Date: Jan 28, 2013 12:43 AM
Subject: MIT's Lewin objection in Malus law Chapt15.41 Malus law solves<br> superconductivity and solves and unifies Thermodynamics to the Maxwell<br> Equations #1182 New Physics #1302 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
On Jan 27, 11:22 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
> Let me again investigate how the Maxwell Equations derives the Malus
> I wrote on December 26, 2012, this where MIT's Lewin claims that the
> Maxwell Equations can derive the Malus law but has to be reinforced
> with Quantum Mechanics. I am going to take argument with Dr. Lewin and
> claim that Maxwell Equations derives Malus Law outright and that his
> objections of having to bolster the argument with quantum mechanics is
> an objection in error. More later..
> Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.electromag, sci.math, sci.chem
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 23:46:20 -0800 (PST)
> Local: Thurs, Dec 27 2012 1:46 am
> Subject: MIT's Lewin Re: do the Maxwell Equations derive Malus law?
> Chapt15.34 explaining Superconductivity from Maxwell Equations #1117
> New Physics #1237 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
> Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show
> original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
> Walter Lewin of MIT in one of his YouTube clips says Malus law is
> derivable in both Maxwell Equations and Quantum Mechanics. He made a
> point that blue light in a filter will come out as blue light after
> the filter, so it needs a quantum mechanic explanation. Now I wish
> MIT's clips can be reduced to 10 minute segments rather than a 75
> minute long lecture which I am not willing to sit through.
> Now here is another reply in a Google search for "Malus law derived
> from Maxwell Equations"
> 20th June 2007, 05:43 AM
> Malus's law follows from simple trigonometry plus the fact that the
> intensity of light is proportional to the square of the field. You
> consider the last part to be a classical result of Maxwell's
> (there are quantum mechanics explanations for that too but you don't
> need them).
> --- end Ziggurat ---
> Now I think Ziggurat's answer has problems compared to Lewin's
> because of the single blue photon intensity is the same going in as
> coming out and thus the quantum explanation needs to enter the
> However! As I stated earlier, if you have the Symmetrical Maxwell
> Equations with magnetic monopoles, and thus have a pilot wave along
> with the blue photon wave, then the blue photon in is the same as the
> blue photon out and where the pilot wave does all the alterations to
> satisfy the Malus law.
> So when you include in the Maxwell Equations:
> 1) magnetic monopoles
> 2) pilot wave
> 3) double transverse waves
> That you get all of quantum mechanics derived out of the Maxwell
> Equations, not just Malus law.
> --- end quote of older post ---
I can understand Lewin's objection, but so many things in life, let
alone in physics where we raise unwarranted objections. What may seem
to be plausible objections, are really unclear thoughts about the
Lewin's objection is that the wavelength of the photons remain blue
while the intensity decreases. Does Lewin have a valid objection and
does his objection warrant the intervention of Quantum Mechanics? I
say no. I say that because the intensity is a measure of numbers of
photons and not necessarily a measure of numbers of photons with
their wavelength. Can you have a beam of light that consists of just
1 photon or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5? Is there a small number in which the
Malus law starts to apply? I think so. So that if all the photons of
say a minimum number of 10^10 photons of a beam of light, that if all
those photons were blue wavelength that be decrease in intensity means
we remove say 1/2 of 10^10. So in this manner, we see that Lewin's
objection is not even relevant. And quantum mechanics is really about
discreteness, not about small numbers.
So I think the derivation of Malus law is straightforward out of the
Maxwell Equations and that any application of Quantum Mechanics is a
mis-application for it is unwarranted. If Dr. Lewin thinks otherwise,
he can easily reply to this post.
Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine-
bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and
fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here:
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies