Jump to content

Amr Morsi

Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Amr Morsi

  1. Ambros........ it is important here to mention a Mathematical Theorem which states that any field vector is totally determined if its curl and divergence are both known. That's why we have 4 Maxwell's Equations; 2 for the Electric Field and another 2 for the Magnetic field ....... although the R.H.S.s of these equations are functions of the electric and magnetic fields themselves.


    The main problem is in solving these differential equations, and in some times they get solved by perturbation theory. In order to get rid of the curl, you get the curl of both sides of the equation and curl of the curl of a field vector gives the grad of the div of the vector minus the laplacian of that vector.


    By that I think I explained the 2 problems you are confused with; 1. Maxwell's equations are contradicting or not sufficient, 2. How to solve them?.

  2. The resultant velocity vector has three components; x,y,z. Suppose that the relative motion of the frames is in the x-direction. Then; the x-component will be got from the transformation relations, and the y,z-components are same as in the original frame multiplied by a simple factor due to time dilation effects.

  3. We must not get confused between the particle wave of photons and the wave nature of light. The existance probability of photons gets applied on the emission of photons by the light source (charge or current), after that the photons are well distributed according to the emission probability density, and the electric and magnetic fields are defined.

  4. Energy, direction and phase can all be determined from the Quantum Electrodynamics Theory. It is to be noted that the direction is a probablistic one; i.e. under a great number of emissions the probability gets determined.

    ......... as far as I think.

  5. Hi All,;)


    This is a widely spread wrong fact about Quantum Mechaincs since long ago. There do is a time operator. And, as already been mentioned in this thread; the hamiltonian itself is a time operator.

    It is only because idea adopters sometimes get so sticked to their idea and they get away facts conflicting with their ones.



  6. I think logic is all the time true, but true logic. When we speak about physics then we must compare with known (or trusted) facts and logics that have to do with physics.


    The main thing that is not accepted by some scientists in Copenhagen's Interpretation is that it cannot determine the result of one experiment (with knowing the initial conditions of the experiment). It is only speaking about probabilities without any certainty (WHICH INCLUDES HUP) in any result.

  7. Hello All,


    Hawking's Theory of Everything, is only a frame work for the expected theories in thie field. For instance, he was confirming his ideas by the applying of units preservations ans same famous equations.


    He didn't introduce any equation. But, he proposed an expected some-what reasonable answers to questions in the modern science. But, protesters are much more than acceptors for his theory.

  8. Hi Buddies,


    Have anyone any idea about the ranges of factors in which electromagnetic polarizations, in waveguides, have a considerable effect in propagation of EM waves; material and designal ones? I am just doing a research in that issue to help in advance. Thanks.



  9. Electromagnetic Books,


    I am just asking here, what is the most book used now in Electromagnetics and Wave Guides. Is there any book that treats special waveguides from QFT, or even semi-QFT point of view? Thanks for support, in advance.

  10. Regards,


    What is now mainly adopted with science and scientists is the Compenhagen Interpretations (Born Interpretations). The matter of relation between reality and observation, although being a vital issue, is not the main difference between various trends. It is the meaning of the wave function, mainly the squared modulus of the wave function.


    A serious trend now in the field of science, is adopting another interpretation, as previously mentioned in that thread. It is related to probability meaning of QM, and QFT. Not a few facts supports the new interpretation, which coincides with Schrodinger's Proposition: That it is the average effect of not-precisely known fundamental facts. You can refer to Schrodinger's Papers about that. I am just introducing a fact. Thanks for accepting it friendly.

  11. Hi Sir,


    With respect to the twin paradox, it can totally be accounted for by the Special Relativity, even though acceleration is involved (can be included in SR, as opposite to many people may think). Science now has settled down to that the traveller (accelerating and decelerating) is the younger. But, I can say with confidence, other serious deeper researches say that they will be equal in age, after accounting correctly for acceleration in SR.


    A simple check, look to the other twin from the versus-frame-of-reference. What is the situation? It is totally the opposite.



    Time Transfer is only accounted for in GR, WHERE MASSES ARE AFFECTING THE SPACE-TIME CURVATURE.


    May be I pointed it out. But, I studied it and Experimentally.

  12. Why don't you try a one by yourself?


    An adequate weak light in the background and a perfect camera will allow you to detect the electrons (Betas). This is useful for spread penetration. Whereas for angle-incident ones, you just need to know the intensity; a metal and Ammeter in the way will detect the current (Intensity).


    Many Thanks for the feedback if available.



  13. Gutz,

    On the contrary Gutz, the society now is on its way along with QM (If I understood your words correctly). All of us are now sure that QM and QFT are correct (With a real trend towards Unification of Forces). But, what is really being discussed now is the real manifestation of QM. A note: QFT (QEWD and QCD) and is now believed to be the main correct theory and QM (Semi Classical QM) are only an approximation. All Scientists now are talking about QM Interpretations!


    Wouldn't it?


  14. Hi All,


    From the very important papers that are being reviewed now in Quantum Mechanics are those of Einstein that INCLUDED DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ENTANGELMENT of electrons. It says that Quatum Mechanics are describing an overall effect of the electrons upon themselves, upon small ranges. That's why he insisted upon his opinion of QM and QFT (In its early days) being a manifestation of the small range multi self-interactions between electrons, in particular (or as an example).


    Would anyone advise what is the common meaning of "Entangelment" that is being used widely these days? Thanks in advance.



  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.