Radio Waves, Photons, and Wave Speed.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Moon Tickets Available
Next: Halexandria Update; Family Trees; Gods; Tiamat; Sitchin; von Daniken; KJV; sun stood still
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Dec 2009 07:57 dlzc wrote: > On Dec 20, 5:38 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> There are still some people here who believe >> that a radio wave is of similar nature to a >> gamma particle and consists of a single photon. > > There are some people here that think that photons are like water > molecules, and collections of photons (aka. waves) are like water > waves. > > Oh, right. That's "Henry Wilson, Doctor of Scatology" > > David A. Smith As somebody who is "geometry-challenged", it is difficult to think about light. I keep looking at a crystal ball I have which makes things appear upsidedown. Even though I see the effect of light going through the crystal, I can't seem to get my brain to "see" the geometry in my head without paper and pencil. Trying to "see" something that appears as a particle and a wave at the same time is very difficult. I have similar problems with fields in 3D. /BAH
From: Paul B. Andersen on 21 Dec 2009 09:03 On 21.12.2009 01:38, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > There are still some people here who believe that a radio wave is of similar > nature to a gamma particle and consists of a single photon. Others think it is > a Maxwellian type wave in an aether. How naive. > > I suggest that a radio wave is made by modulating the emission rate of a great > many 'white' photons. The 'wave' is determined by varying the photon energy > density and is projected over a wide angle at c wrt the broadcasting antenna. This is WILSON'S RADIATION LAW again, isn't it? Or has the law changed? Is RABBIDGE'S RADIATION LAW different? |Dr. Henri Wilson wrote March 26, 2009: || On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:38:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" || <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: || ||| Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: |||| Radio signals use photon density variations for waveform definition....... |||| WILSON'S RADIATION LAW. ||| ||| OK, Henri. ||| Apply 'WILSON'S RADIATION LAW' on this real world example: ||| ||| In the interstellar medium there are regions of cold hydrogen. ||| (Just about all the atoms are in ground state.) ||| From this hydrogen, we receive a 21 cm EM radiation. ||| We know that this radiation comes from the superfine transition ||| associated with spin reversal of the electron in ground state. ||| (The same as is used in hydrogen atomic clocks.) ||| When the spin reverses, a single photon is emitted/absorbed. ||| This process is stochastic, and on average each atom experiences ||| a transition once per ~10 million years. Since the density is ||| in the order of 30 atoms per cm^3, and one period of the radiation ||| is 0.7 ns, a bit calculation will show that you must have a volume ||| of 10^7 km^3 (a cube with 215 km sides) to have a 50% probability ||| for a transitions to take place within a specific period. ||| This means that there are hundreds of km between two atoms emitting ||| a photon within the same period. ||| ||| How come these randomly emitted photons from far apart atoms ||| arrange themselves in a wavelike density distribution with ||| exactly 21 cm wavelength? || || They don't, dopey. They don't have to. The individual photons have that || intrinsic wavelength. | | We agree, then. | What reaches the antenna is a flow of randomly spaced photons | with no wavelike density distribution. The wavelength is an | aspect of every photon. | | So why did you previously say: | "Radio signals use photon density variations for waveform definition" | when you now say it is wrong? || ||| Is there a drill sergeant? || || This is not the same process as that which occurs when a high frequency AC || current moves around an antenna. Do you understand radiation from an || accelerating charge? | | So if we receive 21 cm radiation emitted from an antenna, | photon density variations is used for waveform definition, | but if we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there | is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect | of the photons. Hilarious, no? BTW, what does it mean that a photon is "white", Ralph? :-) -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: dlzc on 21 Dec 2009 09:55 Dear jmfbahciv: On Dec 21, 5:57 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: .... > As somebody who is "geometry-challenged", it > is difficult to think about light. I keep > looking at a crystal ball I have which makes > things appear upsidedown. Even though I see > the effect of light going through the crystal, > I can't seem to get my brain to "see" the > geometry in my head without paper and pencil. > Trying to "see" something that appears as a > particle and a wave at the same time is very > difficult. I have similar problems with > fields in 3D. That is the problem with our brains. We have to define the present in terms of the past, rather than realizing the brain of a child apperceives reality without having to carry that baggage around. Look to a new experience. No quantum object is either localized and brittle as a billiard ball, nor is it part of some infinitely divisible whole. The conundrum and quandry is based on our macroscopic prejudice. You have seen the large "funnels" that you can place coins in that will spin around and around, to ultimately end up as a donation in a cup in its "black hole"? You can form a "wavefront" of coins and achieve all sorts "optical" phenomenon. Wave models allow us to model really huge numbers of photons, and achieve a desired result. They are handy approximations. They are tools. Put down the hammer, and stop seeing the world around you as comprised of nails... ;>) David A. Smith
From: Paul B. Andersen on 22 Dec 2009 06:36 On 22.12.2009 11:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:03:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > >> On 21.12.2009 01:38, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> There are still some people here who believe that a radio wave is of similar >>> nature to a gamma particle and consists of a single photon. Others think it is >>> a Maxwellian type wave in an aether. How naive. >>> >>> I suggest that a radio wave is made by modulating the emission rate of a great >>> many 'white' photons. The 'wave' is determined by varying the photon energy >>> density and is projected over a wide angle at c wrt the broadcasting antenna. >> >> This is WILSON'S RADIATION LAW again, isn't it? >> Or has the law changed? >> Is RABBIDGE'S RADIATION LAW different? >> >> |Dr. Henri Wilson wrote March 26, 2009: >> || On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:38:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> ||<paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >> || >> ||| Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >> |||| Radio signals use photon density variations for waveform definition....... >> |||| WILSON'S RADIATION LAW. >> ||| >> ||| OK, Henri. >> ||| Apply 'WILSON'S RADIATION LAW' on this real world example: >> ||| >> ||| In the interstellar medium there are regions of cold hydrogen. >> ||| (Just about all the atoms are in ground state.) >> ||| From this hydrogen, we receive a 21 cm EM radiation. >> ||| We know that this radiation comes from the superfine transition >> ||| associated with spin reversal of the electron in ground state. >> ||| (The same as is used in hydrogen atomic clocks.) >> ||| When the spin reverses, a single photon is emitted/absorbed. >> ||| This process is stochastic, and on average each atom experiences >> ||| a transition once per ~10 million years. Since the density is >> ||| in the order of 30 atoms per cm^3, and one period of the radiation >> ||| is 0.7 ns, a bit calculation will show that you must have a volume >> ||| of 10^7 km^3 (a cube with 215 km sides) to have a 50% probability >> ||| for a transitions to take place within a specific period. >> ||| This means that there are hundreds of km between two atoms emitting >> ||| a photon within the same period. >> ||| >> ||| How come these randomly emitted photons from far apart atoms >> ||| arrange themselves in a wavelike density distribution with >> ||| exactly 21 cm wavelength? >> || >> || They don't, dopey. They don't have to. The individual photons have that >> || intrinsic wavelength. >> | >> | We agree, then. >> | What reaches the antenna is a flow of randomly spaced photons >> | with no wavelike density distribution. The wavelength is an >> | aspect of every photon. >> | >> | So why did you previously say: >> | "Radio signals use photon density variations for waveform definition" >> | when you now say it is wrong? >> || >> ||| Is there a drill sergeant? >> || >> || This is not the same process as that which occurs when a high frequency AC >> || current moves around an antenna. Do you understand radiation from an >> || accelerating charge? >> | >> | So if we receive 21 cm radiation emitted from an antenna, >> | photon density variations is used for waveform definition, >> | but if we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there >> | is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect >> | of the photons. > > correct... SIC!!!!! :-) >> Hilarious, no? > > not really. No. So Ralph Rabbidge doesn't realize how hilarious his giant self-contradistinctions are. This Rabbidge fellow isn't very bright, is he? :-) > > I suppose you are going to claim that a radio station that has been on air for > fifty years is still broadcasing the same photon. ... another argument illustrating the intellectual capacity of Ralph Rabbidge. :-) -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Dec 2009 09:32
dlzc wrote: > Dear jmfbahciv: > > On Dec 21, 5:57 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > ... >> As somebody who is "geometry-challenged", it >> is difficult to think about light. I keep >> looking at a crystal ball I have which makes >> things appear upsidedown. Even though I see >> the effect of light going through the crystal, >> I can't seem to get my brain to "see" the >> geometry in my head without paper and pencil. >> Trying to "see" something that appears as a >> particle and a wave at the same time is very >> difficult. I have similar problems with >> fields in 3D. > > That is the problem with our brains. We have to define the present in > terms of the past, rather than realizing the brain of a child > apperceives reality without having to carry that baggage around. Look > to a new experience. No quantum object is either localized and > brittle as a billiard ball, nor is it part of some infinitely > divisible whole. The conundrum and quandry is based on our > macroscopic prejudice. Sure. I also think the geometry problems I have are hardware problems. ;-) > > You have seen the large "funnels" that you can place coins in that > will spin around and around, to ultimately end up as a donation in a > cup in its "black hole"? No, I don't think I've seen those. Are you talking about something like an exhibit I saw at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry in its math section? it had a huge inverted cone-shaped platform (it wasn't a cone but I can't think of the correct term). Every 5 maybe 10 minutes a steel ball would drop and the ball would travel through arcs on this platform. Eventually the arcs would be shorter and shorter and the ball would drop through the narrow cone piece. > You can form a "wavefront" of coins and > achieve all sorts "optical" phenomenon. > > Wave models allow us to model really huge numbers of photons, and > achieve a desired result. They are handy approximations. They are > tools. Put down the hammer, and stop seeing the world around you as > comprised of nails... ;>) > Or screws :-). My mother just gave me one of the two gyroscopes that Dad bought when we were kids. I was going to use it to play physics. She gave me the busted one :-(. those things are another example of puzzlement :-). /BAH |