Connect with us

The One and Only Quantum of Heat

Discussion in 'General Electronics' started by Anomaly Magnetism, Oct 9, 2003.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Mr. Daestrom

    Note that the skin etc. are chemicals, and their absorption of EM is
    dictated by their chemical structure.

    Note too, that the evidence for photons is shaky. There is little evidence
    that EM waves are not just that.

    Roland

    --
    Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
    Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
    http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
    mobile: +27 72 386 8045
    e-mail:
     
  2. daestrom

    daestrom Guest

    Absolutely. Like any substance. Leo's question though brought up the
    questions about biological damage, so I was just pointing out that different
    radiation interacts with body tissue in different ways.
    Sorry bzzzt. EM radiation is wave-like and particle-like at the same time
    (to some extent). But it is neither. Hence the field of quantum mechanics.
    True, em radiation can produce interference patterns like any wave-theory.
    But it also has behavior that is distinctly 'particle like' and does not fit
    wave-theory. There are several classical examples: A simple one is the
    'click' of an ionization event in a Geiger detector. Very descrete and
    'particle like' event from the photon interacting with the gas in the tube
    (and subsequent gas-amplification caused by the high-voltage gradient
    between the center electrode and surrounding 'can').

    At much lower frequencies, the individual photons have such low energy
    levels that it is hard to detect individual events. But a large flux of
    them can easily be detected. Then the statistics of them make overall
    behavior seem continuous and not particle-like.

    daestrom
     
  3. AES/newspost

    AES/newspost Guest

    Lots of arguments stirred up by this discussion.

    Have to respond, I think the above example, though often cited, actually
    does not at all show the particle-like character -- or at least the
    "photon" character -- of light.

    What the individual 'clicks' show is the spatially discrete character of
    the atom that gets ionized.

    If you irradiate the counter with an interference pattern of the
    incident light (interference = wave effect), you still get clicks at the
    intensity peaks, no clicks at the nulls. Click rate at each point is
    proportional to interference pattern. Turn the light intensity down as
    far as you want, clicks come more slowly, but still in same interference
    pattern. Demonstrates wave character of the light.

    The quantized or "photon" character of the light is shown by tuning the
    ionizing radiation to longer wavelength or lower frequency, until h nu
    is just less than the ionization energy of the gas in the Geiger
    counter, and noting that you now get *no* clicks at all, no matter how
    high you turn up the power or intensity of the incoming radiation. This
    proves the "quantized energy" character of the light -- at least, I
    think that's how Einstein argued it.
     
  4. Tom Potter

    Tom Potter Guest

    It is interesting to see that
    seems to be suggesting that the ringing of a bell,
    or any high Q circuit, is a function of excitation quanta,
    rather than a function of the bell or circuit.

    I suggest that events (Which are quanta)
    are functions of absorbing objects
    rather than the environment the object is in.

    Animals, plants, and field sensitive objects (Like charges, and atoms)
    orient themselves (Seek out topologically)
    to emit or absorb quanta from homogenous spectra.

    To test this theory, place a plant in a completely
    homogenous spectra, and modulate the spectra
    with relative motion to insure homogeneity,
    and I assert that the plant will absorb events
    in a spectrum that defines the plant,
    rather than a spectrum that defines a photon.

    The mere fact that light is affected by the Doppler effect
    rules out the concept that photons are energy packets.

    Shift the spectrum all over the map, (With relative velocity)
    and the plant will always chose the spectrum that fits the plant.
    ..
    Shift the spectrum all over the map, (With relative velocity)
    and the Geiger counter will always chose the spectrum
    that makes it click.

    Try to make a bell ring with a lower tone,
    and it won't ring. It will ring from steep impulses,
    because an impulse is composed of many lower tones.
     
  5. daestrom

    daestrom Guest

    Yes, if you set up an experiment to look for wave behavior such as your
    intererence pattern, you can find it even with a G-M tube. But that doesn't
    mean that the energy discharged from a decaying atom is explained by
    wave-theory. The decay events give off specific energy quantities. In wave
    theory, the events would yield a specific frequency of wave for a specific
    energy decrement in the decaying atom, not a specific amplitude.

    Since a single decaying atom only radiates a specific amount of energy, if
    light were *just* a wave, it would have to have a descernable start and stop
    point for a particular amplitude wave to convey a discrete amount of energy.
    And wouldn't this start/stop interval be a function of frequency (at least a
    quarter wavelength at c or something)?? Or the interval of time the wave is
    present might be fixed, yet the amplitude varies to limit the amount of
    energy from the event?

    I don't see how a wave theory could adequately describe the unique nature of
    the 'packet' of energy that comes from a decaying atom. Whereas, the
    'particle' model works here (with limitations).
    Yes. If an ionization requires a minimum 'threshold' and light were a
    simple wave, than an interference pattern would combine the energy of two
    lower frequency waves (where the wave amplitudes are additive) and you could
    create ionizations with longer wavelengths. Conversely, frequency waves
    *above* the threshold should interfere in ways to prevent ionizations, but a
    G-M tube is much too large to selectively detect such 'dark' bands.

    Another interesting experiment shows the path of electrons can be affected
    by photons above a certain threshold (because they contain a certain
    momentum). While lower-energy photons do not have any affect at all (even
    though they still have *some* momentum). This shows how light is *not*
    simply a particle or wave, but something 'else'.

    (and electrons aren't just 'particles' either, they too sometimes
    demonstrate wave properties like interference)

    But this is quite a ways afield from correcting terms like 'heat radiation'
    and the like ;-)

    daestrom
     
  6. daestrom

    daestrom Guest

    No one is saying the are *strictly* energy packets. Light (in all its
    forms) is neither 'packet' or 'wave'. It has behaviors of both, yet doesn't
    always behave exactly like either. Interference patterns (such as wave
    theory), but interference stops when experiments are setup to try and
    monitor where the interference comes from. It behaves like packets and has
    momentum when it impacts objects such as electrons, yet that momentum
    doesn't *always* affect electrons.
    No, it doesn't. When the spectrum is below the ionization energy of a
    molecule of gas in the G-M tube, *ALL* clicking stops. And that's the whole
    point. If light were *just* wave theory, it would be possible to get the
    G-M to 'click' with low frequency 'waves' by having a combination of them
    combine in an interference pattern, or by simply strengthening the intensity
    of the wave. It has been tried experimentally, and has not been possible.
    There is a minimum 'threshold' where the 'packets' don't have enough energy
    to ionize the gas, no matter how many photons. This is one case where
    'wave-theory' of light breaks down.

    But there are also cases where 'packet-theory' fails as well. Diffraction,
    interference, and doppler shifting are good examples where 'packet theory'
    fails to explain the observed behavior.
    Actually, an impulse or step function (rapid rise time) containss *higher*
    freqencies/harmonics, not lower.

    Bells are mechanical. Light is not. Light is not like any other 'thing' in
    our experience. It has both wave and particle properties, yet does things
    that waves cannot do and things that particles cannot do. It is somewhat
    like both, but is neither.

    daestrom
     
  7. Tom Potter

    Tom Potter Guest

    First off, I'm reposting my post,
    as "daestrom" selectively edited it:

    My post follows:
    ===========

    It is interesting to see that
    seems to be suggesting that the ringing of a bell,
    or any high Q circuit, is a function of excitation quanta,
    rather than a function of the bell or circuit.

    I suggest that events (Which are quanta)
    are functions of absorbing objects
    rather than the environment the object is in.

    Animals, plants, and field sensitive objects (Like charges, and atoms)
    orient themselves (Seek out topologically)
    to emit or absorb quanta from homogenous spectra.

    To test this theory, place a plant in a completely
    homogenous spectra, and modulate the spectra
    with relative motion to insure homogeneity,
    and I assert that the plant will absorb events
    in a spectrum that defines the plant,
    rather than a spectrum that defines a photon.

    The mere fact that light is affected by the Doppler effect
    rules out the concept that photons are energy packets.

    Shift the spectrum all over the map, (With relative velocity)
    and the plant will always chose the spectrum that fits the plant.
    ..
    Shift the spectrum all over the map, (With relative velocity)
    and the Geiger counter will always chose the spectrum
    that makes it click.

    Try to make a bell ring with a lower tone,
    and it won't ring. It will ring from steep impulses,
    because an impulse is composed of many lower tones.
    ===========
    End of my original post.

    My responses to "daestrom" follows:

    1. My comment:
    "the Geiger counter will always chose the spectrum that makes it click."
    negates "daestrom" response:
    "When the spectrum is below the ionization energy of a
    molecule of gas in the G-M tube, *ALL* clicking stops."
    because as I noted, plants, bells, and gas molecules
    somatically resonate at particular parts of the frequency spectrum,
    and as I noted, things
    "ring from steep impulses, because an impulse is composed of many lower
    tones."

    2. Note that "daestrom's" comment:
    "an impulse or step function (rapid rise time) containss
    *higher* freqencies/harmonics, not lower"

    "daestrom" does not seem to know
    that the high frequency components of
    an impulse generator are limited by
    the rise time of the impulse.

    In other words,
    frequency components higher than those
    permitted by the rise time of the pulse
    are not present.

    If anyone is interested in the frequency spectrum
    of impulse generators, I suggest they do a Google search.
     
  8. daestrom

    daestrom Guest

    Sigh.... E-M radiation is *not* like plants, bells or gas molecules. The
    quantum of e-m radiation does not have harmonics, or 'tones' or any other
    such behavior. You are trying to draw analogies from your world to explain
    behavior of e-m radiation that just does *not* apply.

    ANY object will only absorb certain energies of photons. Other energies
    just pass through until they find some material that *will* absorb them.
    And there are energies that are attenuated because the propability of
    absorption is somewhere between zero and one. The 'opacity' of a material
    is a function of the material and the energy level of the photon. How does
    this disprove the 'particle' aspect of e-m radiation? If anything, I think
    it supports it.

    If e-m radiation were simply a wave, then the energy in a 'wave' is a
    function of amplitude. Two waves of the same frequency that interfere with
    each other and create 'bands' of higher intensity and lower intensity. So
    two waves that, by themselves, are not energetic enough (high enough in
    amplitude) to cause an ionization inside a detector, *should* combine in
    some of these interference bands so the energy is enough to cause ionization
    event. But they don't. Wave-theory does not provide an explanation for
    this particular behavior (or should I say, lack of behavior).

    Similarly, if e-m radiation of a particular frequency (that is low enough to
    not cause ionizations), is intensified greatly in magnitude (but not
    frequency), it will not cause ionizations. No matter how high the flux
    density, unless it is high enough to start causing secondary radiations of
    another frequency, it won't cause ionizations in the g-m detector. If light
    were simply a 'wave', then an ionization could be caused by a low-frequency
    but intense source of radiation. But it cannot. Hence, e-m radiation is
    not a simple wave function, it is *like* a wave in many ways, but not *ALL*
    ways.

    Your statement ...
    ....is what I was responding to. 'An impulse is composed of many lower
    tones'?? Lower than what? The resonant frequency of the bell? These would
    not be the frequencies to cause it to 'ring'. Lower than the impulse
    frequency? No, there are none. The sharp rise time will create harmonics
    *higher* in frequency than the base impulse frequency, not lower. Your use
    of 'lower' without specifying 'lower than ???' is confusing. At least one
    of the harmonics must be near a resonant frequency of the bell in order to
    get much 'ring' out of it.

    While it is true that any generating equipment has 'limits', since you
    didn't explain just *what* these 'many lower tones' are 'lower' than, maybe
    you should try again. It appeared to me you where saying, "An impulse is
    composed of many tones that are lower in frequency than the impulse
    frequency." This isn't true, hence my comment about impulses creating
    harmonics of a *higher* frequency. I certainly admit I may have
    misunderstood what you were trying to say, but that sometimes is the nature
    of newsgroups.

    daestrom
     
  9. Tom Potter

    Tom Potter Guest

    Red herring alert!!!!!!
    Sigh.... Who said E-M radiation is like plants, bells or gas molecules?????
    Another red herring alert!!!
    This is basically what I said:
    when I wrote and you snipped:

    "I suggest that events (Which are quanta)
    are functions of absorbing objects
    rather than the environment the object is in.

    Animals, plants, and field sensitive objects (Like charges, and atoms)
    orient themselves (Seek out topologically)
    to emit or absorb quanta from homogenous spectra."
    Wrong!!!
    Note that "daestrom" is implying that "amplitude" is a physical property,
    and can be factored in physics equations.

    Energy is a function of action * time.
    I challenge "daestrom" to post the physical dimensions of "amplitude"
    and some equations where amplitude is multiplied by
    ACTUAL physical properties.
    Wrong!!!
    Two waves do not "beat" or combine in any way,
    unless they happen to coexist at some moment in a non-linear device.
    Another red herring alert!!!!!
    Who is talking about wave-theory???
    Wrong again!!!!
    Note that "daestrom" is asserting that a low rise time impulse
    has frequency components from f0 up,
    rather than from f0 down.

    I suggest that he do some reading about impulses and impulse generators.
    Lower that the highest frequency component of the pulse,
    which is a function of the rise time.
    In a typical, critically damped circuit,
    the highest frequency is approximately .35 / rise time
    Again I suggest that "daestrom" read the literature on impules and impulse
    generators.
    Impulse generators are used in radio inteference tests,
    and in time domain reflectometry to generate
    a wide range of frequency components, all of which are
    lower in frequency than 1 / rise time.
    I wasn't trying to say anything,
    other than what I stated,
    and have restated in this post.
     
  10. daestrom

    daestrom Guest

    Yes, and I agree with it. But it does *not* prove that e-m radiation is
    purely 'wave' phenomenon. That *was* the conversation you jumped into you
    know (or maybe you didn't read the thread before posting).
    Fine, here is a definition of 'amplitude' taken from "Analytical Mechanics
    3rd edition".

    'Amplitude is defined as the displacement of a small portion of the system
    from the equilibrium configuration.' For example, in water waves it is the
    heighth of the wave above the elevation of a calm surface. For sound waves,
    it is the pressurization/ rarefaction in air pressure from the equilibrium.
    For light, it is the change in electrostatic field strength past a point in
    space.

    http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/name/research/projects/wave_device/wave_device.html
    The energy contained in a water wave is....

    E = 1/2 *width*rho*g*a^2*lambda

    Where...
    width is width across wave front (meters)
    rho density of water (kg/m^3)
    g accleration of gravity (m/s^2)
    a amplitude (wave height/2) (meters)
    lamda wave length (meters)
    E Energy in newton-meters (joules)

    Note how the University of Michigan uses 'amplitude' to calculate the energy
    contained in a water wave.

    Similar equations can be found for longitudinal wave forms such as sound
    waves, and e-m radiation where amplitude is measured in electric field
    strength.
    Search for 'wave interference' and you find over 100 000 hits. Some of them
    explain how physical waves *do* interfere under the right circumstances
    (beyond your 'coexist at the same moment in a non-linear device'). This is
    high-school physics. Go throw two stones into a pond of water at the same
    time. Watch how the waves from each interfere to create areas of waves with
    amplitude higher than either stone's original wave. And other areas where
    almost no wave exists at all.

    Pass a sound wave through two holes in a wall. Sound waves will radiate
    from each hole in phase with the original source. There are very distinct
    loci found where the two sound waves *do* cancel each other out very
    effectively. Ask any audiophile why 'phasing' their speakers is so
    important.

    Look up 'wave interference' in google. Transverse waves (such as water
    waves) behave in a very similar manner to longitudinal waves. Even light
    waves create such interference patterns under the right circumstances (look
    up 'diffraction grating' with 'interference pattern'). Do you somehow think
    'radio' waves are the one exception and need to 'coexist at some moment in a
    non-linear device'??

    http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/mmedia/waves/ipl.html

    Just because this is commonly done in super-heterodyne(sp) radio receivers,
    doesn't mean waves don't interfere outside of non-linear devices.
    The people, whos conversation you jumped into the middle of. If you didn't
    read the rest of the thread before posting, then you lose for jumping into a
    conversation you don't understand.
    *RED HERRING ALERT*
    Note how "Tom Potter" is reading things that weren't written. I suggest
    "Tom Potter" goes back and reads the post before he replies.

    You should read what I wrote, not what you hear in your mind. I said....

    "The sharp rise time will create harmonics *higher* in frequency than the
    *IMPULSE FREQUENCY*". I did *not* say *higher* than the 1/rise-time. If
    you generate a series of evenly spaced impulses at the rate of 10 every
    second, then the spectral components will all be harmonics of 10 HZ. There
    will be *NO* frequencies below 10 HZ. That is a series of impulses, not
    just one. Your misinterpretation of 'impulse frequency', thinking I meant
    1/rise-time is where you made your mistake.

    Any periodic waveform in the time domain can be converted to the frequency
    domain by application of Fourier analysis. All the component frequencies
    are integer *multiples* of the fundamental frequency (fo). The 'fundamental
    frequency' is *not* the 1/rise-time of your impulse generator. It is how
    often your impulse generator creates impulses. Two completely different
    things.

    We were discussing experiments that show how e-m radiation is not just a
    wave, or particle. Just as I was explaining how a rather famous experiment
    proved the 'particle' aspects of light, you came in with your post about
    plants, animals and bells, and how impulses generate harmonics of 'lower
    tones'. If you had said something like, "Impulse generators create
    harmonics lower than *1/rise-time* of the impulse (and higher than the
    impulse train frequency)", we wouldn't be having this argument.

    The analogy of ringing a bell with an impulse does not compare well with
    using a high energy photon to cause an ionization event in a g-m tube. A
    high energy photon does not have 'harmonics' of some lower frequency. A
    more accurate analogy would be to have a high-frequency sine wave (with no
    harmonics) try to ring a bell. It won't do a very good job unless the
    frequency is near one of the resonant frequencies of the bell (they have
    more than one resonant frequency), or is an even multiple of one.
    Similarly, light of one wavelength may not interact with a particular object
    unless the object contains an atomic structure that can match the frequency
    of the incoming light to absorb it (or one of the other 'interactions with
    matter' such as Compton scattering).

    daestrom
     
  11. Tom Potter

    Tom Potter Guest

    005--> 006--> >
    007--> > > Sigh.... E-M radiation is *not* like plants, bells or gas
    molecules.
    008--> >
    009--> > Red herring alert!!!!!!
    010--> > Sigh.... Who said E-M radiation is like plants, bells or gas
    011--> molecules?????
    012--> >
    013--> > >The quantum of e-m radiation does not have harmonics, or 'tones'
    or any
    014--> > other
    015--> > > such behavior. You are trying to draw analogies from your world
    to
    016--> > explain
    017--> > > behavior of e-m radiation that just does *not* apply.
    018--> > >
    019--> > > ANY object will only absorb certain energies of photons. Other
    020--energies
    021--> > > just pass through until they find some material that *will*
    absorb
    022--them.
    023--> > >
    024--> > > And there are energies that are attenuated because the
    propability of
    025--> > > absorption is somewhere between zero and one. The 'opacity' of a
    026--> material
    027--> > > is a function of the material and the energy level of the photon.
    How
    028--> > does
    029--> > > this disprove the 'particle' aspect of e-m radiation? If
    anything, I
    030--> > think
    031--> > > it supports it.
    032--> >
    033--> > Another red herring alert!!!
    034--> > This is basically what I said:
    035--> > when I wrote and you snipped:
    036-->
    037--> Yes, and I agree with it. But it does *not* prove that e-m radiation
    is
    038--> purely 'wave' phenomenon. That *was* the conversation you jumped
    into you
    039--> know (or maybe you didn't read the thread before posting).
    040-->
    041--> > > If e-m radiation were simply a wave, then the energy in a 'wave'
    is a
    042--> > > function of amplitude.
    043--> >
    044--> > Wrong!!!
    045--> > Note that "daestrom" is implying that "amplitude" is a physical
    046--property,
    047--> > and can be factored in physics equations.
    048--> >
    049--> > Energy is a function of action * time.
    050--> > I challenge "daestrom" to post the physical dimensions of
    "amplitude"
    051--> > and some equations where amplitude is multiplied by
    052--> > ACTUAL physical properties.
    053-->
    054--> Fine, here is a definition of 'amplitude' taken from "Analytical
    Mechanics
    055--> 3rd edition".
    056-->
    057--> 'Amplitude is defined as the displacement of a small portion of the
    system
    058--> from the equilibrium configuration.' For example, in water waves it
    is
    059--the
    060--> heighth of the wave above the elevation of a calm surface. For sound
    061--waves,
    062--> it is the pressurization/ rarefaction in air pressure from the
    063--equilibrium.
    064--> For light, it is the change in electrostatic field strength past a
    point
    065--in
    066--> space.
    067-->
    068-->
    069--http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/name/research/projects/wave_device/wave
    _devi
    070--ce.html
    071--> The energy contained in a water wave is....
    072-->
    073--> E = 1/2 *width*rho*g*a^2*lambda
    074-->
    075--> Where...
    076--> width is width across wave front (meters)
    077--> rho density of water (kg/m^3)
    078--> g accleration of gravity (m/s^2)
    079--> a amplitude (wave height/2) (meters)
    080--> lamda wave length (meters)
    081--> E Energy in newton-meters (joules)
    082-->
    083--> Note how the University of Michigan uses 'amplitude' to calculate the
    084--energy
    085--> contained in a water wave.
    086-->
    087--> Similar equations can be found for longitudinal wave forms such as
    sound
    088--> waves, and e-m radiation where amplitude is measured in electric
    field
    089--> strength.
    090-->
    091--> > > Two waves of the same frequency that interfere with
    092--> > > each other and create 'bands' of higher intensity and lower
    intensity.
    093--> >
    094--> > Wrong!!!
    095--> > Two waves do not "beat" or combine in any way,
    096--> > unless they happen to coexist at some moment in a non-linear
    device.
    097-->
    098--> Search for 'wave interference' and you find over 100 000 hits. Some
    of
    099--them
    100--> explain how physical waves *do* interfere under the right
    circumstances
    101--> (beyond your 'coexist at the same moment in a non-linear device').
    This
    102--is
    103--> high-school physics. Go throw two stones into a pond of water at the
    same
    104--> time. Watch how the waves from each interfere to create areas of
    waves
    105--with
    106--> amplitude higher than either stone's original wave. And other areas
    where
    107--> almost no wave exists at all.
    108-->
    109--> Pass a sound wave through two holes in a wall. Sound waves will
    radiate
    110--> from each hole in phase with the original source. There are very
    distinct
    111--> loci found where the two sound waves *do* cancel each other out very
    112--> effectively. Ask any audiophile why 'phasing' their speakers is so
    113--> important.
    114-->
    115--> Look up 'wave interference' in google. Transverse waves (such as
    water
    116--> waves) behave in a very similar manner to longitudinal waves. Even
    light
    117--> waves create such interference patterns under the right circumstances
    118--(look
    119--> up 'diffraction grating' with 'interference pattern'). Do you
    somehow
    120--think
    121--> 'radio' waves are the one exception and need to 'coexist at some
    moment in
    122--a
    123--> non-linear device'??
    124-->
    125--> http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/mmedia/waves/ipl.html
    126-->
    127--> Just because this is commonly done in super-heterodyne(sp) radio
    128--receivers,
    129--> doesn't mean waves don't interfere outside of non-linear devices.
    130-->
    131--> > > event. But they don't. Wave-theory does not provide an
    explanation
    132--for
    133--> > > this particular behavior (or should I say, lack of behavior).
    134--> >
    135--> > Another red herring alert!!!!!
    136--> > Who is talking about wave-theory???
    137-->
    138--> The people, whos conversation you jumped into the middle of. If you
    139--didn't
    140--> read the rest of the thread before posting, then you lose for jumping
    into
    141--a
    142--> conversation you don't understand.
    143-->
    144--> > > Your statement ...
    145--> > >
    146--> > > > Try to make a bell ring with a lower tone,
    147--> > > > and it won't ring. It will ring from steep impulses,
    148--> > > > because an impulse is composed of many lower tones.
    149--> > > >
    150--> > > ...is what I was responding to. 'An impulse is composed of many
    lower
    151--> > > tones'?? Lower than what? The resonant frequency of the bell?
    These
    152--> > would
    153--> > > not be the frequencies to cause it to 'ring'. Lower than the
    impulse
    154--> > > frequency? No, there are none. The sharp rise time will create
    155--> harmonics
    156--> > > *higher* in frequency than the base impulse frequency, not lower.
    157--> >
    158--> > Wrong again!!!!
    159--> > Note that "daestrom" is asserting that a low rise time impulse
    160--> > has frequency components from f0 up,
    161--> > rather than from f0 down.
    162--> >
    163--> > I suggest that he do some reading about impulses and impulse
    generators.
    164--> >
    165-->
    166--> *RED HERRING ALERT*
    167--> Note how "Tom Potter" is reading things that weren't written. I
    suggest
    168--> "Tom Potter" goes back and reads the post before he replies.
    169-->
    170--> You should read what I wrote, not what you hear in your mind. I
    said....
    171-->
    172--> "The sharp rise time will create harmonics *higher* in frequency than
    the
    173--> *IMPULSE FREQUENCY*". I did *not* say *higher* than the 1/rise-time.
    If
    174--> you generate a series of evenly spaced impulses at the rate of 10
    every
    175--> second, then the spectral components will all be harmonics of 10 HZ.
    176--There
    177--> will be *NO* frequencies below 10 HZ. That is a series of impulses,
    not
    178--> just one. Your misinterpretation of 'impulse frequency', thinking I
    meant
    179--> 1/rise-time is where you made your mistake.
    180-->
    181--> Any periodic waveform in the time domain can be converted to the
    frequency
    182--> domain by application of Fourier analysis. All the component
    frequencies
    183--> are integer *multiples* of the fundamental frequency (fo). The
    184--'fundamental
    185--> frequency' is *not* the 1/rise-time of your impulse generator. It is
    how
    186--> often your impulse generator creates impulses. Two completely
    different
    187--> things.
    188-->
    189--> <snip>
    190--> >
    191--> > I wasn't trying to say anything,
    192--> > other than what I stated,
    193--> > and have restated in this post.
    194--> >
    195-->
    196--> We were discussing experiments that show how e-m radiation is not
    just a
    197--> wave, or particle. Just as I was explaining how a rather famous
    198--experiment
    199--> proved the 'particle' aspects of light, you came in with your post
    about
    200--> plants, animals and bells, and how impulses generate harmonics of
    'lower
    201--> tones'. If you had said something like, "Impulse generators create
    202--> harmonics lower than *1/rise-time* of the impulse (and higher than
    the
    203--> impulse train frequency)", we wouldn't be having this argument.
    204-->
    205--> The analogy of ringing a bell with an impulse does not compare well
    with
    206--> using a high energy photon to cause an ionization event in a g-m
    tube. A
    207--> high energy photon does not have 'harmonics' of some lower frequency.
    A
    208--> more accurate analogy would be to have a high-frequency sine wave
    (with no
    209--> harmonics) try to ring a bell. It won't do a very good job unless
    the
    210--> frequency is near one of the resonant frequencies of the bell (they
    have
    211--> more than one resonant frequency), or is an even multiple of one.
    212--> Similarly, light of one wavelength may not interact with a particular
    213--object
    214--> unless the object contains an atomic structure that can match the
    215--frequency
    216--> of the incoming light to absorb it (or one of the other 'interactions
    with
    217--
    218--In order to clarify the issues in play,
    219--let's look at my original post,
    220--and see what the issues are:
    221--
    222--My original post follows:
    223--==================
    225--226--
    227--> The quantized or "photon" character of the light is shown by tuning
    the
    228--> ionizing radiation to longer wavelength or lower frequency, until h
    nu
    229--> is just less than the ionization energy of the gas in the Geiger
    230--> counter, and noting that you now get *no* clicks at all, no matter
    how
    231--> high you turn up the power or intensity of the incoming radiation.
    This
    232--> proves the "quantized energy" character of the light -- at least, I
    233--> think that's how Einstein argued it.
    234--
    235--It is interesting to see that
    236--seems to be suggesting that the ringing of a bell,
    237--or any high Q circuit, is a function of excitation quanta,
    238--rather than a function of the bell or circuit.
    239--
    240--I suggest that events (Which are quanta)
    241--are functions of absorbing objects
    242--rather than the environment the object is in.
    243--
    244--Animals, plants, and field sensitive objects (Like charges, and atoms)
    245--orient themselves (Seek out topologically)
    246--to emit or absorb quanta from homogenous spectra.
    247--
    248--To test this theory, place a plant in a completely
    249--homogenous spectra, and modulate the spectra
    250--with relative motion to insure homogeneity,
    251--and I assert that the plant will absorb events
    252--in a spectrum that defines the plant,
    253--rather than a spectrum that defines a photon.
    254--
    255--The mere fact that light is affected by the Doppler effect
    256--rules out the concept that photons are energy packets.
    257--
    258--Shift the spectrum all over the map, (With relative velocity)
    259--and the plant will always chose the spectrum that fits the plant.
    260--.
    261--Shift the spectrum all over the map, (With relative velocity)
    262--and the Geiger counter will always chose the spectrum
    263--that makes it click.
    264--
    265--Try to make a bell ring with a lower tone,
    266--and it won't ring. It will ring from steep impulses,
    267--because an impulse is composed of many lower tones.

    I have numbered the lines of the old posts
    so that they can be referenced.

    Note that we are in agreement from line 0-40,
    but diverge in line 41 where
    daestrom implies that "amplitude" is a physical property,
    and can be factored in physics equations.
    Note that he tries to rationalize this in lines 54-90.

    Amplitude is a MEASURE of a property,
    it is not a property in of itself.

    Note that in line 91, he implies that E-M waves
    " interfere with each other and create 'bands'
    of higher intensity and lower intensity",
    and when the flaw in this is pointed out,
    he obfuscates in lines 97-130,
    using phony references, references to "high school physics",
    and allusions to water and sound.

    Also note that he states that water waves
    are transverse waves in line 115.

    Note that in line 131 he brings up the red herring
    "wave theory" about which I did not comment.
    As can be seen from my original post, lines 240-242,
    I commented on objects reacting to events.

    Lines 131- 165 contain red herrings, equivocation and spaces.

    Note that in lines 166-180,
    daestrom tries to circumvent his statement:
    in lines 154-156
    "The sharp rise time will create harmonics
    *higher* in frequency than the base impulse frequency, not lower."

    And note that in lines 181-187 he displays his lack of
    knowledge of impulses, by writing about "fundamental frequency".
    A single impulse has many frequency components, but
    NO "fundamental frequency".

    Lines 188- 200 are filler.
    Lines 201-203 represent a second attempt to
    equivocate of daestrom's statement in lines 154-156.

    Lines 204-217 are a rejoining of the issue involved,
    which is basically,
    are events in objects
    dictated by events in transient (Photons/bosons)
    or by the propensity of objects to
    "emit or absorb quanta from homogenous spectra"?

    I don't think daestrom has made a good case for photons.
    I suggest that the only thing that can be measured
    between a cause and an effect, is an interaction time.

    One could just as correctly assert that angels,
    rather than photons,
    conveyed quanta of change between objects.
     
  12. daestrom

    daestrom Guest

    I haven't said it is a physical property. I only stated, "...that the
    energy contained in a 'wave' is a function of [the wave's] amplitude." (41).
    There is no implication of physical property in that statement, just in your
    interpretation (wrong again).

    It is a commonly used term for describing one of the *properties* of a
    *waveform*. It is a characteristic of the waveform, not the underlying
    medium. Its physicality varies depending on the medium of the waveform. In
    water waves it is measured in units of length; in sound waves it is measured
    in units of pressure ('decibels' are referenced to a standard pressure
    change). E-M 'waves' have many different standards that amplitude is
    measured against depending on what range of frequencies you are working with
    (radio, infrared, visible, gamma). If the term is good enough for university
    physics departments, it is good enough for me.

    You claim my reference of the UofM page is a 'phony reference'? How about a
    reference of your own to refute it??
    e-m 'waves' can be made to interfere and form bands (in other than
    'non-linear devices'). The results of the classic 'two-slit' experiment
    show this. Your claims otherwise lack any substance. I refer you to review
    almost any text on the subject (including, but not limited to, any
    high-school physics text book). You have provided no credible reference to
    suggest otherwise.

    http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/two-slit2.html
    http://sgra.jpl.nasa.gov/us-space-vlbi/outreach/P_Rosen.pdf
    http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/light/u12l1b.html

    These, and other experiments, led 19th and early 20th century physicists to
    believe light is simply a wave in some unseen medium. Persistent search for
    such a 'medium' have been fruitless.

    But other experiments with light can not be explained with this 'wave
    theory' of light. These exceptions are one of the things that drove
    physicists to continue experimenting and deriving new theories.

    Regarding line '94 - 125'
    I never said they 'beat' with each other. That term is commonly used in
    radio technology to describe the combination of two different frequencies to
    create 'beat frequencies' whose frequency is the difference of the two input
    frequencies (and another whose frequency is equal to the sum of the two
    input).

    You brought up the term 'beat' when I said "Two waves of the same frequency
    that interfere with each other and create 'bands' of higher and lower
    intensity". You seem to have again misinterpreted what I wrote and thought
    I said they create bands of different 'frequencies' when I said
    'intensities'.

    With regard to 115 et al.
    Transverse waves in a medium are those where the displacement from
    equilibrium occurs at right-angles to the direction of propagation.
    Longitudinal waves occur where the displacement along the same axis as the
    direction of propagation. Sound waves through air are an everyday example
    of longitudinal waves.

    It turns out, that water waves are actually a combination of transverse and
    longitudinal. The reference below explains that a point on the surface of a
    water wave actually travels in a circular manner. Sorry for the confusion
    on that point.

    http://www.gmi.edu/~drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html
    I stand by that statement, as it is true. I am not trying to circumvent it.
    You just continue to misinterpret terms into your own universe. You
    misinterpreted my use of the term 'impulse frequency' to mean something
    related to rise time. It does not.

    Have you any credible reference to support your interpretation that the term
    'impulse frequency' means 1/rise-time? Your interpretation seems to be
    singular as many searches for the term 'impulse frequency' have not revealed
    anyone else using that viewpoint.

    If I had meant "the frequencies are higher than the 1/rise-time" I would
    have said that. I did *not* mean that, *nor* did I say that. Since I did
    not make an incorrect statement here, you have to repeatedly misinterpreted
    accepted terminology in order to avoid admitting your own mistake.

    Do you fail to understand the difference between 'impulse frequency' and
    '1/rise-time', or are you just being obtuse?
    All 'events' have a fundamental frequency, some just haven't reoccurred yet
    in our lifetime. If an impulse happens only once, then the lower limit of
    the frequencies which can generate drops the longer that time goes by
    without another one occurring. If you create only one today, and one in
    one-hundred years, then the lower limit on harmonic content is a period of
    one-hundred years. If you don't create one in one-hundred years, the
    fundamental frequency continues to drop.

    Study spectral frequency analysis to see how any 'event' can be considered a
    'periodic' event for analysis. It is a very common technique for such
    analysis. Until the event recurs, its fundamental frequency can be
    considered to be constantly changing (getting lower), but not reach zero.
    Since the whole theory of 'photon's is just an invention by physicists to
    describe some of the experimental phenomena, they *could* be called 'angels'
    or any other name. The photon theory exists and has uses. It has been
    superceded by others, just as the 'wave theory' of light has uses but has
    been superceded by quantum mechanics. The point was that both explain some
    phenomena, but neither is *totally* accurate in all cases.

    The experiment with intense low-frequency radiation on a g-m tube doesn't
    *prove* light is composed of photons, it simply demonstrates that light is
    *not* just a simple wave phenomenon. The argument about 'wave' vs.
    'particle' forms of light was raging long before either of us were born
    (unless you are *very* old). That neither is accurate for all circumstances
    is well established.


    You've repeatedly misinterpreted my statements to fuel your arguments.

    I write...
    "light can interfere to create bands of differing intensity"
    You misinterpret
    "light can interfere to create bands of differing frequency"

    I write...
    "energy is a function of wave amplitude"
    You misinterpret
    "...amplitude is a physical property"

    I write...
    "impulses have harmonics higher than the impulse frequency"
    You misinterpret
    "impulses have harmonics higher than 1/rise-time"

    I provide some links to support my position,
    You write 200 line 'quotes' of how you misinterpret English and denounce my
    statements as 'red herrings' followed by your own twisted misinterpretation
    of my statements to try and support your position.

    Your technique of just quoting the 'line numbers', and supplying your own
    interpretation of what I wrote is a transparent way of avoiding confronting
    my actual statements.

    You obviously lose this debate. Go back to class now and keep learning.

    Since you have such poor reading comprehension skills, I see no reason to
    continue.

    daestrom
     
  13. Tom Potter

    Tom Potter Guest

    As I posted,
    "Amplitude is a MEASURE of a property,
    it is not a property in of itself."

    All physical properties have an "amplitude".
    Force, energy, voltage, current, momentum,
    you name it, it has an "amplitude".

    If someone states that some property
    is a "function" of some "amplitude",
    they are asserting that the property changed
    into some other propery as the amplitude changed,
    or else they are asserting that "amplitude"
    is a property itself.

    Which did you mean?
    Note that I called "daestrom's" statement:
    "Search for 'wave interference' and you find over 100 000 hits."
    "a phony reference", and he dodges the issue.
    Note that daestrom tries to justify his assertion the E-M waves
    " interfere with each other and create 'bands'
    of higher intensity and lower intensity".
    by bringing up the two slit experiment
    where 'bands' of higher intensity and lower intensity"
    are created when ONLY ONE particle or wave
    passes through the slits.

    I gave him the benefit of the doubt
    by assuming that he meant heterodyning"
    but he digs himself a deeper hole,
    by referencing an experiment where only
    one object/wave is required to produce the effect.
    Note that "daestrom" drags out another red herring a "medium".
    I have always maintained that mediums, photons and angels
    are excess baggage. The ONLY thing that can be measured
    between a cause and an effect is an interaction time.
    Note he continues to assert that it take simultaneous events to
    " interfere with each other and create 'bands' of higher and lower
    intensity"
    in the dual slit experiment.
    Note he continues to assert that it take simultaneous events to
    " interfere with each other and create 'bands' of higher and lower
    intensity"
    in the dual slit experiment.

    For the sake of time and brevity,
    I have deleted the rest of the post,
    which reveals "daestrom's" lack of understanding
    of pulses and transverse waves,
    not to mention the dual slit experiment.
     
  14. daestrom

    daestrom Guest

    Just one last thing. The dual slit experiment creates two, identical
    frequency wave sources by passing the light from one source through two
    slits (hence the name). The interaction beyond the slits is the same as if
    the waves came from two separate sources. To suppose that the two waves
    would only interact if they came from the same source behind a dual-slitted
    wall is ridiculous.

    It has been reproduced using two identical frequency light sources from two
    lasers. Care to refute that this demonstrates the interference of two light
    waves?

    Seems you still don't grasp these things. Like the 'properties' of
    waveforms. When talking about waveforms, they have many 'properties',
    amplitude, wavelength, etc... The specific physical units are not
    necessary until applying the abstract concepts to a concrete system.

    And the statement 'x is a function of y', means simply that as x changes,
    for each value of x there is a unique and dependent value of y. It only
    implies that other variables that affect y are held constant while x is
    varied. So the statement 'energy is a function of amplitude', means that
    the energy in the waveform varies as the amplitude of the waveform varies
    (and other parameters are held constant). Anyone with some basic
    mathematics background would understand that statement. Guess that tells us
    a lot about your background.

    daestrom
     
  15. Tom Potter

    Tom Potter Guest

    Provide a reference to an experiment that
    proves that proves that E-M waves (Not WAVE),
    " interfere with each other and create 'bands'
    of higher intensity and lower intensity",
    and that self-interference, or heterodyning
    is not the factor.
    You keep bringing up these red herring.
    When you imply that I have a position,
    leave in my post and reference it,
    so I have some idea of what you are fantacizing about.
    I guess it tells us a lot about your <lack of> background
    in physics, when you state that "'energy is a function of amplitude".

    As I posted,
    "Amplitude is a MEASURE of a property,
    it is not a property in of itself."

    All physical properties have an "amplitude".
    Force, energy, voltage, current, momentum,
    you name it, it has an "amplitude".

    If someone states that some property
    is a "function" of some "amplitude",
    they are asserting that the property changed
    into some other property as the amplitude changed,
    or else they are asserting that "amplitude"
    is a property itself.

    Which did you mean?
     
  16. daestrom

    daestrom Guest

    Do your own web searches, I'm tired of you not providing any references. If
    you don't have to support your claims, why should anyone else?
    You seem to only apply the term in a very narrow sense to describe
    'magnitude' of any property or measurement. It is generally accepted by
    everyone else to have an additional meaning when discussing waveforms.

    When discussing waveforms, the term is used to describe the measurement of
    one particular property, the one that measures the 'displacement' from
    equilibrium. In water waves, the term describes the heighth the water
    surface changes. In sound waves, the term describes the change in pressure.

    If you think of 'amplitude' as a pseudonym for whatever physical property is
    varying from equilibrium as the wave 'passes' a point, then my meaning
    should become clear. The 'displacement' is a measured, physical property.
    The term 'amplitude' allows one to refer to a particular concept in
    discussing waveforms without having to assume a particular domain. (except
    when discussing with you)

    Since you refuse to acknowledge this *very common* use of the term, that is
    your problem, not mine.
    Neither. You *assume* there is no other interpretation because you cannot
    concieve of a different meaning for the term 'amplitude' than the one you
    have. Once you get past that and understand that the term 'amplitude' has a
    narrower meaning when discussing waveforms, then a third interpretation
    becomes obvious.

    daestrom
     
  17. Tom Potter

    Tom Potter Guest

    As can be seen
    the basic problem is that daestrom
    does not comprehend that "amplitude"
    and "waveforms" are descriptions of physical properties,
    rather than physical properties.

    Physical properties like voltage, current, force, momentum,
    energy, pressure, etc. have "amplitudes" and "waveforms"
    (Have shapes or "forms" in time and/or space.).
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-