Maker Pro
Maker Pro

AM electromagnetic waves: astronomically-high modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier

R

RHF

Jan 1, 1970
0
Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.
I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
carriers, and modulators.
Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal with a
frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles
every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and
an amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
frequency is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?
If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.
10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) second is an
extremely short amount of time. 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond is even shorter because a
nanosecond is shorter than a second.
10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 cycles is an extremely
large amount of cycles. 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000
gigacycles is even more because a gigacycle is more than a cycle.
Giga-eon = a billion eons
Eon = a billion years
Gigacycle = a billion cycles.
*nanocycle = billionth of a cycle
Gigaphoton = a billion photons
10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 -- now that is one
large large number.
10^1,000,000,000 = 10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000
So you get:
(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)
10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) = 10^-(10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)-to-the-power-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000)
10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000) is an extremely small number at it equals 10-to-
the-power-NEGATIVE-[(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-
to-the-power-1,000,000,000)]
No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.

Radium

Radium

The answer is no. It takes a finite time for even so called 'instantaneous'
quantum interactions to occur, so the frequencies quoted are a nonsense.
Essentially frequencies above around 10 ^ 30 Hz may (as) well not exist. I
am probably a few orders of magnitude out here, but that is the general
idea.

For a detailed explaination see "The Road to Reality: A complete Guide to
the Laws of the Universe by Roger Penrose - ISBN 0739458477". Available from
Amazon and all good booksellers. Mr. Penrose has collaborated with some of
the greatest theoretical mathamaticians and physicists of the last fifty
years and if you can follow the maths, all will become clear. This book will
explain a lot of the maths required anyway, so worth giving it a go.

Most mathematicians prefer to simplify equations by removing superfluous
zeroes and exponents by cancellation on either side of the equation. :)

Mike G0ULI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.. . . ? . . .
 
D

Don Bowey

Jan 1, 1970
0
Cecil

Yes indeed he does. This book is about as leading edge as it gets. The
author has worked closely with Stephen Hawking and people of similar
academic credentials. It doesn't get any better than that.

It is clear from reading this book that we have reached a plateau in our
capability of understanding how the universe works and we need to await the
arrival of new technology and techniques to be able to test the latest
theories. The theory has outstripped the technology for the time being.

Mike G0ULI

They don't know how to tie strings together?
 
J

Jeff Liebermann

Jan 1, 1970
0
an a-null-ment is in order.
mike

Divorcing oneself from reality is probably easier and cheaper than
getting the church involved in an annulment.

The problem here is that most people don't understand the difference
between a zero and a null. Zeros are easy as they are place holders
for orders of magnitude increases in quantities. Nulls are what's
left when we run out of zeros. Think of nulls as place holders for
the missing zeros.

The uncontrolled substitution of nulls for missing zeros has the
potential for destroying civilization as we know it. For example, a
check written for a million dollars would normally be inscribed:
$1,000,000.00
When all the zero have been consumed and replaced by nulls, it would
look like this:
$1, , .
which leaves much to the imagination. Perhaps we should add zeros to
the endangered "specie" list?
 
B

Bob's Backfire Burrito

Jan 1, 1970
0
" Radium"

Is a certified nutcase........
nothing new here.
 
L

Larry Finger

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff said:
Divorcing oneself from reality is probably easier and cheaper than
getting the church involved in an annulment.

The problem here is that most people don't understand the difference
between a zero and a null. Zeros are easy as they are place holders
for orders of magnitude increases in quantities. Nulls are what's
left when we run out of zeros. Think of nulls as place holders for
the missing zeros.

The uncontrolled substitution of nulls for missing zeros has the
potential for destroying civilization as we know it. For example, a
check written for a million dollars would normally be inscribed:
$1,000,000.00
When all the zero have been consumed and replaced by nulls, it would
look like this:
$1, , .
which leaves much to the imagination. Perhaps we should add zeros to
the endangered "specie" list?
Doesn't the space collapse so that we end up with $1...?
 
J

JIMMIE

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi:

Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.

I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
carriers, and modulators.

Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal with a
frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles
every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and
an amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
frequency is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?

If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) second is an
extremely short amount of time. 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond is even shorter because a
nanosecond is shorter than a second.

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 cycles is an extremely
large amount of cycles. 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000
gigacycles is even more because a gigacycle is more than a cycle.

Giga-eon = a billion eons

Eon = a billion years

Gigacycle = a billion cycles.

*nanocycle = billionth of a cycle

Gigaphoton = a billion photons

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 -- now that is one
large large number.

10^1,000,000,000 = 10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000

So you get:

(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) = 10^-(10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)-to-the-power-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000) is an extremely small number at it equals 10-to-
the-power-NEGATIVE-[(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-
to-the-power-1,000,000,000)]

No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.

Thanks,

Radium

I guess you could have some real problems when the rise time of your
modulated envelope becomes faster than the speed of light.
 
S

Sjouke Burry

Jan 1, 1970
0
Radium said:
Hi:

Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.
Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal with a
frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles
every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and

Ah our village idiot is back again.
Also crossposting like all welbehaving
village idiots.
 
M

m II

Jan 1, 1970
0
Don said:
They don't know how to tie strings together?


When some of them have only one end, it becomes bothersome. thankfully
my shoelaces were spared this metaphysical ambiguity.







mike
 
J

Jeff Liebermann

Jan 1, 1970
0
Doesn't the space collapse so that we end up with $1...?

Space does not collapse except in the vicinity of a black hole. Space
also tends to collapse during department reorganizations, where
there's never enough space left.

There's also the problem of accounting for the missing nulls. Where
did they go and what was the exchange rate?

Such things are fairly important. For example, did you ever notice
that Roman Numerals do not have a zero or a null? There was a half
hearted attempt at inventing zero or null (nulla), but fortunately
that failed for many centuries. Rome survived much decadence and some
really weird Emperors without much difficulty.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals>
However, no sooner than the Romans adopted the bad habits of their
conquered neighbors, which included zero and null, did their
civilzation falter and eventually die. At the least, this should be
an obvious clue that messing with zero and null should not be taken
lightly.
 
J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi:

Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.

I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
carriers, and modulators.

Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal with a
frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles
every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and
an amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
frequency is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?

If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) second is an
extremely short amount of time. 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond is even shorter because a
nanosecond is shorter than a second.

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 cycles is an extremely
large amount of cycles. 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000
gigacycles is even more because a gigacycle is more than a cycle.

Giga-eon = a billion eons

Eon = a billion years

Gigacycle = a billion cycles.

*nanocycle = billionth of a cycle

Gigaphoton = a billion photons

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 -- now that is one
large large number.

10^1,000,000,000 = 10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000

So you get:

(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) = 10^-(10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)-to-the-power-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000) is an extremely small number at it equals 10-to-
the-power-NEGATIVE-[(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-
to-the-power-1,000,000,000)]

No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.

---
No offense but all you're really interested in is getting
unsuspecting people with good hearts to respond to your inane
trolls.

It's painfully obvious that you're not even a neophyte when it comes
to science, so your persistence in wasting everyone's time with your
foolishness indicates that you're not looking for answers, only
attention.
 
M

m II

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff said:
Such things are fairly important. For example, did you ever notice
that Roman Numerals do not have a zero or a null? There was a half
hearted attempt at inventing zero or null (nulla), but fortunately
that failed for many centuries. Rome survived much decadence and some
really weird Emperors without much difficulty.


There's the troubling rumour that Zero fiddled while Rome burned. It's
simply not rue.

mike
 
R

RHF

Jan 1, 1970
0
When some of them have only one end, it becomes bothersome. thankfully
my shoelaces were spared this metaphysical ambiguity.

mike
 
C

clifto

Jan 1, 1970
0
Radium said:
Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal with a
frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles
every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and
an amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
frequency is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?
No.

If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.

No.
 
D

DTC

Jan 1, 1970
0
m said:
There's the troubling rumour that Zero fiddled while Rome burned. It's
simply not rue.

Correct...the fiddle wasn't invented for another thousand years.

[quote Wiki]

It was said by Suetonius and Cassius Dio that Nero sang the "Sack of Ilium"
in stage costume while the city burned. However, Tacitus' account has Nero
in Antium at the time of the fire. Tacitus said that Nero playing his lyre
and singing while the city burned was only rumor. Popular legend remembers
Nero fiddling-- that is, playing the fiddle-- while Rome burned, but this
is an anachronism as the instrument had not yet been invented, and would
not be for over 1,000 years.
 
R

RHF

Jan 1, 1970
0
the question begs..... HUH????????


Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.
I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
carriers, and modulators.
Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal with a
frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles
every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and
an amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
frequency is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?
If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.
10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) second is an
extremely short amount of time. 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond is even shorter because a
nanosecond is shorter than a second.
10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 cycles is an extremely
large amount of cycles. 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000
gigacycles is even more because a gigacycle is more than a cycle.
Giga-eon = a billion eons
Eon = a billion years
Gigacycle = a billion cycles.
*nanocycle = billionth of a cycle
Gigaphoton = a billion photons
10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 -- now that is one
large large number.
10^1,000,000,000 = 10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000
So you get:
(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)
10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) = 10^-(10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)-to-the-power-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000)
10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000) is an extremely small number at it equals 10-to-
the-power-NEGATIVE-[(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-
to-the-power-1,000,000,000)]
No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.

Radium- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
 
Top