Science topic
Electrodynamics - Science topic
Explore the latest questions and answers in Electrodynamics, and find Electrodynamics experts.
Questions related to Electrodynamics
It is a fact that in 1908 Walther Ritz produced a lengthy criticism of Maxwell–Lorentz electromagnetic theory, in which he contended that the theory's connection with the luminescent ether (see Lorentz ether theory) made it "essentially inappropriate to express the comprehensive laws for the propagation of electrodynamic actions."
Ritz pointed out seven problems with Maxwell–Lorentz electromagnetic field equations:
Electric and magnetic forces really express relations about space and time and should be replaced with non-instantaneous elementary actions.
Advanced potentials don't exist (and their erroneous use led to the Rayleigh–Jeans ultraviolet catastrophe).
Localization of energy in the ether is vague.
It is impossible to reduce gravity to the same notions.
The unacceptable inequality of action and reaction is brought about by the concept of absolute motion with respect to the ether.
Apparent relativistic mass increase is amenable to different interpretations.
The use of absolute coordinates, if independent of all motions of matter, requires throwing away the time honored use of Galilean relativity and our notions of rigid ponderable bodies.
Instead he indicated that light is not propagated (in a medium) but is projected.
Walther Ritz is best known for his work with Johannes Rydberg which led to the Rydberg-Ritz formula, but also for his pioneering work in quantum mechanics, and also for the Ritz variational method.
The lunar crater Ritz is also named after Walther Ritz.
Please read also this beautiful article about Walther Ritz on this link:
I'm looking for this software for simulation of dye-sensitized solar cell. it was free of charge and it look unavailable because the owner site is unreachable.
If someone has an older version, thanks to send it to me.
I want to do ED coating on , one of my aluminium part does it affect heat transfer from part.
This question is related to possibility of experimental studies of electric plasmons.
More information about theoretical part of such studies
can be found in the preprint "Materials with negative permittivity or negative permeability – review, electrodynamic modelling and applications"
I read some scientific articles about Metal organic frameworks(MOFs) in that mostly they have reported about tunable porosity using ligand, large internal surface area, tuning the properties of MOF using different metal ions and ligands, etc.
I want to know what exactly makes this MOF materials unique in the field of catalysis?what makes this materials interesting?
looking for your valuable knowledge.
Thank you
Shanmuk
How we can enhanced the electro Mechanical that powered by computing to develop AI
The aether as considered by lorentz, heaviside and others, seems to work fine with the relativity and general relativity, So has anyone worked on the thermodynamcis of the aether
Conventional physics emphasizes experiments verifying objective reality but both quantum mechanics (QM) and originator of the multiverse hypothesis Hugh Everett suggest there's no such thing as objective reality.
Regarding QM - if quantum superposition is taken to its logical extreme, everything in the universe would affect everything else. Regarding Everett - his idea of the universal wavefunction says the observed and observer are all mixed together. These two references mean an experimenter's consciousness can never avoid influencing (technically, biasing) an experiment.
Physicists would be aware of these QM/Everett things but they seem to be unconsciously reverting to a classical view in which objective reality exists in all space-time, and not just in the limited perceptions of humans or animals. Our restricted senses (along with the limited technology and mathematics developed by humans to date) might view a quantum superposition where everything, including consciousness, fills all space and time very differently. For example - instead of occupying the whole of spacetime, a subatomic particle could be interpreted as being in more than one place simultaneously.
Another instance of quantum mechanics being re-interpreted: The ones and zeros of binary digits are compatible with quantum mechanics and may be referred to as the Hidden Variables which Albert Einstein advocated to complete quantum physics, and to give its calculations an exactness which would bring a hidden order to its chaotic randomness and superficial uncertainty. If the universe can be quantized and viewed as comprised of infinitesimal ones and zeros, how could it not obey quantum physics? And if those ones and zeros are all ultimately connected by Quantum Gravity to make everything in space and time parts of a unification, waves and particles could never be separated but wave-particle duality would rule.
The precise, merely superficially probabilistic Quantum Mechanics proposed here unites each quantum object in space, and in every period of time. Macroscopic objects are composed of quantum ones and the two scales should be unified by a QM that produces exact results and is as applicable to the micro as much as it is to the macro. Unification of the microscopic and macroscopic in all of space and time can be regarded as only one point ever existing (a state reminiscent of John Wheeler and Richard Feynman speculating that the universe consists of a single electron zigzagging through time). This might be termed unipositional quantum mechanics in which transmissions throughout spacetime are instantaneous. If signaling can be instant, distance may be an illusion, making intergalactic travel feasible and eliminating all “distance” between past/present/future periods of time).
It's plausible that quantum entanglement by "advanced" and "retarded" components of electromagnetic and gravitational waves will play a role in this UQM. In 2008's "Physics of the Impossible", Michio Kaku writes -
"When we solve (19th-century Scottish physicist James Clerk) Maxwell's equations for light, we find not one but two solutions: a 'retarded' wave, which represents the standard motion of light from one point to another; but also an 'advanced' wave, where the light beam goes backward in time.”
(In 1925's "Electrodynamics in the general relativity theory", George Yuri Rainich discovered that Einstein's equations state gravitational fields possess enough data about electromagnetism to allow Maxwell's equations to be restated in terms of them. Therefore, gravitational waves may likewise have retarded and advanced portions.) Advanced waves were much loved by Richard Feynman. They travel back in time and when combined with the retarded waves which go forwards in time, their entanglement would result in an "eternal present" necessary for time travel.
John G. Cramer wrote in his 2022 article "Advanced Waves Detected" - “In summary, it appears that advanced waves do exist and have been detected. Much more work must be done to ensure that this effect is real and can be extended, but the physics implications are gigantic.”
Hi,
I'm doing research n-type neuromorphic transistor device.
According to theory and other research, forming EDL (electro double layer) can cause anti-clockwise transfer curve.
However, as you can see below photo, there were change points from clockwise to anti-clockwise.
Do you know the reason?
I've inferred the effect of traps, but there are no articles related to the intersection points.
Thank you all,
Su-Kyung Kim
Please see the input and error, as given below.
Input:
%nprocshared=32 %mem=64GB %chk=bs_electro_ni_10_2.chk #p opt upbe1pbe/genecp freq=noraman nosymm #scf=xqc integral(grid=ultrafine)
Error: Leave Link 801 at Sat Feb 10 18:49:49 2024, MaxMem= 4294967296 cpu: 2.5 (Enter /sw/rl9c/gaussian09/d.01/precompiled/g09/l1101.exe) Using compressed storage, NAtomX= 77. Will process 78 centers per pass.
Enter
In some other structures, errors such as:
Generate precomputed XC quadrature information.
Solving linear equations simultaneously, MaxMat= 96.
FoF2E skips out because all densities are zero.
CalDSu exits because no D1Ps are significant. ..
.
.
Symmetry not used in FoFCou.
I design ELECTRO_OPTIC MODULATOR it using FDTD LUMERICAL that contains 3 waveguide. The intermediate waveguide is a plasmonic that contains SI, ITO, HFO2, and AU. I need to add a voltage to the AU metal layer. Is it possible? Is that done using a FDTD? or need to another soft ware like charge ? how do it
Hello
i work on water treatment whatever the product i want to improve and develop my axis so i'm looking for a collaboration as soon as possible for a research theme on the environment, e.g. treatment of bilge water, treatment of industrial effluents by the advanced oxidation process fenton photo fenton, electro fenton...?
Einstein derived the expression for stellar aberration by relating the ray direction cosine in the moving frame to that in the stationary frame. See P 911-912. On Page 911, the direction cosines are related by the expression a' = (a-v/V)/(1- a v/V) where a' is the direction cosine of the ray in the moving system, a the direction cosine in the stationary system, v the velocity of the moving frame and V the velocity of light. For the stellar aberration formula, Einstein explicitly put in the angles, giving cos(ϕ′) = (cos(ϕ)-v/V)/(1- cos(ϕ) v/V). However, in presenting his formula, Einstein says "If we call the angle between the wave-normal (direction of the ray) in the moving system and the connecting line “source-observer” ϕ′, the equation for ϕ′ assumes the form: cos(ϕ′) = (cos(ϕ)-v/V)/(1- cos(ϕ) v/V)". As far as my understanding goes, here the angle ϕ′ is being being replaced by the difference of ϕ′ and ϕ; which is not allowed. It has been pointed out to me by somebody elsewhere that Einstein, later on, changed his original text by replacing the phrase "connecting line 'source-observer' with the expression "direction of motion". (See Note 29, https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/345). But this put the stellar aberration angle corresponding to ϕ=Pi/2, (arccos(-v/c)), in the second quadrant, which is contrary to experimental observations.
The paradox we are about to relate (or a close resemblance) goes back to 1963 (at the very least,) in a Fig. 2c of a paper by Buchta [1], although its true origin may well be much earlier.
Klein [2] describes the curious circumstance in the follow manner.
“Imagine a box black on a table with two electrodes A and B, protruding from opposite sdes. The experimenter comes from one side, and measures with a static voltmeter a voltage between A and B of, e.g., 1V. He then walks around to the opposite side of the box and measures the voltage between the same two points, but this time he measures only 0.1V.”
The circuit within the box, together with the two terminals A and B, and the connected voltmeters, is shown below. Positioned at the centre is a solenoid or electromagnet, connected to an A.C. supply. In this variation, the voltmeters are connected at the same time.
On the face of it, the voltmeters are connected to the same electrodes, and so the measurements should yield the same potential difference between these two points.
Do they yield the same values? Isn't it impossible that they don't register the same potential difference?
Our speculation
Cf.
New in my theory is: 1) Our physical universe appeared from something instead of nothing.
2) Physical universe unfolded with 10-dimensional Space-Time other than Einstein's 4-dimensions.
3) The Space-Time of the universe is complex.
4) It was shown that the universe is symmetry at 10-dimension under the exchange of two type scale factor.
5) After solving the energy tensor equation, we found three type of energy tensors represented negative pressure, matter density and latent energy density.
6) There exists a new kind of force field other than weak force, strong force, electrodynamics force & gravitational force may be assumed as fifth force.
7) Speculated that new energy group SU(6) is so strong that it changes the exotic matter fluid into ordinary matter then everything.
8) This SU(6) group may have 35- number of bosons of which 30- bosons are charge-like but 5 are nutral like neutrinos make current in the framework of SU(6) × U(1).
9) It maybe consider that there are 6 number of quark-type but lepton-like forces each having a bunch of 5-individuals which are interacted each other internally or externally.
10) This new forces are responsible for lives.
There are so many missing link or unsolved questions may be solved by this new theory.
We expect very soon Fermi-Lab proof the existence of fifth force and so on.
The above experiment may be performed (approximated) at home.
It consists of wires bent as pictured, two crossbar "runners" ---wooden handles could be attached to these, and a large coil - a couple of hand-spans in diameter, connected to a D.C. supply.
The U-shaped wires, which share a common join, are placed at the centre, and in the plane of the coil, approximating a uniform, or at least symmetric magnetic field incident upon the circuit.
A voltmeter is connected across the middle crossbar.
If the left-hand crossbar "runner" is in motion, a voltage appears across the middle crossbar.
If the right-hand crossbar is in motion, a voltage appears across the middle crossbar --- perhaps a different one, depending on the speed of the "runner". (In the diagram, the right-hand crossbar is moving at half the rate of the left-hand crossbar.)
If both crossbars are in motion, the voltage drops to zero, and no induction takes place in either circuit.
Is this the case?
Is there a reasonable alternative to the theory of the expanding universe? I believe so -
The idea of an eternal universe is highly speculative and doesn't quite fit with our current understanding of the universe's origins, such as the Big Bang theory. Any idea that has been around for a century cannot be easily dismissed but the James Webb Space Telescope is casting potential doubts on the Big Bang. If this continues, we may well find ourselves in need of another theory explaining cosmic origins.
When we solve (19th-century Scottish physicist James Clerk) Maxwell's equations for light, we find not one but two solutions: a 'retarded' wave, which represents the standard motion of light from one point to another; but also an 'advanced' wave, where the light beam goes backward in time. ("Physics of the Impossible" by Michio Kaku, Penguin Books, p. 276-277) Einstein's equations say gravitational fields carry enough information about electromagnetism to allow Maxwell's equations to be restated in terms of these gravitational fields. This was discovered by the mathematical physicist George Yuri Rainich. (Electrodynamics in the general relativity theory. by G. Y. Rainich. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 27 (1925), 106-136 https://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1925-027-01/S0002-9947-1925-1501302-6/)
The farther away a star or galaxy is, the more the advanced part of waves from it will reach into the past, giving us a greater inaccuracy regarding its true distance. This increase is analogous to redshift increasing with distance. We might call it readshift - re(tarded) ad(vanced) shift. Readshift would explain the astronomical results which were interpreted as accelerating expansion of the universe. Surveyed supernovas would appear fainter, therefore apparently farther away than they truly are. Unless advanced waves are considered a possibility, the only rational way to move a supernova from its apparent, distant position to its true nearer location is to conclude the universe has expanded.
A backup to this point of view is presented in the article link at paragraph's end, in which a fresh perspective on the nature of electromagnetism is envisioned. The perspective uses John Wheeler’s geons and confines James Clerk Maxwell’s propagation of electromagnetic waves by oscillating electric and magnetic fields to a quantum-scale role. The confinement restricts the motion of photons – and via George Yuri Rainich, gravitons – to a “bobbing up and down” in the cosmic sea which is perpendicular to the direction of waves’ propagation. The severely limited movements of gravity (space-time) and electromagnetism mean the universe never expands or contracts. (8) (PDF) Measurement of Gravity Leads to Gravitons Decaying Topologically. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375758112_Measurement_of_Gravity_Leads_to_Gravitons_Decaying_Topologically [accessed Nov 22 2023].
Surely an alternative to the Big Bang in which there’s no expansion or contraction (no oscillation in either space or time) must be an infinite, eternal cosmos. How is it even possible to think of creating something that has always existed? A model of the cosmos might be built that uses the infinite number pi and imaginary time, and resides in Virtual Reality (artificial, computer-generated simulation). The entanglement (quantum-mechanics style) in the simulated universe is unable to remain separate from the entanglement existing in our perceived reality because computers using so-called "imaginary time" (which is defined by numbers with the property i² = -1) remove all boundaries between the two universes. This enables them to become one Augmented Reality (known now as technology that layers computer-generated enhancements onto an existing reality but seen here as the related layering of virtual reality onto other points in time and space). The poorly named imaginary time of physics and mathematics unites with pi (both are necessary to generate a non-Big-Bang cosmos i.e. an infinite universe which, because space and time can never be separated, is eternal). This manipulation of time, space, and the universe with virtual and augmented reality might possibly be produced by the two-valued binary-digit system used in electronics traversing a wormhole, or shortcut between folds in space and time, designed by humans of the far future. The augmented reality which is layered on “other” points in space-time actually isn’t transmitted to other points. Because of the quantum entanglement of every particle (massive or massless) of everything in spacetime caused by advanced and retarded waves cancelling each other, only one point ever exists. Thus, transmissions to any (apparently other) places or times wouldn’t be restricted to the speed of light but can be made instantaneous by technology of the far future.
After solving dimensions of electrical equations, I found out that the fundamental dimension of Electric charge is mass only. This also leads to the derivation of dimensions of other Electrical units like Electric Current, Magnetic flux density etc in terms of Mass, Length and Time only. These are not cgs units.
This discovery can help unify the force of gravitation that uses mass and the electrostatic force(Force between charges). This will help contribute to the theory of everything, also in better understanding of the electrical units and equations. e.g Work done=Charge multiplied by Voltage. Substituting the right hand side with their dimensions of Charge=Mass and Voltage=L2T-2 proves that the equation is dimensionally consistent. Also other theories can be uncovered and better understood with this finding.
Derivation for proof that Electric charge has a dimension of Mass.
It is true that the product of Electric Charge and Voltage can be expressed in terms of Mass, Length and Time which is ML-2T-2 . Then it is true that Electric Charge and Voltage each contain their respective dimensions of MLT, if not then the equation could not hold.
We shall use the following equations for the derivation.
From Lorentz Catapult force,
F=BIL --- --- --- (1)
Where F is force, B is magnetic flux density, I is Electric Current and L is length.
From Lorentz magnetic force,
F= BQV --- --- --- (2)
Where F is force, B is magnetic flux density, Q is Electric charge and V is velocity.
From definition of Electric current,
Q = It --- --- --- (3)
Where Q is Electric Charge, I is Electric Current and t is time.
From equation (1),
BI = MT-2 --- --- --- (4)
From equation (2),
BQ = MT-1--- --- --- (5)
Substituting equation (5) in equation (4).
BI = BQT-1
(B/B).(I/Q)= T-1
But I/Q = T-1
Therefore,
B/B = (T-1)/(T-1)
Taking the numerators or denominators,
B = T-1
Therefore substituting for B in equation (5),
Q = M
(Maxwell also discovered the same thing here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis under history)
This proves that Electric charge is mass. This proves that Electric charge has a dimension of mass.
No assumptions just plain simple truth.
This forms a new system of Units.
I am very certain that this means a lot.
If I connected my voltmeter leads across the left-hand crossbar in the top figure, the voltmeter would presumably read an e.m.f of "E"?
But then, what would my voltmeter read for the left-hand crossbar in middle and bottom figures?
Also what is the Relativistic expression for the emf in the moving crossbar?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below we have a straight-wire "crossbar" and a U-shaped wire. A uniform magnetic field B is directed out of the paper.
Here, in the top figure, with the crossbar moving to the left, touching the U-shaped wire, we have, by the relation (v x B), an emf appearing across the left-hand crossbar, as indicated.
In the middle figure, with an observer moving in concert with the moving crossbar, we have, by the relation (v x B), an emf appearing across the right-hand crossbar.
In the lower figure, with an observer moving to the left, at half the rate of the left-hand crossbar, we have, by (v x B), an emf appearing across both right and left hand crossbars.
We are electro spinning nanofibers on ITO coated PET sheet. When we want to keep (deposition by evaporation or sputter)top metal on nanofibers it is shorting with bottom metal(ITO metal). Is there any way to keep top metal on nanofibers without shorting with bottom metal?
Hello all,
I have a fiber coupled electro optic phase modulator, and I want to measure its 3dB electronic bandwidth and its half-wave voltage V_pi. Can anyone suggest me some experimental setups for measuring these parameters?
Bests
In 1905, Einstein published a paper entitled "Does the Inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?"
Wilhelm Wien responded to this question, in 1900:
In his paper, Wien proposed to apply theories of electrodynamics for mechanics. He applied two models: Maxwell's electrodynamics and Weber's electrodynamics. With Maxwell’s electrodynamics he got an energy mc squared formula and the mass increase with velocity of motion. With Weber’s electrodynamics he obtained that the force felt by the moving body decreases and there is no increase of the mass.
What is your preference for moving charged particles in particle accelerators?:
1) the mass of the particle increases when v/c increases
2) the energy of the particle increases when v/c increases
3) the force that the particle feels decreases when v/c increases
Please explain.
Thank you very much
It is well known, at least well accepted, that the main factor of the energy loss of binary stars is the gravitational radiation. Since a paper of Peters and Mathews (Gravitational Radiation from Point Masses in a Keplerian Orbit // Physical Review. — 1963. — Vol. 131. — P. 435—440), calculation of the gravitational energy flow from some stars has no difficulties.
But my question is rather different - what factor provides the energy decrease of the star itself?
Peters and Mathews write that there is close ananogue between the electromagnetism and gravitation. So they derive their expressions in the similar way as it is made in electrodynamics.
In electrodynamics, the problem of calculation of self-force providing the energy loss of a charge radiating the EM waves is very complicated. The exact solution, in frame of the special relativity, of the self-force cannot be obtained. It is derived but gives unphysical runaway solution. Lorentz's approach to calculation of the self-force on the radiating charge is more physical. At least, in electrodynamics, one can calculate the reaction of the EM field on the charge.
Returning to the loss of the energy of rotating stars, there is no one expression which describe the back-reaction of the emitted waves on the massive body. So the only way to estimate the loss of the energy is to assume that this loss is equal to the power of the gravitational radiation. But in this way I face one problem.
Peters and Mathews derived some expressions for intensity of the emitted gravitational waves. Assuming these waves are emitted in accordance to these expressions. How to obtain the expression for the force which decelerates the binary stars?
If these stars move in circular orbit (problem # 1 of sec. 110 of Landau-Lifshitz, theory of field.),the acceleration is directed to the baricenter of the two-body system. Then the force of reaction - if it exists - should be directed from the baricenter. It should mean that the force of reaction intends to increase the energy of the system instead of decrease of the kinetic enerigies of the stars.
The force of reaction does not act in tangential (to the orbit) direction - L-L expressions in problem # 1 are symmetric with respect to angular coordinate.
Does it mean that the binary stars cannot lose their energies due to the gravitational radiation?
Electro chemistry, Engines, Vehicles,
Hello all
I am working with an electro optic phase modulator. In the data sheet of the microwave driver of this device, I saw the parameter RF level resolution (with the value of 0.1 dB). Is it related to the power resolution of the RF amplifier of the Driver?
Bests
According to special relativity [1], the mass of a moving object is generally considered to be a relative value that increases with velocity [2]. m=γm0, γ is the relativistic factor and m0 is defined as the rest mass. The mass-energy equation E=mc^2 is a derivative of Einstein's special relativity. Einstein assumed two inertial systems moving at relatively constant velocity, where one object in the stationary inertial frame radiates photons in two opposite directions, and if the total energy of the photons is E, then in the other inertial frame it is seen that the mass of the object will decrease by E/c^2, i.e., E=mc^2. He thus concluded that The mass of an object is a measure of the energy it contains [3].
Our question is, if there is no absolute spacetime and the mass of any object in an inertial system can be considered as a rest mass, if it arbitrarily changes its speed of motion and is able to measure itself, will there exist a minimum rest mass, i.e. a minimum energy?
[1] Einstein 1905r：On the electrodynamics of moving objects.
[2] Feynman, R. P. (2005). The Feynman Lectures on Physics(I).
[3] Einstein 1905s：Einstein, A. (1905). "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content." Annalen der Physik 18(13): 639-641.
The paper is: "On the basic equations of electrodynamics for moving bodies"
- Hertz, H. (1890). Ueber die Grundgleichungen der Electrodynamik für bewegte Körper. Annalen der Physik, 277(11), 369-399. doi: 10.1002/andp.18902771102
This 1890 paper by Heinrich Hertz (1857-1894) seems to have described a model of physics in which light is fully-dragged by moving matter. The importance of this class of model is that, according to Einstein, it was the main logical competitor to special relativity. Einstein also acknowledged that the Hertz approach was internally consistent.
This makes the paper rather important, both historically and scientifically. If this was supposed to be representative of the main theoretical class of competing system to SR, and predated SR by fifteen years, then it would be nice to know what the paper included, and how far Hertz was able to develop the model ... without having to be a native German speaker.
Hertz died around four years later at the age of only 36.
Here's the original paper:
I have performed electrochemical sensors by carbon electrode modified with redox-active organic molecule as electrocatalyst. it shows the redox behavior at about -200mV in a buffer. With this working potential, the amperometry technique was used for the reduction of analyte to monitor the change in current with concentration. In my observation, the amperometry curve shows linear increments while the calibration curve shows non-linear behavior. The current was selected in the middle of the steady state of each addition of analyte. even low concentration range also shows the same. Even though the experiment was repeated, the same behavior was observed instead of a linear calibration curve. Though a non-linear curve, we can use but I would like to know the reasons behind this behavior. Thanks in advance
Hi, I have written a code for solving the second-order Helmholtz-Maxwell electromagnetic equation using finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) method. There is not much material available online for this second-order differential equation, except for its discretized forms. All the algorithms I've found online or offline are based on Yee's leap frog method.
I have been following the book "Computational electrodynamics" by Taflov and a PDF by Prof. John S, which is available online. When I use Yee's grid and implement the Total-Field Scattered-Field (TFSF) method, it works fine. However, when I try to implement TFSF on the code for the second-order Maxwell differential equation code then, it doesn't work at all. I'm following the same method to suppress the leftward traveling wave as mentioned in above books, albeit with slight modification.
If someone has prior experience with this and can help me, it would be of greatly appreciated.
Dear professors and researchers, first of all I greet you and I wish you to be very well, for a long time I have been following your work and answers to each question where you participate.
I would like to ask you a question, I await your response based on your experience and not what the literature says,
If I were to have a problematic situation where I had to classify (hierarchize) and then make the best decision against a group of alternatives and they proposed me to implement the following methods, which would you recommend I use from "most recommended" to "least recommended" and why of your answer.
The methods are.
AHP
FAHP
TOPSIS
MODIFIED TOPSIS
ELECTRO
VIKOR
Thanks for your kind reply
Apropos the Meissner Effect : how is a totally still magnetic field expelled from the interior of a superconducting body, when it is cooled below the transition temperature? From whence do the supercurrent elements obtain their impulse ; how can they suddenly become screening currents, without a cause?
Conversely, it is quite understandable that bringing a superconducting body into a magnetic field-- in this case the supercurrent elements obtain their impulse from a changing magnetic field, via the Lenz-Faraday Law. But in the above case, the magnetic field is absolutely still, and so cannot possibly provide the mechanism to set up surface screening currents.
Does "quadrupole" (Quadrupole-dipole), related to "Electrodynamic mechanism in SERS (in the case of, either noble metal nanoparticles or semiconducting nanoparticles)
Which protocols can be used for transformation of anaerobic bacteria from Azoarcus genus? So far I tried chemical transformation with CaCl2 buffer and electrotransformation with MOPS, but they didn't work. Any suggestions, tips & tricks?
Apropos the Meissner Effect : how is a totally still magnetic field expelled from the interior of a superconducting body, when it is cooled below the transition temperature? From whence do the supercurrent elements obtain their impulse ; how can they suddenly become screening currents, without a cause?
Conversely, it is quite understandable that bringing a superconducting body into a magnetic field-- in this case the supercurrent elements obtain their impulse from a changing magnetic field, via the Lenz-Faraday Law. But in the above case, the magnetic field is absolutely still, and so cannot possibly provide the mechanism to set up surface screening currents.
they are fundamentally different although sharing several physical results
EINSTEIN'S AETHER
The received wisdom is that quantum mechanics describes why the electron does not penetrate the proton. I find this statement unsatisfying as its is merely a description of an observation at best, with no explanation of physics, electrodynamics, kinetics or information of any kind. Has anyone ever tried using Maxwell?
If anybody is dealing with Electro slag remelting, please explain.
i study about electrodynamic tether system
i don't calculate current-voltage equation (OML Theory)
i understand how to calculate boundary conditions but i don't know how to intagrate equation directly
please give me some solution
I do not have anything to test but if you can point me in the right direction? Looking for what is the relative permittivity for the Felt fabric?
The refractive index is obtained owing to classical electrodynamics. Is there any way to know how much momentum the electron gains when light incident on a dielectric material? How does the momentum of the electron depend on the refractive index ?
For those that have the seventh printing of Goldstein's "Classical Mechanics" so I don't have to write any equations here. The Lagrangian for electromagnetic fields (expressed in terms of scalar and vector potentials) for a given charge density and current density that creates the fields is the spatial volume integral of the Lagrangian density listed in Goldstein's book as Eq. (11-65) (page 366 in my edition of the book). Goldstein then considers the case (page 369 in my edition of the book) in which the charges and currents are carried by point charges. The charge density (for example) is taken to be a Dirac delta function of the spatial coordinates. This is utilized in the evaluation of one of the integrals used to construct the Lagrangian. This integral is the spatial volume integral of charge density multiplied by the scalar potential. What is giving me trouble is as follows.
In the discussion below, a "particle" refers to an object that is small in some sense but has a greater-than-zero size. It becomes a point as a limiting case as the size shrinks to zero. In order for the charge density of a particle, regardless of how small the particle is, to be represented by a delta function in the volume integral of charge density multiplied by potential, it is necessary for the potential to be nearly constant over distances equal to the particle size. This is true (when the particle is sufficiently small) for external potentials evaluated at the location of the particle of interest, where the external potential as seen by the particle of interest is defined to be the potential created by all particles except the particle of interest. However, total potential, which includes the potential created by the particle of interest, is not slowly varying over the dimensions of the particle of interest regardless of how small the particle is. The charge density cannot be represented by a delta function in the integral of charge density times potential, when the potential is total potential, regardless of how small the particle is. If we imagine the particles to be charged marbles (greater than zero size and having finite charge densities) the potential that should be multiplying the charge density in the integral is total potential. As the marble size shrinks to zero the potential is still total potential and the marble charge density cannot be represented by a delta function. Yet textbooks do use this representation, as if the potential is external potential instead of total potential. How do we justify replacing total potential with external potential in this integral?
I won't be surprised if the answers get into the issues of self forces (the forces producing the recoil of a particle from its own emitted electromagnetic radiation). I am happy with using the simple textbook approach and ignoring self forces if some justification can be given for replacing total potential with external potential. But without that justification being given, I don't see how the textbooks reach the conclusions they reach with or without self forces being ignored.
I have a electro fenton system that cathode electrode is graphite and anode is FTO coated with a photocatalyst . when i want to increase current density to upper limit, suddenly deposited layer was being separated uniformly from FTO anode via oxygen releasing from anode surface .
anode surface pre treatment(degreasing with ethanol and functionalization with HNO3) was done before layer deposition and annealing after deposition . would you please help my how can i prevent from separation of deposited layer on anode surface?
A thin, circular disc of radius R is made up of a conducting material. A charge Q is given to it, which spreads on the two surfaces.
Will the surface charge density be uniform? If not, where will it be minimum?
Hi Mohit Rattanpal ,
when I don't "see" the answer to a problem immediately, I find it sometimes worthwhile to play around with the help of a math program. For example, with integrals it replaces a heavy book like Gradshteyn, Ryzhik: Table of Integrals, Series, And Products, and if an integral cannot be solved symbolically, it can be solved at least numerically for a few cases.
Assuming a unit disk and using polar coordinates (r, φ), for a charge at a certain point (p, 0) on the surface one can split the surface into an inner disk with radius <= p - ϵ and an outer ring with inner radius > p + ϵ, for a small ϵ (and outer radius 1, of course). Then one can write an equation for the r component of the force (the φ component is zero due to symmetry) which takes into account the 1/d^2 dependence of the force (d being the distance between p and an arbitrary point on the disk) as well as the angle of the force. 2D integration over the inner disk and over the outer ring results in the forces exerted by both, and addition gives the total force. Please see the attached figure 1. Since this procedure involves no term expressing a dependence of charge density on location, it covers evenly distributed charge, and figure 1 refutes this idea: Except at the center, the force isn't zero, so the charge density would change (here, positive values stand for centrifugal forces and vice versa).
If the term to be integrated is expanded by a factor modeling a charge density dependent on r, then the results change accordingly. The correct term, 1/sqrt(1 - r^2) in the case of a unit disk, results in figure 2.
These notes by Ted Bunn might be of interest because they explain how to arrive at the correct term:
I did a reaction but By changing the concentration of electrolyte leads to different product.
Give an example where the electric field is zero at a point but divergence of the electric field is non zero there?
Hello everyone,
I want to electro polymerize PEDOT:PSS using 0.5 M 3,4-ethylene dioxythiophene (EDOT, Sigma-Aldrich, USA) aqueous solution containing 0.6 wt% of poly(sodium 4-styrene sulfonate)(PSS, Sigma-Aldrich, USA). I found this in a paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep40332).
I found EDOT on the sigma-Aldrich website. But, when I was searching for poly(sodium 4-styrene sulfonate) as mentioned in the paper, I found many results for the search. I don't know which one to choose, and various molecular weights are mentioned. Can someone help me with that?
options
1.Boron doped diamond
2.Titanium dioxide coated with platinum
3. Ruthenium Oxide
4. Iridium Oxide
Some theories of physics require (not merely allow) magnetic monopoles. [See, for example, David J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, Fourth (Kindle) Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2017.] But how can a theory that requires (not merely allows) magnetic monopoles be consistent with the fact that magnets with circular magnetic fields — and hence with no poles (neither a north pole nor a south pole) — exist? Two examples: (i) A horseshoe iron, alnico, or other permanent magnet bent into a circle, with the poles cold-welded together. (Cold welding is possible in a vacuum for surfaces planed very smooth.) (ii) A toroidal-solenoid electromagnet (with or without an enclosed iron core for increased strength). The magnetic field lines in such magnets are circular — and hence with no poles — neither a north pole nor a south pole.
Respected sir
Now i am working for written review article under the topic of Electro chemical machining process which is most important in UCM. This is my first effort for the preparing review articles so i need procedure for writing review article and
1.what are the ethics must be follow during review article reparation....?
2.source available ways and how to utilize available resources with effective .....
Kindly share your suggestions successfully accomplishing my target....
Greatest Regards
S.Sathishkumar
I design a plant for producing caustic soda and chlorine from electrolysis of brine (salt from desalination plants)
How can i use aspen plus in simulate the electro chemical cell (membrane cell) •??
📷
See illustration.
Is there a calculation-prediction of the minimum distance separation of an antiparallel electron pair due its like charge repulsion?
There must be an equilibrium between the magnetic attraction and the charge repulsion?
(the two electrons in the illustration, antiparallel magnetic moments N-S and S-N will attract the two electrons together forming a stable pair but at the same time the Coulomb charge repulsion force will keep them separated at a distance d ).
Any analytical solution to this problem?
I believe I heard or read somewhere once I cannot recall, that this distance d described in the question is equal to the Reduced Compton Wavelength of the electron ƛ=ħ/mc =3.861 592 6796(12) x 10E-13 m = 386 fm, which is also the uncertainty Δχ in this case but I cannot find any analytical solution?
Specifically, the minimum Δχ uncertainty in the position of a free electron at rest is
Δχ= 0.5 (ħ/mc) = 0.5ƛ = 193 fm thus half of its reduced Compton wavelength. Notice here that the Reduced Compton Wavelength for the electron also written as ƛe=λe/2π where λe is the Compton wavelength of the electron, represents the radius r of the electron's rest mass field shown in the attached illustration (blue sphere).
Therefore, any analytical prediction presented as an answer in this question page must have a minimum uncertainty in the separation distance d for an antiparallel pair of electrons set at d(uncertainty)=2Δχ=ƛe=386 fm.
Thus any value prediction must be written as:
d=................ (193 fm), where the value in the parenthesis indicates the ± , uncertainty in the prediction.
Note: Definition of the term rest mass field of the electron used in this question, is (or equals) a sphere volume of radius the total minimum uncertainty in position Δχ of an electron at rest, ±193 fm= 386fm. Of course the electron particle by known theory is a massive dimensionless point particle.
say, when we take a simple titration of any compound to induce some change and study the change what we can see the change if it is faster change in the optical parameter or change in absorption or energy change or when we do its electro chemical analysis the changed species will be faster response as its electron transfer, what will be faster ? or both the methodologies will be different in kinetics due to different technical aspects and parameters? optical corresponds to the technique spectrophotometric methods . and more elaboratively from which technique we can get better electron transfer kinetics or the accurate degree of minimal observable change.
I setup an electro blotting experiment for overnight wet transfer using Tris glycine based transfer buffer at 20V. Next day , to my surprise there was lots of rusty froth in the tank. Also their was deposition of heavy rust on negative electrode. I've performed several O/N transfers earlier, but this was the first time I observe such reaction. Did any body experienced it ? what could be the possible reasons behind?
Blotting details:
PVDF 0.22 uM membrane
Transfer buffer: Tris Glycine with 10% methanol
Could anyone recommend a good textbook to study about Green Function in classical electrodynamics? Thank you.
I have tried doing ebsd but it is not giving a lot of un indexed points. So I dont know if the unindexed points are finer alpha titanium or beta titanium. During electro polishing the softer beta phase is getting etched off giving unindexed points on the IPF map .
My question is caused by one curious fact of the electrodynamics.
It is commonly accepted opinion that the electromagnetic fields can at least formally be decomposed onto the rotational and irrotational components. For the electric field of the classical charge being in arbitrary motion is seems to be obvious, namely, the radiated fields are transverse and therefore the rotational, the bound fields are longitudinal and therefore the irrotational.
But:
1. There is no example of such a decomposition of the E field of the classical charge if its law of motion is known;
2. The analogue of Helmholtz's proof of the theorem isn't extended to the electrodynamics. At least, no proof of this theorem is given in the textbooks.
Regarding p. 1, it is easy to give the counter-example, when the decomposition of the E field is impossible (the attached file).
But what is a reason of the absence of the analogue of Helmholtz's proof of the theorem isn't extended to the electrodynamics?
I suggest that because this theorem belongs to the mathematics, some mathematical obstacles should exist to prevent the extention of the theorem to the electrodynamics. What obstacles?
Relation between electrostatic based problem and time harmonic electrodynamics problem.
water splitting
Graphitic layer
metal
electro catalysis
Amravati Singh Now every things completely change. You said: if metal coated with graphite layer and it means core-shell structure. Well I must explain the mechanism of the water splitting reaction for you if you are asking about metal-doped graphene catalysts. We have two half reaction in water slitting prosses:
1) 2 H+(aq) + 2e− → H2(g)
2)2 H2O(l) → O2(g) + 4 H+(aq) + 4e−
The oxidation reaction is the bottleneck of the water splitting prosses. The metal doped graphene act as a catalyst for the oxidation reaction. The metal oxidize by light or electricity or chemical oxidant like CAN and metal loses electrons and holes are formed. Now the metal site is ready to accept the H2O or OH- as a ligand. Then a radical coupling or water nucleophilic attack occurs that forms O2(g) and the metal reduce to the former oxidation state.
How can we calculate extinction, scattering and absorption cross section using FDTD?
The Plasma Dispersion effect changes the real as well as the imaginary refractive indices. Although the amount of them are different, there must be some effect of the loss part in modulator response to an RF signal. Are there some articles investigating this effect in high speed electro optic modulators?
Dear Sirs,
Everybody knows plane and spherical wave solutions of Maxwell equations, e.g for decaying plane wave E=E0*exp(-kx)*cos(w(t-x/v)). But seems to me they give the unreal situation that the wave amplitude is nonzero at different points of space at given time moment. Could you advise the experiment or natural phenomenon which produces such a wave in nature?
Maybe we have infinte speed of the EM interaction? Do you know any real solution of Maxwel equations which exists only in one space point at the given time moment? Maybe using delta function? Or maybe there is my mistake?
The main question is:
What is Truth and Proof in Science?
What other scientific arguments are needed for the truth in science?
Actually, the uploaded preprints (see the project “Presentation of the scientific evidence for the nullity of the special theory of relativity”):
1. One-way measurement of the speed of light - the factual analysis
2. Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment - the factual analysis
3. Sagnac experiment – the factual analysis
4. Michelson-Morley experiment - the factual analysis
not only prove that the speed of light is not the same for all frames of reference, but in the first section is presented a solution of all the "unexpected" and "inexplicable" results of experiments related to the behavior and measurement of the speed of light and carried out within our local time-spatial region, … and without of paradoxes.
5. In "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies - the factual analysis of the article" is shown exactly where and how the erroneous claim “the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference” is applied and actually rejects with arguments special theory of relativity.
6. The preprint "On the fundamental tests of the Special theory of relativity" reveals the essence of all the fundamental tests of SR.
What else is necessary for the truth to exist in physics?
Mass is transforming in energy activated by "c" as factor. Should this mean mass is some kind of "electrodynamical" phenomenon, e.g. some highly convoluted field?
Any suggestions on what dielectric material to be used for metamaterial
It seems that the moon is getting farther away from Earth. Yet, storms are getting more violent. Why? Do these ferocious storms (tornadoes, hurricanes, rain-wind-thunder-lightning storms) occur when the moon is closest to Earth?
For HRV analysis I would like to use Kubios Standard. I recorded ECG with BrainVision Recorder and get .eeg files which cannot be importet into Kubios directly, as the Standard version only supports .txt, .dat, .csv and other file formats specific to Poloar Electro, Suunto or Garmin devices.
Right now, my solution was to set Markers for the R spikes using BrainVision Analyzer's "ECG Marker" Solution and then export these Positions in a .csv file. This I can import into Kubios.
Does anybody know of another way to directly import the raw data into Kubios?
Any advice is much appreciated, thank you!
In electrodynamics, it is stated that the magnetic force cannot do work. The explanation of it is simple - magnetic force that acts on the charge is always perpendicular to the charge’s incremental displacements.
But it is obviously that in all electric motors, the magnetic force is responsible for rotation of the armature. So the magnetic force produces work.
I suggest that there is some 'gap' in correct description of the systems where the units move due to magnetic forces. An example is schemes of different magnetic 'perpetuum mobile' and without calculations, it is hard to convince the author that this device cannot give over-unity.
The question: How to describe work of the magnetic force in terms of the microscopic electrodynamics in the correct way?
- We are using the an LCMS system with electro spray ionization (waters’ SQD2). Our signals in a certain method decrease sharply with sequential sample injections due to obstruction of the cone aperture (where charged droplets are drawn to by voltage); once we take out the cone from the instrument, clean it, and pu it back- signals go back up.
- Apart from purer solvents and reduced sample concentration, is there anthing in the tuning of the MS that can better focus the droplets into the cone aperture (cone voltage/gas flow/somthing else) without compromising signal intensity?
- thanks!
Here's the topic: according to classical electrodynamics, accelerated charges radiate (see Larmor formula).
However, if we take the strong equivalence principle seriously, a charge in free fall does not radiate, whereas a charge being blocked by free fall (e.g. by being statically put on a table) doesn't.
Reminder: the weak equivalence principle in simple terms says: all particles follow the same spacetime path in free fall.
The strong equivalence principle goes even further to say: whatever your experiment is: you cannot distinguish locally between acceleration and gravity ("local" is key here).
Therefore in the following gedanken experiment, when you drop an electron from a large height towards earth ground (and when it falls freely) it does not radiate. Whereas, when you put it on your kitchen table, and there it lies, it does radiate. Ergo: as anticipated, classical electrodynamics is only valid in the absence of gravitation! No big news here...
I am pointing this out because:
- I do not see many GTR texts mentioning this gedanken experiment, let alone discussing it thoroughly
- the text by Rindler ("Essential Relativity") delivers an unsatisfactory and superficial discussion, although Rindler is otherwise an excellent text, albeit not for beginners
- it illustrates very strikingly the implications of the strong equivalence principle and deserves a more scrutinous analysis
Does anyone know of any papers calculating the radiation power of charged particles in curved spacetime which are not in free fall?
Does anyone know of a paper doing a thorough analysis on the backreaction on spacetime by the radiation emitted?
Thanks to everyone in advance!
Oliver
Now being transferred to cold regions of my State, i observed that people ( Hotel Industry ) are these days installing DCI technology base Sewage Treatment Plant ( STP) rather than Biological section bases STP. The common statement/advantages i observed ( feedback ) as is that: 1. Easy in operation, 2. Less sludge generation ( Negligible). 3. No much technical staff is required 4. better results in final outlet of STP due to extreme cold whether and sufficient to handle to jerk load rather than maintaining BIo -Mass in both these two problems.
Whereas i personally have less knowledge about DCI technology so i have some doubts that :1. may be some amount of metal we are giving back to environment?? ( as degeneration of electrodes) 2. what will be exact mass balance and electro- chemistry over there in the Reactor??
So if some someone has comparisons or study paper on these two please share.
Anyone having any thoughts on how to get more accurate results?
My results are matching fairly well on low frequencies (4 to 15 hz) , and for finding the resonance frequencies (only 10 % or less different, and should get less with better experimental data later…), however at higher frequencies the plots diverges. I try to find relevant literature and other help online, but there are very limited literature available that are useful.
Attached you can find my experimental FRF. . The setup is a beam with a piezo patch attached to it. An accelerometer attached to the fixed end of the beam measures the base acceleration imposed by an electrodynamic shaker.
In the FRF,
EXP-denotes experimental FRF using Welch’s method (built into MATLAB). The three other graphs represent different ways of applying damping in ANSYS, where the two last (with alfa and beta) are Rayleigh damping coefficients.
Anyone having any experiences or any thoughts on how I can get ANSYS to be more realistic? Or maybe something is just fundementally wrong wrong with my experimental setup.
In general by strict mathematical definition of conservative fields, no magnetic vector field in any case even static can be conservative thus path-independent since it has no zero curl which is necessary for a field to be conservative [1]. In addition all conservative vector fields must be also irrotational (i.e. vortex, spiral). Even if a magnetic or other field special case, is found to be with zero curl that does not mean necessarily that it is conservative if it does not satisfy the condition in 3D space,
F:R3→R3 is continuously differentiable in a simply connected domain W∈R3 and its curl is zero:
Nevertheless, it is a mystery why the static magnetic field of magnet for example exhibits all the effects of a conservative field without having its properties?
No energy is consumed when a single charge particle is introduced forcing it to a circulation where equal amount of potential energy is converted to kinetic energy and vise versa. Energy is conserved thus no real work is done by the field thus conservative in effect!
Therefore a correct answer of time invariant static magnetic fields being conservative or not? Is I believe that they are virtual conservative fields by absence of any better explanation of this phenomenon and contradiction.
What are your thoughts and experience about this phenomenon?
Emmanouil
p.s The above virtual description of static conservative magnetic field begs a definitive better answer I believe and is a mystery proving how much more we have to investigate on this matter of Electromagnetism.
References
I am a phD student and since I started, I was using ferrocene carboxylic acid for CV and impedance scans, but now I started to use Ferri ferrocyanide in order to try the redox couple with a new polymer. The problem that I am having at the moment is that I am not be able to get a proper CV shape (as you can see in the Fig 1) in the bare gold. I tried:
1. Different current and potential
2. Checked the holders and connections
3. Use external counter, external reference and external working electrode to check the reaction in the internal reference and counter on chip.
4. Different scan rates,
5. Remove oxygen in the solution.
6. Use different concentration of ferri ferro and PBS.
7. Clean the surface with acid
8. Square wave voltammetry.
After try all this options is happening the same all time but just in the internal working electrode (if I use external one the scans are perfect. Another people in my lab were trying ferri ferrocyanide in the past and looks like they were having the same problem as me and them decided to use another type of ferrocene. But at the moment I think that if with a commercial electrode the solution works (fig 3), it should be the same with the internal electrode on the chips that we use.
When I did Square wave voltammetry, I Could realise that there are appear different peaks when I use the same electrode in different time (fig 4). And each one of the electrodes has different peaks. But what is weird is that each time its different on the same electrode, which means that there is a type of reaction happening on the surface.
Can anyone help me to understand what is happening here? I think that in the surface of the electrode there is ‘’something’’ that can be detected using ferri ferro but not with ferrocene carboxylic acid (because the reaction is mask for the groups OH during the oxidation of carboxylic groups).
I use a concentration of 1.5 mM of ferri ferrocyanide in PBS, but as I wrote before I tried different concentrations (of ferri ferro and PBS) and nothing works with the internal electrode but it works with the external working electrode (so the solution it’s not the problem in my opinion). Also I was reading about electro oxidation of methanol or ethanol or some surface with wax layer and the behaviour is a little bit similar, but I am not an expert on this…
Thanks in advance for your time and I hope get help on this.
Regards
I'm looking for software (ideally free to use) which can perform fragment orbital DFT (FODFT) for calculating diabetic electronic coupling matrix elements (electro transfer integrals)? I'm currently using the ADF package but for the molecules I'm interested in it appears to be quite inefficient due to the use of Slater type orbitals.
I am working on the preparation of graphene using electro-exfoliation of graphite. But I do not have RAMAN, SEM, or TEM. But I do have a spectrofluorometer in the lab I work in. Can this instrument help with the characterization?
What is the purpose to require that the laws of physics be the same in all so-called inertial frames? On one hand it is natural to suppose that the basic laws, such as laws of mechanics and electrodynamics, are equally valid in every part of the Universe. It seems that almost all scientists believe in the unity of the Universe. But on the other hand such a belief is not very useful unless we have the power to confirm or deny its validity. For example, we can't test the validity of fluid mechanics on a planet 100 ly far from the Earth. Can we? All we can say is that the electromagnetic waves coming from far planet to us are pretty much the same as the EM waves we produce and use in our Earth-bound laboratories. That's all we can.
Imagine two identical copies of a system--laboratories--where we test mechanical waves. The systems are isolated, as much as possible, one from another, but are moving relative to each other with constant velocity v. In each system we would test a wave equation--in one system the equation is expressed with (x,t) coordinates, and in the other system with coordinates (x',t') (spatial and temporal coordinates). It is a simple math to show that the wave equations have the same form, but if we relate the coordinates as x'=x-vt & t'=t, the wave equation changes its form. The same will happen if we use Lorentz transformation, simply because the speeds of mechanical waves are different from the speed of light in vacuum. But, why we need to do that--to express our equations in the coordinates from some other system? Is it not enough to state that the laws governing the mechanical wave are the same? We already have two equal equations. It is true that we can find linear transformation, which is neither Galilean nor Lorentz, preserving the form of the equations in two systems, but for what purpose we should do that?
The bottom line is this--we don't need any theory of relativity. Any theory of relativity is useless and brings only confusion into physics.
Einstein stated that “The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good”. In general, one of the main principle of SR is that "the laws of nature are the same for all inertial reference frames". Is this statement true?
One simple counter example refutes the above statement. Consider the law of the equality of the angles of reflection and incidence, say, when an ideal-elastic ball is thrown with a specific angle at a flat wall.
The reflection law is not true if the ball movement is studied from a different inertial frame. For example, if the experiment is observed by someone who is moving with the relative speed of v parallel to the reflection flight of the ball, the angle of reflection is always the same for any angle of incidence. The latter angle depends on the relative speed between the frame and the observer, v.
In general, the angle of reflection can be smaller, equal or larger than the angle of incidence if observed from different inertial reference frames. Please see section 2.1 (page 4) of the attached article for illustrations and more details.
How is it possible? What physics is behind it?
Actually the gate contact is my last step in fabrication and would like to know about which from the following is the best process for fin topology, Evaporation, Sputtering, and Electro deposition .and what is the tests that should be carried out after the deposition to check the quality of gate deposition?
For sustaining my PhD thesis I need to publish 1 or more articles with ISI impact factor (total ISI value 5). I have the experimental results from my previous job and I don't have the possibility to publish trough institution, so I have to publish them myself. The field is (electro)chemistry with aplication for food analysis (MSG). Do you know any journals with low costs for publishing an article (maxim 150 $) or even free?
I need to do ECM process on metal matrix composites. where i can do it? any one suggest me.
Dear All ,
Alternatively, what is an EM wave's longitudinal phase velocity uphase vs wave's transverse group velocity ugroup? For example a moving magnet's field skimming a coil from the inside, has a phase velocity almost instantaneous, many times the speed of light c.
As we see from the attached figure relation, as θ approaches zero (longitudinal transmission) the phase speed becomes almost instantaneous.
Therefore in any magnetic field either from a permanent magnet or a dc electric coil, the N-S flux lines we see I believe are the longitudinal 1D edge line propagation of the waves disturbances which yes this is closely correlated with the "aether quanta" response time or else aether speed.
As an example using tha above formula (uphase)(Sinθ)=ugroup,
sinθ= 1/(1.2E6)=0.8333Ε-6
or θ=4.77Ε-6 degrees, which gives uphase = 1.2E6 x ugroup !!
I wouldn't be surprised if this angle were even more smaller approaching zero and thus the aether response time or speed being almost instantaneous.
Group velocity however of transverse aether waves (i.e. EM waves) cannot be larger than c.
As an analogy, what you see when you throw a small stone on a a pond?
You see the wave rings forming almost instantaneous and then the waves propagate outwards with a much smaller speed.
Therefore I believe that the speed of magnetic flux lines from North to South poles being almost formed instantaneous or else the Universe would be not able to communicate at its vast distances.
Kind Regards,
Emmanouil Markoulakis
Technological Educational Institute of Crete
This will help us to push vehicles at the speed of light
i am trying to do the electro optically tunable pulse compression , using second harmonic generation in bulk BBO crystal , for that i need to define to independent electric field vectors in fourier space to solve my coupled wave equations . if some one has any idea of how to define two independent electric field electric field vectors in fourier space using matlab please assist.
electric flux density is equal to (numerically ) to the charge per area .....
but what are those lines ?? , the electric field strength is represented by lines .... however such lines do not exist ..... eventually is there a particle that mediates magnetic flux, electric field strength or electric flux .... eg protons mediates charge ...etc
In case of O/W emulsions containing non ionic surfactant stabilized by using a phase inversion temperature technique . Does, the magnitude of the zeta potential will reflect the stability of emulsion?
I.e if my zeta potential is near to zero i.e, - 4 or -5. Do we need to consider the magnitude of zeta potential(above -30 and + 30 mV) to tell that emulsion is stable.
In what type of stabilization mechanisms such as steric stabilization, steric repulsion and electro kinetic stabilization. we need to consider the magnitude of zeta potential.
I found this particular materials (FeTiO3/Fe2TiO5) focused on PEC water splitting system
i found very less DSSCs efficiency even less than 1%, it is lower than pure TiO2 why it is happen.
but in the the same kind of materials shows higher efficiency in PEC water splitting, how it is happen?
from few papers due to higher recombination rate and band position of materials reduces the DSSCs efficiency. but in the case of PEC water splitting this concept not matched ha how it is to be like this?
The Theory of Relativity is incorrect because the force of the interaction of two charges depends on the distance between the charges and on their relative velocity. Dimensions, time and mass do not depend on the velocity of movement of the charges.
All the phenomena of the electrodynamics of moving bodies are calculated simpler and more precisely with the help of a force that depends on distance and velocity [1] - [4], than with the help of the Theory of Relativity.
References
1. Smulsky, J.J. 1994. The Electromagnetic and Gravitational Actions (The Non-Relativistic Tractates). Novosibirsk: "Science" Publisher. 225 p. (In Russian). http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/ElGrVz2.pdf.
2. Smulsky, J.J. 1999. The Theory of Interaction. Novosibirsk: Publishing house of Novosibirsk University, Scientific Publishing Center of United Institute of Geology and Geophysics Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences. 293 p. (In Russian) http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/TVfulA5_2.pdf.
3. Smulsky, J.J. 2004. The Theory of Interaction. Ekaterinburg, Russia: Publishing house "Cultural Information Bank". 304 p. http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/TVEnA5_2.pdf.
4. Smulsky, J.J. 2014. Electrodynamics of moving bodies. Determination of forces and calculation of movements. Saarbrucken, Germany: "Palmarium Academic Publishing". 324 p. ISBN 978-3-659-98421-1. (In Russian). http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/ElMovBdJ.pdf.
The recoil force of radiation is known for spontaneous emission (for the radiation of an accelerating charge or dipole), when the photon field is empty. Is there any difference when stimulated emission is considered? Would it be enough to add an external force to the original radiative reaction-force without changing the original form of the radiative reaction?
Dear All,
Watch carefully and give your explanation:
However, magnetic hysteresis can not be accounted for here, since the structure can be left hanging for years as reported undisturbed without getting loose! This guy claims that he left it hanging for 2 years! here:
Kind Regards,
Emmanouil Markoulakis
Technological Educational Institute of Crete.
copyright©Emm Markoulakis TEI of Crete 2018
Respected sir
The different type of electrolyte used in ECM Process which electrolyte is best for ECM Process and if we are changing electrolyte the conductivity of work piece i will be change ........
it is possible or impossible ..........?
i am eagerly waiting for different answer and ideas
Greatest Regards
S.Sathishkumar
Respected sir
Greetings
ECM Process only suitable for conductive materials ,if material low conductivity some crucial process used for convert conductive materials then we will involve Machining by ECM But now my doubt is in case My materials is fully non conductive,if it is possible for convert Conductivity of materials in as per required limitation of ECM ......?
Best Regards
S.Sathishkumar
Light is electro magnetic wave. So, it should bend in strong magnetic field. Is it insignificant or no effect?
Collective effects are evident in billions and billions of particles or entities in physics, such as In lasers, electromagnetism [1], superconductivity, critical mass in nuclear physics, physics of fluids, thixotropic and other non-newtonian effects, fusion and fission, binding energy, gravity, and quantum mechanics.
There are applications also in maths. We discussed its application in social movements, where statistics is not used, nor psychology, but a causal model is introduced, based on physics of fluids and collective effects.
The problem is that a system made of billions of billions of particles or entities, as usual in physics of natural systems, is much harder to study, for example, in quantum behaviour or even classical.
In network theory, comes the example of 6 degrees of separation. Now, in physics [2,3], comes the example of 10 photons. Studying quantum behaviour of particles is much easier with fewer particles, so the fact that phase transitions occur in these small systems means we can better study quantum properties such as coherence.
Could we start to see behaviour of collective effects with 10 electrons or less? Can we use them to better study coherence also in non-quantum behaviour? What is the lower limit?
[1] Carver Mead, Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism,
[3] Driven-dissipative non-equilibrium Bose–Einstein condensation of less than ten photons, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-018-0270-1
In his book "Electrodynamics" Einstein gave an example of Lenz. Lenz obtained the Schwarzschild metric using the Lorentz transformations.
How far are the possibilities of such methods?
For example, I used the semiclassical method to get the gravitational field of a point source from Einstein's principle that the energy of the gravitational field is the source of the gravitational field.
I need to study the effect of very high power short duration electro magnetic pulses on electronic circuits. Which computational method may be suitable ? Time domain or frequency domain ? and which method in the respective domain ? Please give your suggestions.
I would like to measure the concentration of the metal( Gold, Copper, Silver, Platinum and Rhodium) ions in the acidic electrolyte.
Is there are device measure/ monitor the concentration of the ions?
