Materials that absorb RF energy

[Ralf11]

50 minutes ago, mansr said:

Good luck with that.

 

 

ok, I have it!  Eureka!

 

anything in the box will give a non-zero probability of the RF wavicles winking out of existence due to quantum fluctuations

 

QED

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

ok, I have it!  Eureka!

 

anything in the box will give a non-zero probability of the RF wavicles winking out of existence due to quantum fluctuations

 

QED

Maybe it uses a mechanism similar to the infinite improbability drive.

[Ralf11]

I'm sure the item barrows is selling is effective at preventing RF from going from area A to area B.  No idea as to difference in SQ on any given system, and DBTs are a must with spendy items, tho not with a $100 item.

 

 

My last comment is correct.  In fact, there is a non-zero P() that the entire universe could vanish in a quantum fluctuation.  Might take a while...  Is it better to quantum out than to fade away?

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I'm sure the item barrows is selling is effective at preventing RF from going from area A to area B.

Oh, I'm sure it absorbs incident radiation in some frequency range. It's the notion that it has some kind of "damping" effect in its general vicinity I object to. That and the use of nonsensical terms like "energy field." If the supposed action can't be described in meaningful terms, it probably doesn't exist.

[Jud]

12 hours ago, wgscott said:

The box advocate can only be right if Maxwell was wrong.

 

The boy sure knew his coffee, I'll say that. 

[Jud]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

That and the use of nonsensical terms like "energy field." 

 

Doesn't seem nonsensical, any more than soundfield. 

[rando]

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

The boy sure knew his coffee, I'll say that. 

 

When, in 1920 when coffee was 10x the quality it is today?  

 

Speaking of, plants absorb RF.  

[Ralf11]

Maxwell was wrong

 

good approximation for the mid-range* tho

 

 

 

* spatial scales, not wavelength

[elcorso]

15 minutes ago, rando said:

 

When, in 1920 when coffee was 10x the quality it is today?  

 

Speaking of, plants absorb RF.  

 

Especially the banana leaves!

 

I planted several in my office. I do not send photos because since my camera was digital I did not use it again.

 

I still get good pure coffee in the Rainforest...

 

Roch

[jabbr]

44 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Maxwell was wrong

 

Oh dear ... 

[Ralf11]

59 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Oh dear ... 

 

"Classical theories just don't cut it with the quarks."

 

- Muster Mark

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

Maxwell was wrong

 

The equations are invariant with respect to Lorentz transforms.

 

The vector potential A appears in the momentum of the Hamiltonian for quantum field theory.  (Hence my point that magnetic vector potentials are real.)

 

He got it right, without even knowing of relativity or quantum mechanics.

 

[Ralf11]

suppose I put a photon in a box and come back to find an electron and a positron ?

[wgscott]

45 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

suppose I put a photon in a box and come back to find an electron and a positron ?

 Parity violation (or should I say parody violation)?  Five femtosecond penalty.  Walk the Planck.

 

What we've got here, is failure to conserve angular momentum. 

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

"Classical theories just don't cut it with the quarks."

 

- Muster Mark

Oh man. 

 

We are discussing “Dark Matter (tm)” and you are arguing that Maxwell’s equations are wrong ... 

 

‘Shrooms? 

 

You forgot Rule 53: If you ever find yourself arguing that Maxwell was wrong you’ve lost the argument. 

[Ralf11]

ok, my understanding is that they do not function well (or are not proven to) under certain conditions - not true?

 

 

and what about Feynman's concerns?

[mansr]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

ok, my understanding is that they do not function well (or are not proven to) under certain conditions - not true?

Certain conditions like "audio applications"? I don't think so.

[mansr]

8 hours ago, Jud said:

Doesn't seem nonsensical, any more than soundfield. 

You're right. Neither of them exists.

[jabbr]

8 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

ok, my understanding is that they do not function well (or are not proven to) under certain conditions - not true?

 

 

and what about Feynman's concerns?

Feynman has his own proof  of Maxwell’s equations. He was attempting to develop something new but proved Maxwell in the process.

(1) https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.16188

Maxwell has been extended to 7 dimensions — and there’s a very current reinterest in octonions — some light reading with your coffee this morning  

(2) https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0106235.pdf

(3) https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-octonion-math-that-could-underpin-physics-20180720/

 

Since this thread is about dark matter we mind as well intelligently discuss ?

[jabbr]

Now once your coffee is sipped, true there are some observed phenomena which aren't compatible with traditional Maxwell, namely: photo-photon scattering and quantum entanglement, and thats where this reformulation in higher dimensions is so interesting:

 

1) do you think that because the original equations have been reformulated that they are wrong?

2) it seems like any small crack of uncertainty that's placed in classical electrical engineering opens an ocean of flowing BS used my "secret" techniques using in quantum snake oil preparations e.g. Bybee, a multitude of cables etc etc.

3) There remain a multitude of opportunities to creatively reformulate audio circuits using good old fashioned schematics and techniques. @marce can attest to the value of 3D modelling on reductions in EMI/RF interference etc, and this 3D sim is the practical implementation/use of Maxwell's equations -- a lot easier to look at a nice pretty colored picture than try to solve curls in your head  

[jabbr]

Long but relatively readable and comprehensive overview of EMI mitigation methods:

https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=techmasters

 

if you look at nothing else, see Figure 2.16.

 

and regarding very practical use of Maxwell's equations in EMI mitigation:

http://www.mit.edu/~dluca/publications/daniel_thesis_2003_PhD.pdf

 

this presents an alternate method for reducing RF/EMI in distinction to rerouting a circuit trace and then listening for improved SQ — even for those of you who can judge dramatic differences in SQ within milliseconds, the computer can interate in parallel — now perhaps if we can coordinate teams of crack CA listeners ... IBOCA (infiniband over CA) ...?

 

If you read nothing else, see Section 1.2.1 The “Build, Test And Hope!” Design methodology

 

[Jud]

7 hours ago, mansr said:

You're right. Neither of them exists.

 

Just a way to conceptualize, like magnetic field or gauge field, or for that matter, particle, wave, force, or dimension.

[Ralf11]

ok, last post on this - my understanding is that Maxwellian wave superposition is not consistent with some things in quantum field theory, e.g. photon scattering from another photon, or various quantum relativistic phenomena

 

no, not audio related but much of this site is not...

[mansr]

26 minutes ago, Jud said:

Just a way to conceptualize, like magnetic field or gauge field, or for that matter, particle, wave, force, or dimension.

The difference is that the notion of a magnetic field is useful because it models the actual behaviour of charged particles. The idea of an "energy field" doesn't make sense.

[jabbr]

29 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

ok, last post on this - my understanding is that Maxwellian wave superposition is not consistent with some things in quantum field theory, e.g. photon scattering from another photon, or various quantum relativistic phenomena

 

Are you suggesting that all of physics is "wrong" in the same way you said "Maxwell is wrong" because there are edge cases where there is no unified field theory and consequently no set of equations itself predicts everything?

 

29 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

no, not audio related but much of this site is not...

 

The problem is that we are talking about RF/EMI mitigation in the context of audio equipment. When I sit down to design a circuit/PCB should I ignore Maxwell's equations (at the simplest level matching impedance and considering ground/supply planes and returns vis-a-vie PCB traces) just because this doesn't take quantum entanglement into account? Can you suggest a better simulation package?

 

I'm not talking theory here, rather very practical stuff related to real circuits used in real audio circuits.

 

1 hour ago, Jud said:

Just a way to conceptualize, like magnetic field or gauge field, or for that matter, particle, wave, force, or dimension.

 

I think the concern is that the picture that is being painted leads you to conceptualize in a misleading fashion. When technical marketing is done in a good fashion, it presents an easy to understand yet largely accurate story. The equations themselves are specific, and good marketing for real products will tell a story that is consistent with the very well known behavior of electronics.