1,006 reputation
410
bio website marty-green.blogspot.com
location Canada
age
visits member for 3 years
seen 11 hours ago

Jun
8
answered Common false beliefs in Physics
Jun
5
comment Intrigued about a polarizer effect
amazing explanation. but what kind of diabolical people would sell you a filter like that?
Jun
5
awarded  Enthusiast
Jun
4
comment What is the shape of a clamped bent bar?
I can't exactly explain it, but I can point out that in the beam equation, for a uniform cross-section the force distribution is the second derivative of the curvature. So wherever there are no forces the chance in curvature can be at most linear.
Jun
4
answered Is there any thing other than time that “triggers” a radioactive atom to decay?
Jun
1
revised Does decoherence explain all instances of wave function collapse?
added 1007 characters in body
Jun
1
answered Particles, waves and parallel wire filters. Transmission formula?
Jun
1
comment Particles, waves and parallel wire filters. Transmission formula?
@Bjorn I'm going to give an alternative answer for the transmitting case, since you've argued for linear transition as the strips get thinner. And I think it would be a shame if we ended up relying on toolboxes to think for us.
May
31
comment Particles, waves and parallel wire filters. Transmission formula?
Re my last comment: at any rate, the calculations I've done are based on the assumption that the grid period is much smaller than the wavelength and the total grid diameter is much larger than the wavelength.
May
31
comment Particles, waves and parallel wire filters. Transmission formula?
When the grid period is longer than the wavelength you get multiple maxima and your analyisis is relevant. For practical applications of this kind of filter I think the period is supposed to be much smaller than the wavelength, so we are only interested in the central maximum. Another point: your intensity is proportional to the open area, but at assumes the light hitting the grid is simply absorbed. For the ideal conducting grid case, the currents flowing in the edges are very significant and lead to different results.
May
31
comment Particles, waves and parallel wire filters. Transmission formula?
There are some interesting complications I didn't include in my calculations relating to current distribution across the strips. As the strips get thinner, the current seems to want to bunch up near the edges. This throws my power calculation of a bit; but more importantly, it is suggestive of what happens with charge buildup in the cross-cut case. I wonder if the distributions are the same?
May
31
comment Particles, waves and parallel wire filters. Transmission formula?
Thanks, Jim. Yes, I'd like to do the other polarization but I'm finding it much harder. I'm very tempted to think that the 377-ohm case embodies a kind of complimentarity, where both polarizations will yield similar formulas. But I'm not very close to putting it together.
May
30
awarded  Editor
May
30
revised Particles, waves and parallel wire filters. Transmission formula?
added 3430 characters in body
May
30
comment Particles, waves and parallel wire filters. Transmission formula?
As I tried to explain in my answer, the relative cross-section area of the wires is irrelevant. Only their resistance matters. If you are assuming ideal (perfectly conducting) wires, then the transmission is zero for all 99 filters.
May
29
answered Particles, waves and parallel wire filters. Transmission formula?
May
28
comment Quantizing EM field
Yes! Yes! Yes! It can't be wrong. It has to be an equally valid alternative.
May
28
comment Bell Tests using position measurement
I'm grateful to the "community" for poking this question; I'm presuming on the grounds that it has gone unanswered. I have to say I was never satisfied with AC's answer: a) because I think I am asking for a demonstration of one of the very simplest cases of entanglement; b), because I don't believe PDC photons have the spatial "anti-coherence" necessary for my experiment as would, say, photons from the decay of positronium; c), because experiments like I describe, even WITHOUT the polarizers, should logically have predated the whole fuss generated by Bell in the sixties.
May
26
comment Does decoherence explain all instances of wave function collapse?
I just read the interesting paper referenced by Lubos in this earlier discussion: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4284/… and I have to say that some of the comments which prompted my interjection now make more sense to me than they did yesterday. Marek is probably right that I would be less interested in the choice problem; it is only now that I understand that in decoherence, these are indeed two separate problems.
May
26
comment A tutorial explanation of decoherence?
I'm going to have to add my upvote for the paper Lubos has linked to.