The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How can scientists learn the shape of electromagnetic waves?  (Read 4655 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
You can also think of a wave as a varying intensity. If you were to set up a laser and have an automatic adjustment on how many photons were released at any time this could vary the light intensity in a set wavelike pattern. It is like turning a torch on and off except rather than a sudden interruption of the light it varies up and down. An ensemble of particles can thus be thought of as describing a wave. As energy varies in a system the area under the curve of the function determining the energy fluctuations can also be wavelike.

Why is not considered a compression of photons, a congestion ?  more photons occupying the same spacial distance, like a layer of light that has more layers merging to make a wavelike effect?

And anything that is set up, is observer effect is it not?

spectral frequencies being a density function of layer compression?




« Last Edit: 22/10/2015 14:03:53 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
I am not straying off topic Colin, I am helping science to understand the ''shape'' of electromagnetic waves by discussing it.   
Science understands waves, they are one of the most studied aspects of science. Your posts do not help anyone understand waves they just emphasise that you don't.

If you really wanted to learn you would ask simple questions like the one below rather than expounding your own theories.

It is no good saying a ripple or a wave represents a sphere output when a sphere is a 3d output and you only measure a 1d version.
Ok, this is a simple question rather than an exposition.
You are confusing spherical propagation and wavelength.
Drop a pebble into a pool and waves will radiate out over the surface, a 2d version of how waves propagate in 3d. This is independent of wavelength. To measure wavelength we measure between the crests. As I explained before we can also measure other features of the wave.

science makes the wave by device, the wave is not real in my opinion so has no shape.
That is your theory and not accepted science. It also makes no sense.

Like the sea has no waves if there is no wind,
Not true, once set in motion waves will continue without wind. Think also of a boat passing, the waves don't stop immediately it has passed. Same with light, but there is no 'friction like' effect to stop them.  Remember the other post where you talked about a cannon ball going on forever?

Why is not considered a compression of photons, a congestion ?  more photons occupying the same spacial distance, like a layer of light that has more layers merging to make a wavelike effect?
The photons are not compressed, nor congested. Light intensity is just the number flowing past per sq meter - not spacial distance but area.
The wavelike nature of light is due to the varying electric and magnetic fields, not the compression or congestion of photons.

And anything that is set up, is observer effect is it not?
Not if it is independent of observer.

spectral frequencies being a density function of layer compression?
No, the frequency is set when the light is emitted from the atom and doesn't change due to photon density.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Science understands waves, they are one of the most studied aspects of science. Your posts do not help anyone understand waves they just emphasise that you don't.

If you really wanted to learn you would ask simple questions like the one below rather than expounding your own theories.


Theories don't have a question mark on the end Colin.   I am not expounding anything I am asking not telling.


''Drop a pebble into a pool and waves will radiate out over the surface, a 2d version of how waves propagate in 3d. This is independent of wavelength. To measure wavelength we measure between the crests. As I explained before we can also measure other features of the wave.''

I understand how you measure the crests Colin, from A to B, over time, to define wavelength.

''Not true, once set in motion waves will continue without wind. Think also of a boat passing, the waves don't stop immediately it has passed. Same with light, but there is no 'friction like' effect to stop them.  Remember the other post where you talked about a cannon ball going on forever?''


The waves continue in momentum (p) until the force is removed and the kinetic energy (ke)  is expended to friction and gravity force of attraction.  So what of space sets the motion of light in space to be a wave?   How can a photon alter velocity to be a wave with no acting external force? 



''The photons are not compressed, nor congested. Light intensity is just the number flowing past per sq meter - not spacial distance but area.
The wavelike nature of light is due to the varying electric and magnetic fields, not the compression or congestion of photons.''


1 photon.......←1m→........1 photon


...........11111111111111/1m


How is this not a compression and more density?

''Not if it is independent of observer.''

It is not independent to the device , does a device not class as observer effect? is the device not also an observer?


''No, the frequency is set when the light is emitted from the atom and doesn't change due to photon density.''

I thought the frequency of an atom was set by the entropy, thermodynamics and gravitational influence retaining an equilibrium constant of the atom?









« Last Edit: 22/10/2015 15:04:11 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
I am not expounding anything I am asking not telling.
if you look back you will see that I quoted some of the places where you expounded a theory of yours.

I understand how you measure the crests Colin, from A to B, over time, to define wavelength.
But you did not fully understand its relationship to the 3d propagation of light. If you did you would not have asked the question.
You claim to understand light and be able to teach science its true nature and yet you do not take the trouble to understand the basic principles.

So what of space sets the motion of light in space to be a wave?   
This has been explained this before. An electron moves between energy levels within an atom, that motion creates a tiny wave pulse, a flash of light. Millions of these pulses are created every second making visible light. Look it up on wiki for more detail.

How can a photon alter velocity to be a wave with no acting external force? 
It doesn't alter velocity, the pulse is the wave. Unlike the waves on the sea where all the water molecules move in the same direction and at the same time, the pulses, photons, are completely independent moving separately.
The light pulses experience no effect similar to friction which can prevent or slow down their oscillation so once set in motion they carry on until they hit something.

1 photon.......←1m→........1 photon

...........11111111111111/1m

How is this not a compression and more density?
Because, as I said above, photons do not travel like that they are independent with no fixed distance between them. Imagine taking a bucket of marbles and tipping them out at the top of a slope. Sometimes they will have the same frequency, phase and polarisation but they are still independent.
If you are trying to draw a parallel with sound and compressions within the air, light isn't like that. Each photon behaves as a wave of its own.

It is not independent to the device
Yes it is. Separate devices, types of devices and different observers return the same result.
This is an example of you inserting your theory of observer effect and I will not discuss it here.

I thought the frequency of an atom was set by the entropy, thermodynamics and gravitational influence retaining an equilibrium constant of the atom?
Where on earth did you get that idea. Show the link to wiki or one of the books Pete recommended that says that. This sounds like another of your theories.

Do take the trouble to find out more about the way things work otherwise you will find people just stop responding to your posts. I suggest you read up on a topic and if there is something you don't understand give the link and ask a specific question without suggesting your own theory.
This is my last response to you on this topic as i have a project to prepare and I don't have the time to rewrite the whole of wiki for you.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length