This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
We should add applications of nonradiation condition, such as fluorescent lights, nonradiative energy transfer devices, and recently invisibility physics. Mills also uses nonradiation as the basis for superconductivity. Holversb ( talk) 22:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
What should the name of this article be. Again I ask you to look at the issue from an anti-Mills point-of-view. One possibility is Classical nonradiation conditions, but is this too "millish"? If we call this Nonradiation conditions, then maybe we must include parts of quantum theory (not a bad idea). -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 23:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The nonradiation condition has absolutely nothing to do with quantum theory, it is entirely Maxwellian. I think the name "nonradiation condition" is fine. Holversb ( talk) 23:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The article appears to misstate results by Goedeke and Haus and to vastly overstate their significance, and has also been used in the past as a platform for Randell Mills to promote his pseudoscience. For those reasons I've added an expert-subject tag.-- 76.169.116.244 ( talk) 21:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The description of Haus's result doesn't seem correct, since it describes the result as if it were of general significance, whereas Haus only proves a result for a single point charge. The depiction of the significance of Haus's work seems wildly overblown, which is probably because of Mills's kook agenda. Haus's paper is pedagogical, and a search for citations in SPIRES didn't show any citations.-- 76.169.116.244 ( talk) 21:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
“ | By writing a very general stimulus (in a linear system) as the superposition of stimuli of a specific, simple form, often the response becomes easier to compute.
For example, in Fourier analysis, the stimulus is written as the superposition of infinitely many sinusoids. Due to the superposition principle, each of these sinusoids can be analyzed separately, and its individual response can be computed. (The response is itself a sinusoid, with the same frequency as the stimulus, but generally a different amplitude and phase.) According to the superposition principle, the response to the original stimulus is the sum (or integral) of all the individual sinusoidal responses. As another common example, in Green's function analysis, the stimulus is written as the superposition of infinitely many impulse functions, and the response is then a superposition of impulse responses. Fourier analysis is particularly common for waves. For example, in electromagnetic theory, ordinary light is described as a superposition of plane waves (waves of fixed frequency, polarization, and direction). As long as the superposition principle holds (which is often but not always; see nonlinear optics), the behavior of any light wave can be understood as a superposition of the behavior of these simpler plane waves. |
” |
“ |
|
” |
This article mentions "Invisibility physics". What is this? I have never heard of it.
The article discusses situations in which groups of electrons do not radiate when accelerated, but does not explain the failure to observe this in experiments (see Cherenkov radiation).
It also does not mention quantization, yet all of the behavior of individual electrons is quantized.
Also, the article doesn't seem to discuss the claims that the Nonradiation Condition has something to do with Quantum Mechanics or its interpretation. There are a few truly inadequate articles in WP, and this is one of them, IMO.
Is this inadequacy due to the Nonradiation Condition not actually being true (I have seen both a mathematical proof of it and criticisms of it as pseudoscience), or its being true but not well understood?
There is some interesting discussion at Reddit. David Spector ( talk) 11:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)