0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What you can see here, is literally a physical manifestation of phonons at different wavelenghts of sound.
it contradicts the idea of photons being time-finite energy packets,
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 18:55:34Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 18:44:49Here's a clip of you showing the wavelength (designated by λ) of near field EM radiation near field lambda.JPG (54.66 kB . 1547x522 - viewed 2901 times)And here you are saying that it doesn't have a wavelength.Quote from: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 18:13:44Anyone who knows a bit about physics knows well, that near-field doesn't have a wavelenght Nope - I've saId that it has a size, that depends on the wavelenght of emitted radiation. Do you get it - emitted radiation has some wavelenght, that defines the size of near-field. C'mon - it's not that hard to comprehendIt is perfectly clear to anyone still reading this that the measurement in that image is a wavelength.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 18:44:49Here's a clip of you showing the wavelength (designated by λ) of near field EM radiation near field lambda.JPG (54.66 kB . 1547x522 - viewed 2901 times)And here you are saying that it doesn't have a wavelength.Quote from: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 18:13:44Anyone who knows a bit about physics knows well, that near-field doesn't have a wavelenght Nope - I've saId that it has a size, that depends on the wavelenght of emitted radiation. Do you get it - emitted radiation has some wavelenght, that defines the size of near-field. C'mon - it's not that hard to comprehend
Here's a clip of you showing the wavelength (designated by λ) of near field EM radiation near field lambda.JPG (54.66 kB . 1547x522 - viewed 2901 times)And here you are saying that it doesn't have a wavelength.Quote from: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 18:13:44Anyone who knows a bit about physics knows well, that near-field doesn't have a wavelenght
Anyone who knows a bit about physics knows well, that near-field doesn't have a wavelenght
If the EM field doesn't have a wavelength then the wavelength can't define anything.Your assertion that the size is defined by the wavelength (which does not exist)" is plainly nonsense.
And never mind wavelength being "hard to comprehend", you can't even spell it.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 19:29:00What you can see here, is literally a physical manifestation of phonons at different wavelenghts of sound. And very pretty they are too.It's considered polite to mention Ernst Chladni at this point, since he was the first to document the effect.But the absurd claim you are making is that you can't "turn up the volume" on that system because it would mean getting "more waves" into the plate.
In reality, you can because what you change is the amplitude of the waves.
You may remember that I demonstrated the absurdity of your view by pointing out that the microwave oven in my kitchen has many orders of magnitude more waves in it than you said are "permitted".
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 19:29:00it contradicts the idea of photons being time-finite energy packets,I think you will find it only contradicts your understanding of theory, rather than the theory itself.
Remember- your rtheory says a microwave oven won't work.
It also says you can't cut ,metal with a laser.
It also said (some while back) that you can't listen to two FM radios and your theory also says that you can't do diathermy.
Huh? Where exactly did I say such thing? You got it completely wrong. What I say, is that by increasing the volume of sound (amplitude of sound waves), you won't change the number of phonons/waves on the plate
so you won't fit more than 3 to 6 microwave photons in the LENGHT of that cavity
Basically, your idea is so obviously wrong that it's laughable that you even try to defend it.
Nope - never said that. Laser beams have wavelenghts that allows them to cut through metal.
But you won't be able to cut through metal using EM waves at radio frequencies or microwaves. Prove me wrong...
Can you tell me, what makes this statement wrong?
you can divide each one of them
Never said so... I've said that two FM antennas will cause interference, if they are placed close to each other.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 20:10:37Huh? Where exactly did I say such thing? You got it completely wrong. What I say, is that by increasing the volume of sound (amplitude of sound waves), you won't change the number of phonons/waves on the plate You are muddling up counting nodes / antinodes and counting waves.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 20:10:37Nope - never said that. Laser beams have wavelenghts that allows them to cut through metal.OK, lets check on that, one of the common industrial cutting lasers is the CO2 laser- it emits radiation at 10.6 micronsLet's see what temperature that corresponds to.Here's a handy calculatorhttps://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-lawAnd it tells me its the peak wavelength for an object at 273.4 KWithin a degree of the melting point of ice.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 20:10:37But you won't be able to cut through metal using EM waves at radio frequencies or microwaves. Prove me wrong...Again?OKStrictly this isn't cutting, but once the metal is molten, you hardly need to "cut" it.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTIWcK14tQE
You won't never go beyond a certain temperature for a certain wavelenght -
Induction heating is based on a COMPLETELY different mechanism, than heating with a laser (or different radiation).
How nice of you, to give me the definitive answer regarding the limit of heat/energy transfer, characteristic for specific wavelenghts/temperatures
Chapter 12: Radiation Heat Transfer. Radiation differs from Conduction and Convection heat t transfer mechanisms
You can't cut through metal with microwaves - no matter how much you don't like this simple scientific fact
Honestly, pretty much the only actual instance, where someone caught me making a serious mistake,
You are wrong by about a factor of a hundred thousand million million
. For example, up until today I never heard of Wein's Law and Kirchhoff's Law - but I used them in practical scenario just by pure intuition
For example, up until today I never heard of Wein's Law and Kirchhoff's Law
Proof by repeated assertion isn't going to work here.Particular not when you are doing the asserting, since it took you at least three goes to recognise Kirchhoff's law.[ edited to add that I was mistaken; CrazyScientist still hasn't recognised it. Maybe he will learn this time]
You see, it's not a good idea to speak up, when people smarter than you remain silent... And also, it's better to be silent and look like a fool, than to speak out and dispel all doubts