The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Standing waves, why do they stand?  (Read 7369 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« on: 10/03/2009 13:51:23 »
Now, what is a standing wave?

You might see a definition of it as 'a guitar strings vibrations', but, how can we from that say that they bound to/in matter?

Me drawing a flash doesn't make a thunder?
So why should that guitar strings vibrations define anything at all, least of all, matter?
Any one that think they simply can explain what a 'standing wave' is and how 'matter' could be built from that concept?


 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #1 on: 10/03/2009 14:08:22 »
They stand because you can't make a wave sit!  :D
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #2 on: 10/03/2009 14:10:08 »
Now, what is a standing wave?

You might see a definition of it as 'a guitar strings vibrations', but, how can we from that say that they bound to/in matter?

Me drawing a flash doesn't make a thunder?
So why should that guitar strings vibrations define anything at all, least of all, matter?
Any one that think they simply can explain what a 'standing wave' is and how 'matter' could be built from that concept?
A standing wave is a wave which doesn't propagate: in every point of the space in which it's confined, the wave amplitude is constant, so the function describing the wave (in one dimension x) is of the kind: A(x)*eiωt where A(x) is a real function but constant (constant = doesn't depend on time t).

An example is to create two exactly equal monocromatic electromagnetic waves in a cavity (example: between two perfectly reflecting mirrors), travelling in opposite directions; the result is a standing wave.

About the connection with matter I don't know, I assume you have read something about strings? Anyway, if you have energy which doesn't propagate but is confined in a region of space, then that is matter (do you remember discussing this in another thread?) whatever the form in which that energy is.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #3 on: 10/03/2009 14:24:10 »
lightarrow is correct, of course; I think of a standing wave as reflecting from something such that continuous reflections are in phase. Meaning that the maximum amplitude of each successive reflection happens at the same point in space.

My view of a speculative particle composed of electromagnetic fields is a little different, the fields are trapped in a resonant spinning pattern.

 
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #4 on: 10/03/2009 18:35:03 »
Ok Ligharrow, now you've done it. We meet at dawn, be sure to bring your second. My choice of weapon will be, ah, a pen (metaphorically speaking:)

"if you have energy which doesn't propagate but is confined in a region of space, then that is matter, whatever the form in which that energy is."

Give me a example of how energy can become 'matter', not relatively short lived 'particles' or 'mass' but 'matter', something existing and touchable like, ah, Newtons apple (not that that specific apple is 'touchable' nowadays, but still:)
 

lyner

  • Guest
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #5 on: 10/03/2009 22:19:26 »
It's hard to just give an example because the well known E = mc2 implies a factor of 1017 relating the amount of energy and the amount of matter from the conversion.
You CAN see it happen in a nuclear reaction where the measured mass after the reaction can be measurably different. But I guess that may not help you because it's only a change rather than a bucket full of new stuff.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #6 on: 10/03/2009 22:22:10 »
Ok Ligharrow, now you've done it. We meet at dawn, be sure to bring your second. My choice of weapon will be, ah, a pen (metaphorically speaking:)
Ok, I'll take the part of Armand D'Hubert, and you the one of Gabriel Feraud, ok?  :)

Quote
"if you have energy which doesn't propagate but is confined in a region of space, then that is matter, whatever the form in which that energy is."

Give me a example of how energy can become 'matter', not relatively short lived 'particles' or 'mass' but 'matter', something existing and touchable like, ah, Newtons apple (not that that specific apple is 'touchable' nowadays, but still:)

γ photons converted in pairs e- e+ doesn't count for you?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #7 on: 11/03/2009 00:28:01 »
Now you are making my life difficult again :)
I will, as politicians say, give you a straight and honest answer on that offer. On one hand yes, on the other no, and in between a very decisive maybe? That is, excuse me while I check up on your offer of 'persona's to be' :)

What was this guys name, you know, he who fought those windmills?

----

Fifteen years!!!
"The movie ends showing Féraud contemplating the fact that he can no longer pursue the obsession he had nursed for so many years."

You see to many bad movies:)
---
Thinking of it again, it was a book, right?
By Conrad, no less.

I often find that the movies ones mind creates, reading a good book, to be superior to any movie seen depicting that book :)
One exception to that might be 'the Bourne identity'.
But then again the book (first one) and the movie is not 'exactly' the same, so?
(Yep, i digress, but as it was my choice of weapon:)

--------------------
Now I'll give you a counter offer. You will take the persona of Gargantua while I will be a visitor just homecoming from hunting giants, can you guess my name:)

        Grace, honour, praise, delight,
        Here sojourn day and night.

            Sound bodies lined
            With a good mind,

        Do here pursue with might
        Grace, honour, praise, delight.



-----------

Yes Mr S.Centaur
Now if you just could show me that bucket :)
« Last Edit: 11/03/2009 00:43:15 by yor_on »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #8 on: 11/03/2009 03:32:22 »

What was this guys name, you know, he who fought those windmills?


Donkey Hotty (Don Quixote)
 

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7709
    • View Profile
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #9 on: 11/03/2009 05:32:32 »
Standing wave?

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #10 on: 11/03/2009 06:53:10 »
Well, we are making waves here. So it seems to be in tune Mr Chem:)
But yes Lightarrow, I would dearly like to see the experiment producing something more than just a particle. I do accept the idea of QM and LHC creating new particles. But it seems that from there to create, for example, a molecule is a step not yet taken? I'm wondering how matter is built from scratch and have had the 'misfortune' to see some ideas of it being so called 'standing waves'. And it confuses me, ok, so I'm easily confused :), still, is there any of you who understand that concept and can explain how the reasoning goes, from photons to particles creating matter, consisting of those 'standing waves'?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #11 on: 11/03/2009 10:22:27 »
I have been contemplating the concept of energy becoming matter and matter becoming energy since I first read about it when I was circa 15 years old. It is clear in my mind how it happens. That does not make it correct, but it is clear to me.

The first thing one needs is a concept of; what is matter? Once you have a good feeling for what that is, the conversion mystery disappears. Until you get a good feeling for what mass is, it will be difficult to recognize it in its most primitive form.

So let's answer that question first. What is mass? Well, we know that rest mass m, is equal to Planck's constant h, times frequency, v divided by he square of the speed of light. m = hv / c^2. That gives us a clue. The only non-constant in the equation is the rate of change of the electromagnetic field stated as frequency. If we selected the units to eliminate the constants we end up with; mass is equal to the rate of change of the electromagnetic field. m = v. So now we have the answer.

Mass is electromagnetic change.

Now, to realize the mass, we must confine the electromagnetic change to a definable area and, shazam, we have mass.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2009 21:21:18 by Vern »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #12 on: 11/03/2009 11:50:23 »
Not bad Vern :)
But what I'm stuck on is the transition from particles to matter.
Mass is a very wide concept, it seems to me. But I still haven't seen any clear explanation for that 'state transition mass to matter. That energy can become short lived particles I can understand ( well, accept then, if you must nitpick :) but from those particles to constant 'matter'?

---
In your case though what you describe as mass here I then will presume to be all particles as well as photons, you see them as more or less the same Vern, don't you?
But the transition from particles to what we call matter then?
Also I presume you want it to follow the particle experiments already done. That should mean that you will have to account for all those short lived ones too? And how do your resonant spinning patterns couple up to become 'matter' Vern?

---

Yep, the king of 'edit' struck again, with the speed of an landbased turtle:)
« Last Edit: 11/03/2009 12:18:47 by yor_on »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #13 on: 11/03/2009 12:13:21 »
Not bad Vern :)
But what I'm stuck on is the transition from particles to matter.
Mass is a very wide concept, it seems to me. But I still haven't seen any clear explanation for that 'state transition mass to matter. That energy can become short lived particles I can understand ( well, accept then, if you must nitpick :) but from those particles to constant 'matter'?

I can't do better than lightarrow's example of how photons can appear massive. Just trap them in a local area. So now we need a trapping mechanism. I suspect that mechanism is electric charge and resonance. The only thing we need add to the mainstream view of the photon is a mechanism to produce electric charge. I suspect that mechanism is asymmetry of photon fields when the photon's movement through space is not a straight line.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #14 on: 11/03/2009 12:26:20 »
You say that "I can't do better than lightarrow's example of how photons can appear massive. Just trap them in a local area". Ah, but it's worse than that, you will also have to account for how 'living matter' can move consciously in 'spacetime' and keep their 'structure', What is even more strange is that we are based on 'living cells' that gets its energy biologically and chemically. There is a difference between celestial objects moving in 'dead' orbits etc, and us constantly changing and choosing.

------
And I don't agree on that we just appear massive.
To me we are 'massive' :) Matter, not particles, even though our constituents seems 'traceable' down to a photon level
« Last Edit: 11/03/2009 12:31:12 by yor_on »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #15 on: 11/03/2009 12:54:09 »
I agree; yor_on. It is a very complicated thing when you must get all the way from the lowly photon to a complicated life form. The conversion process itself takes place at the most simple particle level. That process seems easy to understand.

But as soon as we start building upon the basic particles, we venture into all of physics; and biology, and all of the other sciences. I get lost pretty quick on that venture.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #16 on: 11/03/2009 13:35:25 »
Well, we are making waves here. So it seems to be in tune Mr Chem:)
But yes Lightarrow, I would dearly like to see the experiment producing something more than just a particle. I do accept the idea of QM and LHC creating new particles. But it seems that from there to create, for example, a molecule is a step not yet taken?
You want to create a molecule directly from light? Weird! Are you trying to design a "teletransport"?  :) Usually molecules are made from atoms, which are made from protons, neutrons and electrons and almost all these particles were already created in the early instants of the universe.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #17 on: 11/03/2009 14:22:24 »
Quote from: yor_on
That should mean that you will have to account for all those short lived ones too? And how do your resonant spinning patterns couple up to become 'matter' Vern?
Ah; you sneaked that one in with a fast edit ;D
I don't buy into super symmetry where we try to make something out of the particle zoo we find downstream in particle accelerators. To me all those unstable particles are simply photon curls of a wrong frequency to be stable; they have nothing to do with regular matter. This includes the Higgs; if we find something we can accuse of being a Higgs.

The resonant spinning patterns in my speculation, are electrons, protons, and neutrons. From that point onward, the speculation ends. We have regular particle physics; there's no disagreement with any experiment that I know about.

Edit: Of course there's the anti-matter counterparts to the electron, proton, and neutron. They are simply curled in a way that puts the opposite charge on the outside of the curl.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2009 21:23:47 by Vern »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #18 on: 11/03/2009 16:45:51 »
No Lightarrow, I'm looking for 'The philosopher's stone' :)
Or the equivalent to it in physics ::))

-----
That's me Vern:)
I'll edit if it so will be the last thing I ever do.
*He died on his post*

(Or possibly under it)
« Last Edit: 11/03/2009 17:14:46 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #19 on: 12/03/2009 17:21:38 »
Ok Ligharrow, now you've done it. We meet at dawn, be sure to bring your second. My choice of weapon will be, ah, a pen (metaphorically speaking:)
Ok, I'll take the part of Armand D'Hubert, and you the one of Gabriel Feraud, ok?  :)

Quote
"if you have energy which doesn't propagate but is confined in a region of space, then that is matter, whatever the form in which that energy is."

Give me a example of how energy can become 'matter', not relatively short lived 'particles' or 'mass' but 'matter', something existing and touchable like, ah, Newtons apple (not that that specific apple is 'touchable' nowadays, but still:)

γ photons converted in pairs e- e+ doesn't count for you?

Now?
I agree that it counts, and in fact is rather cool :)
But it doesn't seem to answer my questions, it just take me a metaphorical distance, and give me a illusion of 'understanding'.

But to be honest, I don't. I'm having definite problems with 'unifying' high particle physics with what we are. I see a lot of lovely ideas, but I don't see one serious idea explaining the difference between photons, particles and matter. I do have my own opinion, but that's no facts:)

------
Or maybe I formulated it badly here?
There are explanations but they don't seem to take into account how we really differ from 'dead matter', and when they try to do their logic just doesn't hold for me.

I can see myself as a 'spiritual being', that doesn't mean that this is the same as 'understanding'. There is a definite 'barrier' between what we see our selves as and our universe. I can give you a example. I had a friend that cleaved a rock with his hand. I know, that's not really possible,bricks is what you cleave, not rocks. But my brother had one half at home for a long time until a 'disciple' of this way, ah, 'lent' it. It was what we call 'grey rock' here in Sweden, one of the hardest natural rocks. And this friend had his very own view of the universe, very different.

So that is on a spiritual plane, but for myself, I would much prefer to have this universe based on facts.
------

No disrespect meant by this Lightarrow, I actually understand the sheer 'weight' of forcing your brain to learn a language unlike any one we use normally. Mathematics is a serious discipline involving a lot of sweat blood and tears :) And I'm presuming it gets no better when you finished what you once thought would be the pinnacle. It's a never ending quest.

I didn't have the opportunity to learn mathematics, and privately I see that as a great disadvantage when trying to formulate my thoughts. But I still have some views of what I see as important. One of them is that no theory that satisfies itself with just describing a 'causality chain' ever will be able to describe 'spacetime' correctly, and that, as I see it, is also what created the EPR question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox . We all want to have the 'full picture', and I'm no different. It's just that what I see as 'important' seems to differ from where the definitions of 'importance' goes today.
« Last Edit: 12/03/2009 17:51:28 by yor_on »
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #20 on: 12/03/2009 17:27:40 »
yor_on, all physicists are constantly looking for a best "paradigm" of things (especially for what they like less, of course) but to do so, we first have to understand well "where we are" or we can't get anywhere. Don't you agree?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #21 on: 12/03/2009 18:15:32 »
Of course, you are correct. We all need a ground from where to build. Still there I am, wanting to know it all :) instantly. It's just that I really would like to understand what differs vacuum, photons, particles, 'dead matter' , life. It's like a chain, but then again, that may just be me seeing a 'causality chain'. In fact we build our definitions on expecting just that.

It's like Occam's razor, we learn how to interpret this world from the moment we are born and one of the things we take for given is that there always will be a causality chain, because that is how we experience time. The glass fall, and therefore breaks into pieces:) but that's mostly what I see as archetypes, they don't guarantee anything about spacetime, but it's still the clearest definitions we have of what spacetime is.
A beer to much here?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Standing waves, why do they stand?
« Reply #21 on: 12/03/2009 18:15:32 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums