diminished.




is this the magnum opus that you have been talking about? the grand explanation?hahahahaha. the how is not understood? hahahahaha
__________________
"Nothing shows a lack of mathematical understanding more than an exaggeratedly accurate calculation.”
Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855)