Talk:Nonradiation condition

Applications
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)


 * No on the contrarty, I think we should leave Mills out of this article as far as possible. If this article is in any way based on Mills' work, in Wikipedia it automaticly becomes "pseudoscience" and has no chance of survival. What we should have here is the mainstram physics needed to undestand Mills' "theory", that cannot be included in the Hydrino theory article because of the opposition and the NPOV requirement of a scientific point-of-view. If you can provide reliable non-Mills sources that explain fluorescent lights with classical nonradiation conditions, please provide them. From the existing sources I see that Cerenkov radiation is explaned by nonradiation conditions by Hermann A. Haus, a reliable non-Mills source. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Name of article?
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)

Expert-subject tag
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)


 * "Haus's paper is pedagogical, and a search for citations in SPIRES didn't show any citations." - 76.169.116.244
 * SPIRES
 * https://era.nih.gov/nih_and_grantor_agencies/other/spires.cfm
 * "SPIRES is a database of scientific publications resulting from NIH supported research, both extramural and intramural. The primary purpose of SPIRES is to automatically map publications from the NLM PubMed database to the respective grants. SPIRES data is used by various NIH communities for purposes such as program analysis and monitoring of compliance with public access.
 * The term “SPIRES” refers to both the SPIRES database and the SPIRES query tool for accessing the database.
 * Also, Haus' paper is cited by numerous non-Mills sources:
 * https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=-mills&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=5%2C48&sciodt=0%2C48&cites=4889181509250620212&scipsc=1
 * http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.1192
 * http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.1107
 * http://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.54.2956
 * http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pop/1/5/10.1063/1.870729
 * http://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.62.8640
 * http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.134101
 * http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pop/3/6/10.1063/1.871706
 * http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02743214
 * http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/65/19/10.1063/1.112689
 * http://iopscience.iop.org/1464-4258/3/2/306
 * http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/p99-060
 * http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=954113
 * https://kluedo.ub.uni-kl.de/files/2266/AR2010.pdf#page=46
 * http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4x26q126.pdf
 * http://www.springerlink.com/index/t6r265r15g630043.pdf
 * Signed, talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 05:03, 13 December 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." - 76.169.116.244
 * The paper by Haus involves Fourier analysis. The first section of the article on the Superposition principle is titled "Relation to Fourier analysis and similar methods".
 * It states:
 * 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.
 * Mills states in Appendix I of his book:


 * Appendix I
 * NONRADIATION CONDITION
 * DERIVATION OF THE CONDITION FOR NONRADIATION
 * The condition for radiation by a moving point charge given by Haus [1] is that its spacetime Fourier transform does possess components that are synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light. Conversely, it is proposed that the condition for nonradiation by an ensemble of moving charge that comprises a charge density function is that its spacetime Fourier transform does NOT possess components that are synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light. The Haus derivation applies to a moving charge density function as well because charge obeys superposition.
 * [....]
 * For varying electromagnetic fields, Jackson [15] gives a generalized expansion in vector spherical waves that are convenient for electromagnetic boundary value problems possessing spherical symmetry properties and for analyzing multipole radiation from a localized source distribution. The Green function [....]
 * REFERENCES
 * 1. H. A. Haus, “On the radiation from point charges,” American Journal of Physics, 54, (1986), pp. 1126-1129.
 * [....]
 * 15. J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, (1975), pp. 739-779.
 * Signed, talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 05:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Invisibility physics?
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)