0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yes Lightarrow, I agree to what you write. 'Language' can be hell to interpret at times. When I was 'discussing' wavelength contra frequency, I meant that my conclusion was, that even though you can say that one wavelength have different frequencys, the 'proportionality' between the wavelength and the frequency remains the same. Is that wrong?
You just 'stretched' that original frequency by putting it through the prisms 'density' and so making the wave crests become wider apart in that wave, if i understood it right.
And in a way that's unintuitive, as one might expect the opposite:)For example, if I exchange that 'wave' and the prism, and instead try to describe it by a spring and some thick mud. Now I'll try to press that spring through that mud.What would happen is that the spring would 'compact' by being pressed through that mud, not 'expand', right:)
So trying to see light as some sort of 'spring' meeting a higher density (mud) doesn't work very well. But seeing it in terms of density and time does, to me that is:)If one accept that light will be slowed down by a higher density then it will need more time traversing that density. And those waves will then, in that medium, be observed as changing to a 'greater' frequency as it moves through.
And with 'greater' I mean that the crests and troughs between the waves will have a greater distance between them (red shift) when seen passing a static point of observation inside that medium.Am I seeing this correct Lightarrow?
Ahh, but here we have Swedish/English/Italian and then Italian/English/Swedish.Can you see the possibilities inherent here:)It's a bleeding miracle that we agree on anything:))I love it Especially when you share your mathematics, then the mix gets explosive...(Yes, I'm joking Lightarrow:). You are one of the few taking the time to explain your mathematical concepts)
Awh, there goes my whole plan down the drain, so you say that the light when coming into the glass actually will get a more compressed frequency.
So when we have two frames. Frame_A and frame_B moving apart from each other.And we on frame_A is observing a light beam coming at us from frame_B.The we will notice a red shift, right.
And that red shift, if visualized, will then as observed have a greater distance between its crests and troughs?
But that shouldn't then be seen as a 'weaker energy' per time unit when the light finally is 'hitting' our frame?
If I look at it as I'm used to (particles) i think of them as getting 'spread out' in time as I'm moving from them and therefore 'weaker' per time unit.
And if we were moving those frames towards each other, and observe the light as being blue shifted.Then that doesn't mean that our frame will receive a larger amount of 'energy' per time unit?
As that then, to me, would mean that those photons (particles) will get compressed as observed per time unit.
As that is why I want those phreaking waves to become of greater (is it 'magnitude' I should use here?) distance between their crests and troughs:) when moving through that prism?
When I think of them (waves) meeting any density (the prism) I see them as becoming 'depleted' of energy in their interactions with the electron clouds and therefore, as I thought, also 'red shifted' (stretched out in time so to speak:).To me it seems strange to say that they become compressed as I associate that with blue shift.Do you see how I think here?Awhhh...I think I will call on Manuel now:)----If one look at waves as getting compressed in that prism, how do one explain the 'photon wikis' statement that the 'energy' of a wave is directly correlated to its frequency?
"The Maxwell wave theory, however, does not account for all properties of light. The Maxwell theory predicts that the energy of a light wave depends only on its intensity, not on its frequency; nevertheless, several independent types of experiments show that the energy imparted by light to atoms depends only on the light's frequency, not on its intensity.
The wavelength becomes smaller between crests ok.My thick head sees those 'wavelengths' as the 'parts' making up a 'frequency' when put together Sir.*Hiding under a table*
The wavelength becomes smaller between crests, ok.My thick head sees those 'wavelengths' as the 'parts' making up a 'frequency' when put together Sir.
"(Please, tell me yes )"Ah, when you put it like that... [B)] [B)](yep, browbeaten to a pulp, that's me:)Who can refuse such an earnest request.So... Maybe:) -----I need to make a picture of it in my head sort of Lightarrow.Don't give up on me now, we are closing in on the culprit I think (I think?)----------Those dastardly waves.""They seek him here, they seek him there, they seek that, ah, wave everywhere."As a obnoxious friend of mine once wrote:)--------I wrote this about redshift.'But that shouldn't then be seen as a 'weaker energy' per time unit when the light finally is 'hitting' our frame?'
And your answer was." Yes, but not only because of this! The amplitude is lower, too. Quantistically (without considering the amplitude) you also have *less photons* passing per unit time, in addition to have a reduced energy of every single photon."So the frames (_A and _B) moving away from each other in this scenario also, somehow, reduces the 'energy' inherent (if I may use that expression) in those 'single' photons. That you will need to explain to me.
You say "Here, again, you are talking of different frames of reference, not about light going through a glass, are you aware of this?"Yes, but I see our observation of that light inside that prism as two frames too, one is what happens inside that prism, the other frame is us outside, observing it. As I said before, I'm not really sure on where the the definition of frames are valid in physics:)
But ok, we have the velocity, which is a measure of distance in time units, right?And if we are talking about a massless photon that should be momentum?
Then we have the wavelength, which is a measure of distance between crests in time.And frequency which is a measure of oscillating ( = vibrating ) 'periodic' waves which seems to mean waves that follow one another in regular succession.
Those periodic waves can be split into transverse and longitudinal waves, and here we come in on Verns favorite electromagnetic description of photons i think? And also on Lightarrows, as seen of lately, desperate tries to pommel some sense into my poor head relating to waves universe and all.'Normal' electromagnetic waves can be seen as propagating (moving:) in a transverse manner.
a regular up-and-down pattern (sinusoidal) in which the 'vibration' or motion is perpendicular to the direction the wave is moving. 'Perpendicular' here means, seen as a straight line at right angles to another line , and the idea is like what you will see when you use a whip or if you look on how a snake travels on the ground. And a longitudinal wave is a wave just like a sound wave
and that kind of waves spreads out in circles from a center point
, like a siren f ex. and the 'vibration' of that motion moves in the same direction as the 'circle' of sound itself (360 degrees). ---Btw: Siren should be understood as a warning signal that is a loud wailing sound.And not as a woman who is considered to be dangerously seductive...
(not that I would mind though:)------But now the real headache starts:)For we have been speaking of frequency as having a oscillating (vibrating) property, right?
But there are some property's that aren't related to those oscillating (whips & snakes, if transverse) properties at all, according to Lightarrow (and other Wizards and occult materials I've now consulted in my hunt for the holy grail, yes, the hermetic arts is near:)So open your eyes now and hearken Romans Swedes and assorted other nationalities...One of them 'non oscillating' is wavelength, (distance between crests), and yet another is called amplitude.(height of wave, as seen from a thought 'middle line' splitting horizontally trough from crest).Although wavelength isn't related to frequency mathematically,
it still plays an important role together with amplitude when listening to sound.And it is here I kind of lose it:) To me wavelengths seems a very simple concept where lots of the same sort of them, following each other in time, definitely will give a frequency.