0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hello thanks for responding to my last question. I have another question how do scientists know the shape of electromagnetic waves .Thanks
how do scientists know the shape of electromagnetic waves
I thought we define the shape by measuring device and it is timing of a wave rather than a shape?Shape is something we define , patterns are something we establish,timing is something we measure?
If you look at waves coming in to shore they have a shape shown by a varying height. We can measure how that shape varies with time. We can also measure their frequency by timing how long it takes the peaks (or any other point) to pass by.Think AC voltage, it's intensity (height) varies with time.
[.. When we observe waves at the beach we observe the shape and define the shape calling it a wave, but the spacing of waves is defined by the natural events and not defined by us?
Quote from: Thebox on 20/10/2015 09:24:38[.. When we observe waves at the beach we observe the shape and define the shape calling it a wave, but the spacing of waves is defined by the natural events and not defined by us?So are you saying that the height of the waves and its variation with time is not a natural event?
....to change the light and create an interference pattern, the natural of light in space does not behave that way.
Quote from: Thebox on 20/10/2015 11:30:12 ....to change the light and create an interference pattern, the natural of light in space does not behave that way. Actually it does, it just happens so quickly and is constantly moving that we can't usually see it, the slit and other experiments provides a stationary pattern that we can see. Sometimes we can see the stationary effects around the edges of clouds and in fog, also in oil on a puddle, so it does happen away from the slits.We also see the same effects with radio waves, water waves and sound waves. They are there whether you choose to believe or not.
I have not said that I do not believe waves exist, I said I believe science makes waves by device .
can we conclude a force is needed to create a wave?
Light moves at a constant speed. It may vary on a coordinate basis as viewed by remote observers but in any local frame light will be measured to have exactly the same speed everywhere. A gravitational field will slow the light and induce time dilation proportionally to every other particle in the same frame of reference. The most interesting part is what exactly does gravity do to change the wavelength? Another very interesting question is what do varying sizes of particle mass do to the wavelength of the said particle?
Answer to the thread title - by considering EMR to be an isotropic ripple rather than a wave.
Quote from: Thebox on 21/10/2015 09:47:34Answer to the thread title - by considering EMR to be an isotropic ripple rather than a wave.A ripple is a wave.But maybe you are starting to understand something.
... an isotropic ripple is different...
Quote from: Thebox on 21/10/2015 14:02:18... an isotropic ripple is different...Not from what I've seen.Or you are not explaining what you mean
I am in main so must be careful not to stray. Imagine a sphere, then expand this sphere the smallest amount available, lets say for example 0.0000000001mm.However the sphere is not really expanded, the 0.0000000001mm. is a convertual isotropic layer. The next layer is emitted and so on.
Quote from: Thebox on 21/10/2015 18:58:54I am in main so must be careful not to stray. Imagine a sphere, then expand this sphere the smallest amount available, lets say for example 0.0000000001mm.However the sphere is not really expanded, the 0.0000000001mm. is a convertual isotropic layer. The next layer is emitted and so on.definatly new theory, makes no explanation relevant to topic.Let's leave it at that, you don't understand me, I don't understand you.
..it is present information perceived differently.
added - a wavelength is 2d?
1d, there is only length
Quote from: Colin2B on 21/10/2015 23:25:051d, there is only lengthBut light is multi-dimensional?
I will answer this because it is relevant to the topicQuote from: Thebox on 22/10/2015 00:28:12Quote from: Colin2B on 21/10/2015 23:25:051d, there is only lengthBut light is multi-dimensional?You specifically asked about its wavelength which has a single dimension, length.Other dimensions would include intensity (a function of amplitude - equivalent to wave height in water) and polarisation.The question in topic header is about EM waves in general, with radio waves you can describe the frequency components and phase relationships of a modulated wave - which defines the wave shape. You can also do this for light, but it is easier to understand if you start with radio.The shapes of other types of wave eg sound and water waves can be described in the same way.I will take a moment to explain why I will answer questions related to this topic but not those I consider to be off topic and new theories. Let's take the example of a ripple. A ripple is a small wave by definition so to say light is not a wave but isotopic ripples is a new theory. Similarly to say light does not naturally pass through slits, to talk of virtual particles, to say it does not exist of space, all of these and more are not recognised light theory. If you want to discuss these then start a different topic in another 'lighter' area otherwise your replies need to stick tightly to the topic and recognised, eg Wiki, theory. If you don't, mods will delete your posts or parts of them. And I will not answer them.
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.
I am not straying off topic Colin, I am helping science to understand the ''shape'' of electromagnetic waves by discussing it.
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.
science makes the wave by device, the wave is not real in my opinion so has no shape.
Like the sea has no waves if there is no wind,
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?
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.
I am not expounding anything I am asking not telling.
I understand how you measure the crests Colin, from A to B, over time, to define wavelength.
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?
1 photon.......←1m→........1 photon...........11111111111111/1mHow is this not a compression and more density?
It is not independent to the device
I thought the frequency of an atom was set by the entropy, thermodynamics and gravitational influence retaining an equilibrium constant of the atom?