Radium said:Hi:
Green light has a wavelength of about 510 nm. Is it possible to
generate green light using an AC electric current that has frequency
high enough to have a wavelength of 510 nm? Has this ever been done
before?
AFAIK, an AC current generates electromagnetic waves of the same
frequency of the current. In USA, electric power generators radiate 60
Hz photons. I would think it is possible to produce green light using
an AC current that has a frequency of 510 nm. Am I right?
Thanks,
Radium
Radium said:Tim said:I think you'll find that blue electricity is easy to generate. The problem
is that it doesn't interact well with fuses.
Tim Ward
By "blue" electricity, I assume you are talking about the bluish-white
light that is generated when electricity is at a high-enough voltage to
pass through air. As the current passes through the air, the air heats
up to temperatures adequate enough to produce a bluish-white light.
This light, however, is incandescent, and nothing to do with the
production of light I am referring to. When I was talking about
electrically-generating 510 nm light, my description was to use an AC
generator that outputs extremely high frequency AC current that gives
of electromagnetic waves at 510 nm. As other posters have pointed out,
the electric current would have to change direction [alternate] at
around 580 trillion times a second. AC current almost always produces
electromagnetic radiation at the same frequency.
By "blue" electricity, I assume you are talking about the bluish-white
light that is generated when electricity is at a high-enough voltage to
pass through air. As the current passes through the air, the air heats
up to temperatures adequate enough to produce a bluish-white light.
This light, however, is incandescent, and nothing to do with the
production of light I am referring to. When I was talking about
electrically-generating 510 nm light, my description was to use an AC
generator that outputs extremely high frequency AC current that gives
of electromagnetic waves at 510 nm. As other posters have pointed out,
the electric current would have to change direction [alternate] at
around 580 trillion times a second. AC current almost always produces
electromagnetic radiation at the same frequency.
jeff said:The demise of the eastern block has pretty much ended research into red
electricity, although some interesting work continues to comes out of
the more hard line schools in China. Blue electricity however, is just
too sad to contemplate.
Radian, whomever you are, you are a *****! [rest of intolerant tirade
excised]
Radium wrote:
No. Not right. You are confusing the E+B field and
photons. It is very useful to learn the difference.
Duane said:Not at all. There is no fundamental difference between
E+B and photons.
Current physics says there are only 4 forces.
Gravity
Electro-magnetic force
The strong nuclear force
The weak nuclear force
Photons carry the Electro-magnetic force.
Duane
Not at all. There is no fundamental difference between
E+B and photons.
Current physics says there are only 4 forces.
Gravity
Electro-magnetic force
The strong nuclear force
The weak nuclear force
Photons carry the Electro-magnetic force.
Actually, there are only two "forces": Love and Denial.
All those other things are artifacts of trying to fit a fractal
reality into an orthogonal mental model.
Rich said:Radian, whomever you are, you are a *****! [rest of intolerant tirade
excised]
Bob May, this is sci.electronics.basics. There is no such thing as a
stupid question, except the one you don't ask. We never turn away
a newbie for not already knowing the answers - that's what this NG
is _FOR_.
Next time you wish to unload a salvo of insults, please leave
sci.electronics.basics out of the crosspost.
Dan said:Duane C. Johnson wrote:
Hi Duane,
Here I'll beg to differ. As this is cross posted
to sci.physics, corrections are welcome. But this
is what I understand.
There are no 'traveling' photons. We have no way
to test this but there are some clues.
The quality of quanta is only observed when light
is emitted or absorbed. We only assume that this
quality exists in between. We have no observation
that supports the interaction of 'photons'. Only the
wave like quality of light is needed to describe it
while it 'moves' from one place to another.
Now consider a phased array antenna. If 'photons'
don't interact, how is it that a diffraction like
pattern is generated? Well, if we insist that it is
photons leaving the array, then pieces of the photon
must move through the separate elements.
It doesn't make any sense to consider em waves as
photons. Quanta is only a transitional characteristic
of light.
Best, Dan.
Bob said:Rich, I'm not on your newsgroup. I'm posting from another group on the list
so you haven't seen me before. I'll note that radium is a well known poster
on the newsgroup lists as being an idiot when it comes to any scientific
matters. That he's even considering that electricity has "color" shows how
little real knowledge about reality. If I were you, i'd not try to defend
him in any way or you'll end up in the same bucket of fools that he exists
in.
Duane said:That's the deal. Quantum-electrodynamics does make
sense of these things.
OK, to be fair, they don't necessarily make sense to me.
Duane
Rich said:Radian, whomever you are, you are a *****! [rest of intolerant tirade
excised]
Bob May, this is sci.electronics.basics. There is no such thing as a
stupid question, except the one you don't ask. We never turn away
a newbie for not already knowing the answers - that's what this NG
is _FOR_.
'Radium' has a track record of saying dumb things. He's certainly not a newbie
in that respect for sure !
Next time you wish to unload a salvo of insults, please leave
sci.electronics.basics out of the crosspost.
Actually, it was the dimwit 'Radium' who crossposted this thread when he started
it.
Rich, I'm not on your newsgroup. I'm posting from another group on the list
so you haven't seen me before. I'll note that radium is a well known poster
on the newsgroup lists as being an idiot when it comes to any scientific
matters. That he's even considering that electricity has "color" shows how
little real knowledge about reality. If I were you, i'd not try to defend
him in any way or you'll end up in the same bucket of fools that he exists
in.
It didn't to me either until I figured out that so much written about
making sense came from human needs. Even Bohm did it. One of the first
books I read, (mind you the math was over my head), was The Undivided
Universe. Then there was Von Neumann, Hugh Everett, all the way to John
Cramer's interpretation. Then it struck me, they are all trying to
'interpret' QM with 'classical' explanations. This after reading what is
now one of my favorite quotes:
----
Ever since Francis Bacon, it had been believed that the laws of Nature
were there to be 'discovered,' if only one made the right experiments.
Einstein taught us differently. He stressed the vital role of human
inventiveness in the process. Newton 'invented' the force of gravity to
explain the motion of the planets. Einstein 'invented' the curved
spacetime and the geodesic law; in his theory there is no force of
gravity. If two such utterly different mathematical models can (almost)
both describe the same observations, surely it must be admitted that the
physical theories do not tell us what nature is, only what it is like.
The marvel is that nature seems to go along with some of the 'simplest'
models that can be constructed...
‘Wolfgang Rindler
----
What it really says is that Newton's and Einstein's ontology's were
radically different. Yet we have no clue which is correct or even if
either is correct.
The term "explain" is too vague to be meaningful. What it usuallyIf we can't 'explain' gravity, classical physics, why
should we be able to 'explain' QM?
I have come to terms with it by accepting it. EM waves are just that,
there are no 'photons' between transitions. That the energy has a
property, quanta, does not have to mean light is made of particles.
We only have observations of the quanta.
That quanta should imply light is particulate in nature is a human need.
Not quite so. We can say which is incorrect. We can do it by
comparing their predictions with measurements and see how they match.
And this is what physics is about, generation of models and
verification of said models through comparison of predictions with
measurements. What else did you think physics does?
Note that this process enables you to reject models as faulty when
they fail to match, but it doesn't (and never will) enable you to
declare any specific model to be "proven true". All measurements are
performed with finite accuracy, over a finite range of physical
parameters, within a finite region of space time. Thus, the answers
are never definitive. What you get, in the best case, is a set of
models which fit with all currently available information, to the
limits of currently achevable accuracy. That's all.
The term "explain" is too vague to be meaningful. What it usually
means is "describe in terms of entities which we find intuitively
obvious". Since our intuition is mostly formed during our childhood
years, throguh direct observation using our senses, expecting the
whole universe to conform to this intuition is a bit much.
If you mean by this that "light is not made of little shiny spheres"
then nobody ever claimed it is and you're just building a strawman.
Aha. What access do we have to Nature, at any level, other than
observations.
No, most certainly not. Human need was much easier assuaged with the
classical wave model. Only, it doesn't quite work.
Mati Meron
Bob said:Rich, I'm not on your newsgroup. I'm posting from another group on the list
so you haven't seen me before. I'll note that radium is a well known poster
on the newsgroup lists as being an idiot when it comes to any scientific
matters.
That he's even considering that electricity has "color" shows how
little real knowledge about reality.
If I were you, i'd not try to defend
him in any way or you'll end up in the same bucket of fools that he exists
in.
You assume wrongly.Radium said:Tim said:I think you'll find that blue electricity is easy to generate. The problem
is that it doesn't interact well with fuses.
Tim Ward
By "blue" electricity, I assume you are talking about the bluish-white
light that is generated when electricity is at a high-enough voltage to
pass through air. As the current passes through the air, the air heats
up to temperatures adequate enough to produce a bluish-white light.
This light, however, is incandescent, and nothing to do with the
production of light I am referring to. When I was talking about
electrically-generating 510 nm light, my description was to use an AC
generator that outputs extremely high frequency AC current that gives
of electromagnetic waves at 510 nm. As other posters have pointed out,
the electric current would have to change direction [alternate] at
around 580 trillion times a second. AC current almost always produces
electromagnetic radiation at the same frequency.
