The One and Only Quantum of Heat

[Roland Paterson-Jones]

E-m radiation from a thermal source is broad-band and contains a whole range
of frequencies. The 'peak' of the distribution is a function of the body's
temperature and is often in the infra-red but not always. Take for example
the Sun. It radiates a wide range, the 'peak' distribution is in the
'visible' light range of frequencies (evolutionary biologists might argue
that the 'visible range' is only called that because we evolved eyes to use
the most prevalent frequencies available from the Sun, but that's another
story ;-)

Mr. Daestrom

Note that the skin etc. are chemicals, and their absorption of EM is
dictated by their chemical structure.

Note too, that the evidence for photons is shaky. There is little evidence
that EM waves are not just that.

Roland

--
Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8045
e-mail: [email protected]

 

[daestrom]

Mr. Daestrom

Note that the skin etc. are chemicals, and their absorption of EM is
dictated by their chemical structure.

Absolutely. Like any substance. Leo's question though brought up the
questions about biological damage, so I was just pointing out that different
radiation interacts with body tissue in different ways.

Note too, that the evidence for photons is shaky. There is little evidence
that EM waves are not just that.

Sorry bzzzt. EM radiation is wave-like and particle-like at the same time
(to some extent). But it is neither. Hence the field of quantum mechanics.
True, em radiation can produce interference patterns like any wave-theory.
But it also has behavior that is distinctly 'particle like' and does not fit
wave-theory. There are several classical examples: A simple one is the
'click' of an ionization event in a Geiger detector. Very descrete and
'particle like' event from the photon interacting with the gas in the tube
(and subsequent gas-amplification caused by the high-voltage gradient
between the center electrode and surrounding 'can').

At much lower frequencies, the individual photons have such low energy
levels that it is hard to detect individual events. But a large flux of
them can easily be detected. Then the statistics of them make overall
behavior seem continuous and not particle-like.

daestrom

 

[AES/newspost]

But it also has behavior that is distinctly 'particle like' and does not fit
wave-theory. There are several classical examples: A simple one is the
'click' of an ionization event in a Geiger detector. Very descrete and
'particle like' event from the photon interacting with the gas in the tube
(and subsequent gas-amplification caused by the high-voltage gradient
between the center electrode and surrounding 'can').

Lots of arguments stirred up by this discussion.

Have to respond, I think the above example, though often cited, actually
does not at all show the particle-like character -- or at least the
"photon" character -- of light.

What the individual 'clicks' show is the spatially discrete character of
the atom that gets ionized.

If you irradiate the counter with an interference pattern of the
incident light (interference = wave effect), you still get clicks at the
intensity peaks, no clicks at the nulls. Click rate at each point is
proportional to interference pattern. Turn the light intensity down as
far as you want, clicks come more slowly, but still in same interference
pattern. Demonstrates wave character of the light.

The quantized or "photon" character of the light is shown by tuning the
ionizing radiation to longer wavelength or lower frequency, until h nu
is just less than the ionization energy of the gas in the Geiger
counter, and noting that you now get *no* clicks at all, no matter how
high you turn up the power or intensity of the incoming radiation. This
proves the "quantized energy" character of the light -- at least, I
think that's how Einstein argued it.

 

[Tom Potter]

The quantized or "photon" character of the light is shown by tuning the
ionizing radiation to longer wavelength or lower frequency, until h nu
is just less than the ionization energy of the gas in the Geiger
counter, and noting that you now get *no* clicks at all, no matter how
high you turn up the power or intensity of the incoming radiation. This
proves the "quantized energy" character of the light -- at least, I
think that's how Einstein argued it.

It is interesting to see that [email protected]
seems to be suggesting that the ringing of a bell,
or any high Q circuit, is a function of excitation quanta,
rather than a function of the bell or circuit.

I suggest that events (Which are quanta)
are functions of absorbing objects
rather than the environment the object is in.

Animals, plants, and field sensitive objects (Like charges, and atoms)
orient themselves (Seek out topologically)
to emit or absorb quanta from homogenous spectra.

To test this theory, place a plant in a completely
homogenous spectra, and modulate the spectra
with relative motion to insure homogeneity,
and I assert that the plant will absorb events
in a spectrum that defines the plant,
rather than a spectrum that defines a photon.

The mere fact that light is affected by the Doppler effect
rules out the concept that photons are energy packets.

Shift the spectrum all over the map, (With relative velocity)
and the plant will always chose the spectrum that fits the plant.
..
Shift the spectrum all over the map, (With relative velocity)
and the Geiger counter will always chose the spectrum
that makes it click.

Try to make a bell ring with a lower tone,
and it won't ring. It will ring from steep impulses,
because an impulse is composed of many lower tones.

 

[daestrom]

Lots of arguments stirred up by this discussion.

Have to respond, I think the above example, though often cited, actually
does not at all show the particle-like character -- or at least the
"photon" character -- of light.

What the individual 'clicks' show is the spatially discrete character of
the atom that gets ionized.

If you irradiate the counter with an interference pattern of the
incident light (interference = wave effect), you still get clicks at the
intensity peaks, no clicks at the nulls. Click rate at each point is
proportional to interference pattern. Turn the light intensity down as
far as you want, clicks come more slowly, but still in same interference
pattern. Demonstrates wave character of the light.

Yes, if you set up an experiment to look for wave behavior such as your
intererence pattern, you can find it even with a G-M tube. But that doesn't
mean that the energy discharged from a decaying atom is explained by
wave-theory. The decay events give off specific energy quantities. In wave
theory, the events would yield a specific frequency of wave for a specific
energy decrement in the decaying atom, not a specific amplitude.

Since a single decaying atom only radiates a specific amount of energy, if
light were *just* a wave, it would have to have a descernable start and stop
point for a particular amplitude wave to convey a discrete amount of energy.
And wouldn't this start/stop interval be a function of frequency (at least a
quarter wavelength at c or something)?? Or the interval of time the wave is
present might be fixed, yet the amplitude varies to limit the amount of
energy from the event?

I don't see how a wave theory could adequately describe the unique nature of
the 'packet' of energy that comes from a decaying atom. Whereas, the
'particle' model works here (with limitations).

The quantized or "photon" character of the light is shown by tuning the
ionizing radiation to longer wavelength or lower frequency, until h nu
is just less than the ionization energy of the gas in the Geiger
counter, and noting that you now get *no* clicks at all, no matter how
high you turn up the power or intensity of the incoming radiation. This
proves the "quantized energy" character of the light -- at least, I
think that's how Einstein argued it.

Yes. If an ionization requires a minimum 'threshold' and light were a
simple wave, than an interference pattern would combine the energy of two
lower frequency waves (where the wave amplitudes are additive) and you could
create ionizations with longer wavelengths. Conversely, frequency waves
*above* the threshold should interfere in ways to prevent ionizations, but a
G-M tube is much too large to selectively detect such 'dark' bands.

Another interesting experiment shows the path of electrons can be affected
by photons above a certain threshold (because they contain a certain
momentum). While lower-energy photons do not have any affect at all (even
though they still have *some* momentum). This shows how light is *not*
simply a particle or wave, but something 'else'.

(and electrons aren't just 'particles' either, they too sometimes
demonstrate wave properties like interference)

But this is quite a ways afield from correcting terms like 'heat radiation'
and the like ;-)

daestrom

 

[daestrom]

The mere fact that light is affected by the Doppler effect
rules out the concept that photons are energy packets.

No one is saying the are *strictly* energy packets. Light (in all its
forms) is neither 'packet' or 'wave'. It has behaviors of both, yet doesn't
always behave exactly like either. Interference patterns (such as wave
theory), but interference stops when experiments are setup to try and
monitor where the interference comes from. It behaves like packets and has
momentum when it impacts objects such as electrons, yet that momentum
doesn't *always* affect electrons.

Shift the spectrum all over the map, (With relative velocity)
and the plant will always chose the spectrum that fits the plant.
.
Shift the spectrum all over the map, (With relative velocity)
and the Geiger counter will always chose the spectrum
that makes it click.

No, it doesn't. When the spectrum is below the ionization energy of a
molecule of gas in the G-M tube, *ALL* clicking stops. And that's the whole
point. If light were *just* wave theory, it would be possible to get the
G-M to 'click' with low frequency 'waves' by having a combination of them
combine in an interference pattern, or by simply strengthening the intensity
of the wave. It has been tried experimentally, and has not been possible.
There is a minimum 'threshold' where the 'packets' don't have enough energy
to ionize the gas, no matter how many photons. This is one case where
'wave-theory' of light breaks down.

But there are also cases where 'packet-theory' fails as well. Diffraction,
interference, and doppler shifting are good examples where 'packet theory'
fails to explain the observed behavior.

Try to make a bell ring with a lower tone,
and it won't ring. It will ring from steep impulses,
because an impulse is composed of many lower tones.

Actually, an impulse or step function (rapid rise time) containss *higher*
freqencies/harmonics, not lower.

Bells are mechanical. Light is not. Light is not like any other 'thing' in
our experience. It has both wave and particle properties, yet does things
that waves cannot do and things that particles cannot do. It is somewhat
like both, but is neither.

daestrom

 

[Tom Potter]

No one is saying the are *strictly* energy packets. Light (in all its
forms) is neither 'packet' or 'wave'. It has behaviors of both, yet doesn't
always behave exactly like either. Interference patterns (such as wave
theory), but interference stops when experiments are setup to try and
monitor where the interference comes from. It behaves like packets and has
momentum when it impacts objects such as electrons, yet that momentum
doesn't *always* affect electrons.


No, it doesn't. When the spectrum is below the ionization energy of a
molecule of gas in the G-M tube, *ALL* clicking stops. And that's the whole
point. If light were *just* wave theory, it would be possible to get the
G-M to 'click' with low frequency 'waves' by having a combination of them
combine in an interference pattern, or by simply strengthening the intensity
of the wave. It has been tried experimentally, and has not been possible.
There is a minimum 'threshold' where the 'packets' don't have enough energy
to ionize the gas, no matter how many photons. This is one case where
'wave-theory' of light breaks down.

But there are also cases where 'packet-theory' fails as well. Diffraction,
interference, and doppler shifting are good examples where 'packet theory'
fails to explain the observed behavior.


Actually, an impulse or step function (rapid rise time) containss *higher*
freqencies/harmonics, not lower.

Bells are mechanical. Light is not. Light is not like any other 'thing' in
our experience. It has both wave and particle properties, yet does things
that waves cannot do and things that particles cannot do. It is somewhat
like both, but is neither.

First off, I'm reposting my post,
as "daestrom" selectively edited it:

My post follows:
===========

It is interesting to see that [email protected]
seems to be suggesting that the ringing of a bell,
or any high Q circuit, is a function of excitation quanta,
rather than a function of the bell or circuit.

I suggest that events (Which are quanta)
are functions of absorbing objects
rather than the environment the object is in.

Animals, plants, and field sensitive objects (Like charges, and atoms)
orient themselves (Seek out topologically)
to emit or absorb quanta from homogenous spectra.

To test this theory, place a plant in a completely
homogenous spectra, and modulate the spectra
with relative motion to insure homogeneity,
and I assert that the plant will absorb events
in a spectrum that defines the plant,
rather than a spectrum that defines a photon.

The mere fact that light is affected by the Doppler effect
rules out the concept that photons are energy packets.

Shift the spectrum all over the map, (With relative velocity)
and the plant will always chose the spectrum that fits the plant.
..
Shift the spectrum all over the map, (With relative velocity)
and the Geiger counter will always chose the spectrum
that makes it click.

Try to make a bell ring with a lower tone,
and it won't ring. It will ring from steep impulses,
because an impulse is composed of many lower tones.
===========
End of my original post.

My responses to "daestrom" follows:

1. My comment:
"the Geiger counter will always chose the spectrum that makes it click."
negates "daestrom" response:
"When the spectrum is below the ionization energy of a
molecule of gas in the G-M tube, *ALL* clicking stops."
because as I noted, plants, bells, and gas molecules
somatically resonate at particular parts of the frequency spectrum,
and as I noted, things
"ring from steep impulses, because an impulse is composed of many lower
tones."

2. Note that "daestrom's" comment:
"an impulse or step function (rapid rise time) containss
*higher* freqencies/harmonics, not lower"

"daestrom" does not seem to know
that the high frequency components of
an impulse generator are limited by
the rise time of the impulse.

In other words,
frequency components higher than those
permitted by the rise time of the pulse
are not present.

If anyone is interested in the frequency spectrum
of impulse generators, I suggest they do a Google search.

 

[daestrom]

My responses to "daestrom" follows:

1. My comment:
"the Geiger counter will always chose the spectrum that makes it click."
negates "daestrom" response:
"When the spectrum is below the ionization energy of a
molecule of gas in the G-M tube, *ALL* clicking stops."
because as I noted, plants, bells, and gas molecules
somatically resonate at particular parts of the frequency spectrum,
and as I noted, things
"ring from steep impulses, because an impulse is composed of many lower
tones."

Sigh.... E-M radiation is *not* like plants, bells or gas molecules. The
quantum of e-m radiation does not have harmonics, or 'tones' or any other
such behavior. You are trying to draw analogies from your world to explain
behavior of e-m radiation that just does *not* apply.

ANY object will only absorb certain energies of photons. Other energies
just pass through until they find some material that *will* absorb them.
And there are energies that are attenuated because the propability of
absorption is somewhere between zero and one. The 'opacity' of a material
is a function of the material and the energy level of the photon. How does
this disprove the 'particle' aspect of e-m radiation? If anything, I think
it supports it.

If e-m radiation were simply a wave, then the energy in a 'wave' is a
function of amplitude. Two waves of the same frequency that interfere with
each other and create 'bands' of higher intensity and lower intensity. So
two waves that, by themselves, are not energetic enough (high enough in
amplitude) to cause an ionization inside a detector, *should* combine in
some of these interference bands so the energy is enough to cause ionization
event. But they don't. Wave-theory does not provide an explanation for
this particular behavior (or should I say, lack of behavior).

Similarly, if e-m radiation of a particular frequency (that is low enough to
not cause ionizations), is intensified greatly in magnitude (but not
frequency), it will not cause ionizations. No matter how high the flux
density, unless it is high enough to start causing secondary radiations of
another frequency, it won't cause ionizations in the g-m detector. If light
were simply a 'wave', then an ionization could be caused by a low-frequency
but intense source of radiation. But it cannot. Hence, e-m radiation is
not a simple wave function, it is *like* a wave in many ways, but not *ALL*
ways.

Your statement ...

Try to make a bell ring with a lower tone,
and it won't ring. It will ring from steep impulses,
because an impulse is composed of many lower tones.

....is what I was responding to. 'An impulse is composed of many lower
tones'?? Lower than what? The resonant frequency of the bell? These would
not be the frequencies to cause it to 'ring'. Lower than the impulse
frequency? No, there are none. The sharp rise time will create harmonics
*higher* in frequency than the base impulse frequency, not lower. Your use
of 'lower' without specifying 'lower than ???' is confusing. At least one
of the harmonics must be near a resonant frequency of the bell in order to
get much 'ring' out of it.

While it is true that any generating equipment has 'limits', since you
didn't explain just *what* these 'many lower tones' are 'lower' than, maybe
you should try again. It appeared to me you where saying, "An impulse is
composed of many tones that are lower in frequency than the impulse
frequency." This isn't true, hence my comment about impulses creating
harmonics of a *higher* frequency. I certainly admit I may have
misunderstood what you were trying to say, but that sometimes is the nature
of newsgroups.

daestrom

 

[Tom Potter]

Sigh.... E-M radiation is *not* like plants, bells or gas molecules.

Red herring alert!!!!!!
Sigh.... Who said E-M radiation is like plants, bells or gas molecules?????

The quantum of e-m radiation does not have harmonics, or 'tones' or any other
such behavior. You are trying to draw analogies from your world to explain
behavior of e-m radiation that just does *not* apply.

ANY object will only absorb certain energies of photons. Other energies
just pass through until they find some material that *will* absorb them.

And there are energies that are attenuated because the propability of
absorption is somewhere between zero and one. The 'opacity' of a material
is a function of the material and the energy level of the photon. How does
this disprove the 'particle' aspect of e-m radiation? If anything, I think
it supports it.

Another red herring alert!!!
This is basically what I said:
when I wrote and you snipped:

"I suggest that events (Which are quanta)
are functions of absorbing objects
rather than the environment the object is in.

Animals, plants, and field sensitive objects (Like charges, and atoms)
orient themselves (Seek out topologically)
to emit or absorb quanta from homogenous spectra."

If e-m radiation were simply a wave, then the energy in a 'wave' is a
function of amplitude.

Wrong!!!
Note that "daestrom" is implying that "amplitude" is a physical property,
and can be factored in physics equations.

Energy is a function of action * time.
I challenge "daestrom" to post the physical dimensions of "amplitude"
and some equations where amplitude is multiplied by
ACTUAL physical properties.

Two waves of the same frequency that interfere with
each other and create 'bands' of higher intensity and lower intensity.

Wrong!!!
Two waves do not "beat" or combine in any way,
unless they happen to coexist at some moment in a non-linear device.

So two waves that, by themselves, are not energetic enough (high enough in
amplitude) to cause an ionization inside a detector, *should* combine in
some of these interference bands so the energy is enough to cause ionization
event. But they don't. Wave-theory does not provide an explanation for
this particular behavior (or should I say, lack of behavior).

Another red herring alert!!!!!
Who is talking about wave-theory???

Similarly, if e-m radiation of a particular frequency (that is low enough to
not cause ionizations), is intensified greatly in magnitude (but not
frequency), it will not cause ionizations. No matter how high the flux
density, unless it is high enough to start causing secondary radiations of
another frequency, it won't cause ionizations in the g-m detector. If light
were simply a 'wave', then an ionization could be caused by a low-frequency
but intense source of radiation. But it cannot. Hence, e-m radiation is
not a simple wave function, it is *like* a wave in many ways, but not *ALL*
ways.

Your statement ...

...is what I was responding to. 'An impulse is composed of many lower
tones'?? Lower than what? The resonant frequency of the bell? These would
not be the frequencies to cause it to 'ring'. Lower than the impulse
frequency? No, there are none. The sharp rise time will create harmonics
*higher* in frequency than the base impulse frequency, not lower.

Wrong again!!!!
Note that "daestrom" is asserting that a low rise time impulse
has frequency components from f0 up,
rather than from f0 down.

I suggest that he do some reading about impulses and impulse generators.

Your use
of 'lower' without specifying 'lower than ???' is confusing.

Lower that the highest frequency component of the pulse,
which is a function of the rise time.
In a typical, critically damped circuit,
the highest frequency is approximately .35 / rise time

At least one
of the harmonics must be near a resonant frequency of the bell in order to
get much 'ring' out of it.

While it is true that any generating equipment has 'limits', since you
didn't explain just *what* these 'many lower tones' are 'lower' than, maybe
you should try again. It appeared to me you where saying, "An impulse is
composed of many tones that are lower in frequency than the impulse
frequency." This isn't true,

Again I suggest that "daestrom" read the literature on impules and impulse
generators.
Impulse generators are used in radio inteference tests,
and in time domain reflectometry to generate
a wide range of frequency components, all of which are
lower in frequency than 1 / rise time.

hence my comment about impulses creating
harmonics of a *higher* frequency. I certainly admit I may have
misunderstood what you were trying to say, but that sometimes is the nature
of newsgroups.

I wasn't trying to say anything,
other than what I stated,
and have restated in this post.

 

[daestrom]

Red herring alert!!!!!!
Sigh.... Who said E-M radiation is like plants, bells or gas molecules?????

Another red herring alert!!!
This is basically what I said:
when I wrote and you snipped:

Yes, and I agree with it. But it does *not* prove that e-m radiation is
purely 'wave' phenomenon. That *was* the conversation you jumped into you
know (or maybe you didn't read the thread before posting).

Wrong!!!
Note that "daestrom" is implying that "amplitude" is a physical property,
and can be factored in physics equations.

Energy is a function of action * time.
I challenge "daestrom" to post the physical dimensions of "amplitude"
and some equations where amplitude is multiplied by
ACTUAL physical properties.

Fine, here is a definition of 'amplitude' taken from "Analytical Mechanics
3rd edition".

'Amplitude is defined as the displacement of a small portion of the system
from the equilibrium configuration.' For example, in water waves it is the
heighth of the wave above the elevation of a calm surface. For sound waves,
it is the pressurization/ rarefaction in air pressure from the equilibrium.
For light, it is the change in electrostatic field strength past a point in
space.

http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/name/research/projects/wave_device/wave_device.html
The energy contained in a water wave is....

E = 1/2 *width*rho*g*a^2*lambda

Where...
width is width across wave front (meters)
rho density of water (kg/m^3)
g accleration of gravity (m/s^2)
a amplitude (wave height/2) (meters)
lamda wave length (meters)
E Energy in newton-meters (joules)

Note how the University of Michigan uses 'amplitude' to calculate the energy
contained in a water wave.

Similar equations can be found for longitudinal wave forms such as sound
waves, and e-m radiation where amplitude is measured in electric field
strength.

Wrong!!!
Two waves do not "beat" or combine in any way,
unless they happen to coexist at some moment in a non-linear device.

Search for 'wave interference' and you find over 100 000 hits. Some of them
explain how physical waves *do* interfere under the right circumstances
(beyond your 'coexist at the same moment in a non-linear device'). This is
high-school physics. Go throw two stones into a pond of water at the same
time. Watch how the waves from each interfere to create areas of waves with
amplitude higher than either stone's original wave. And other areas where
almost no wave exists at all.

Pass a sound wave through two holes in a wall. Sound waves will radiate
from each hole in phase with the original source. There are very distinct
loci found where the two sound waves *do* cancel each other out very
effectively. Ask any audiophile why 'phasing' their speakers is so
important.

Look up 'wave interference' in google. Transverse waves (such as water
waves) behave in a very similar manner to longitudinal waves. Even light
waves create such interference patterns under the right circumstances (look
up 'diffraction grating' with 'interference pattern'). Do you somehow think
'radio' waves are the one exception and need to 'coexist at some moment in a
non-linear device'??

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/mmedia/waves/ipl.html

Just because this is commonly done in super-heterodyne(sp) radio receivers,
doesn't mean waves don't interfere outside of non-linear devices.

Another red herring alert!!!!!
Who is talking about wave-theory???

The people, whos conversation you jumped into the middle of. If you didn't
read the rest of the thread before posting, then you lose for jumping into a
conversation you don't understand.

Wrong again!!!!
Note that "daestrom" is asserting that a low rise time impulse
has frequency components from f0 up,
rather than from f0 down.

I suggest that he do some reading about impulses and impulse generators.

*RED HERRING ALERT*
Note how "Tom Potter" is reading things that weren't written. I suggest
"Tom Potter" goes back and reads the post before he replies.

You should read what I wrote, not what you hear in your mind. I said....

"The sharp rise time will create harmonics *higher* in frequency than the
*IMPULSE FREQUENCY*". I did *not* say *higher* than the 1/rise-time. If
you generate a series of evenly spaced impulses at the rate of 10 every
second, then the spectral components will all be harmonics of 10 HZ. There
will be *NO* frequencies below 10 HZ. That is a series of impulses, not
just one. Your misinterpretation of 'impulse frequency', thinking I meant
1/rise-time is where you made your mistake.

Any periodic waveform in the time domain can be converted to the frequency
domain by application of Fourier analysis. All the component frequencies
are integer *multiples* of the fundamental frequency (fo). The 'fundamental
frequency' is *not* the 1/rise-time of your impulse generator. It is how
often your impulse generator creates impulses. Two completely different
things.

I wasn't trying to say anything,
other than what I stated,
and have restated in this post.

We were discussing experiments that show how e-m radiation is not just a
wave, or particle. Just as I was explaining how a rather famous experiment
proved the 'particle' aspects of light, you came in with your post about
plants, animals and bells, and how impulses generate harmonics of 'lower
tones'. If you had said something like, "Impulse generators create
harmonics lower than *1/rise-time* of the impulse (and higher than the
impulse train frequency)", we wouldn't be having this argument.

The analogy of ringing a bell with an impulse does not compare well with
using a high energy photon to cause an ionization event in a g-m tube. A
high energy photon does not have 'harmonics' of some lower frequency. A
more accurate analogy would be to have a high-frequency sine wave (with no
harmonics) try to ring a bell. It won't do a very good job unless the
frequency is near one of the resonant frequencies of the bell (they have
more than one resonant frequency), or is an even multiple of one.
Similarly, light of one wavelength may not interact with a particular object
unless the object contains an atomic structure that can match the frequency
of the incoming light to absorb it (or one of the other 'interactions with
matter' such as Compton scattering).

daestrom

 

[Tom Potter]

005--> 006--> >
007--> > > Sigh.... E-M radiation is *not* like plants, bells or gas
molecules.
008--> >
009--> > Red herring alert!!!!!!
010--> > Sigh.... Who said E-M radiation is like plants, bells or gas
011--> molecules?????
012--> >
013--> > >The quantum of e-m radiation does not have harmonics, or 'tones'
or any
014--> > other
015--> > > such behavior. You are trying to draw analogies from your world
to
016--> > explain
017--> > > behavior of e-m radiation that just does *not* apply.
018--> > >
019--> > > ANY object will only absorb certain energies of photons. Other
020--energies
021--> > > just pass through until they find some material that *will*
absorb
022--them.
023--> > >
024--> > > And there are energies that are attenuated because the
propability of
025--> > > absorption is somewhere between zero and one. The 'opacity' of a
026--> material
027--> > > is a function of the material and the energy level of the photon.
How
028--> > does
029--> > > this disprove the 'particle' aspect of e-m radiation? If
anything, I
030--> > think
031--> > > it supports it.
032--> >
033--> > Another red herring alert!!!
034--> > This is basically what I said:
035--> > when I wrote and you snipped:
036-->
037--> Yes, and I agree with it. But it does *not* prove that e-m radiation
is
038--> purely 'wave' phenomenon. That *was* the conversation you jumped
into you
039--> know (or maybe you didn't read the thread before posting).
040-->
041--> > > If e-m radiation were simply a wave, then the energy in a 'wave'
is a
042--> > > function of amplitude.
043--> >
044--> > Wrong!!!
045--> > Note that "daestrom" is implying that "amplitude" is a physical
046--property,
047--> > and can be factored in physics equations.
048--> >
049--> > Energy is a function of action * time.
050--> > I challenge "daestrom" to post the physical dimensions of
"amplitude"
051--> > and some equations where amplitude is multiplied by
052--> > ACTUAL physical properties.
053-->
054--> Fine, here is a definition of 'amplitude' taken from "Analytical
Mechanics
055--> 3rd edition".
056-->
057--> 'Amplitude is defined as the displacement of a small portion of the
system
058--> from the equilibrium configuration.' For example, in water waves it
is
059--the
060--> heighth of the wave above the elevation of a calm surface. For sound
061--waves,
062--> it is the pressurization/ rarefaction in air pressure from the
063--equilibrium.
064--> For light, it is the change in electrostatic field strength past a
point
065--in
066--> space.
067-->
068-->
069--http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/name/research/projects/wave_device/wave
_devi
070--ce.html
071--> The energy contained in a water wave is....
072-->
073--> E = 1/2 *width*rho*g*a^2*lambda
074-->
075--> Where...
076--> width is width across wave front (meters)
077--> rho density of water (kg/m^3)
078--> g accleration of gravity (m/s^2)
079--> a amplitude (wave height/2) (meters)
080--> lamda wave length (meters)
081--> E Energy in newton-meters (joules)
082-->
083--> Note how the University of Michigan uses 'amplitude' to calculate the
084--energy
085--> contained in a water wave.
086-->
087--> Similar equations can be found for longitudinal wave forms such as
sound
088--> waves, and e-m radiation where amplitude is measured in electric
field
089--> strength.
090-->
091--> > > Two waves of the same frequency that interfere with
092--> > > each other and create 'bands' of higher intensity and lower
intensity.
093--> >
094--> > Wrong!!!
095--> > Two waves do not "beat" or combine in any way,
096--> > unless they happen to coexist at some moment in a non-linear
device.
097-->
098--> Search for 'wave interference' and you find over 100 000 hits. Some
of
099--them
100--> explain how physical waves *do* interfere under the right
circumstances
101--> (beyond your 'coexist at the same moment in a non-linear device').
This
102--is
103--> high-school physics. Go throw two stones into a pond of water at the
same
104--> time. Watch how the waves from each interfere to create areas of
waves
105--with
106--> amplitude higher than either stone's original wave. And other areas
where
107--> almost no wave exists at all.
108-->
109--> Pass a sound wave through two holes in a wall. Sound waves will
radiate
110--> from each hole in phase with the original source. There are very
distinct
111--> loci found where the two sound waves *do* cancel each other out very
112--> effectively. Ask any audiophile why 'phasing' their speakers is so
113--> important.
114-->
115--> Look up 'wave interference' in google. Transverse waves (such as
water
116--> waves) behave in a very similar manner to longitudinal waves. Even
light
117--> waves create such interference patterns under the right circumstances
118--(look
119--> up 'diffraction grating' with 'interference pattern'). Do you
somehow
120--think
121--> 'radio' waves are the one exception and need to 'coexist at some
moment in
122--a
123--> non-linear device'??
124-->
125--> http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/mmedia/waves/ipl.html
126-->
127--> Just because this is commonly done in super-heterodyne(sp) radio
128--receivers,
129--> doesn't mean waves don't interfere outside of non-linear devices.
130-->
131--> > > event. But they don't. Wave-theory does not provide an
explanation
132--for
133--> > > this particular behavior (or should I say, lack of behavior).
134--> >
135--> > Another red herring alert!!!!!
136--> > Who is talking about wave-theory???
137-->
138--> The people, whos conversation you jumped into the middle of. If you
139--didn't
140--> read the rest of the thread before posting, then you lose for jumping
into
141--a
142--> conversation you don't understand.
143-->
144--> > > Your statement ...
145--> > >
146--> > > > Try to make a bell ring with a lower tone,
147--> > > > and it won't ring. It will ring from steep impulses,
148--> > > > because an impulse is composed of many lower tones.
149--> > > >
150--> > > ...is what I was responding to. 'An impulse is composed of many
lower
151--> > > tones'?? Lower than what? The resonant frequency of the bell?
These
152--> > would
153--> > > not be the frequencies to cause it to 'ring'. Lower than the
impulse
154--> > > frequency? No, there are none. The sharp rise time will create
155--> harmonics
156--> > > *higher* in frequency than the base impulse frequency, not lower.
157--> >
158--> > Wrong again!!!!
159--> > Note that "daestrom" is asserting that a low rise time impulse
160--> > has frequency components from f0 up,
161--> > rather than from f0 down.
162--> >
163--> > I suggest that he do some reading about impulses and impulse
generators.
164--> >
165-->
166--> *RED HERRING ALERT*
167--> Note how "Tom Potter" is reading things that weren't written. I
suggest
168--> "Tom Potter" goes back and reads the post before he replies.
169-->
170--> You should read what I wrote, not what you hear in your mind. I
said....
171-->
172--> "The sharp rise time will create harmonics *higher* in frequency than
the
173--> *IMPULSE FREQUENCY*". I did *not* say *higher* than the 1/rise-time.
If
174--> you generate a series of evenly spaced impulses at the rate of 10
every
175--> second, then the spectral components will all be harmonics of 10 HZ.
176--There
177--> will be *NO* frequencies below 10 HZ. That is a series of impulses,
not
178--> just one. Your misinterpretation of 'impulse frequency', thinking I
meant
179--> 1/rise-time is where you made your mistake.
180-->
181--> Any periodic waveform in the time domain can be converted to the
frequency
182--> domain by application of Fourier analysis. All the component
frequencies
183--> are integer *multiples* of the fundamental frequency (fo). The
184--'fundamental
185--> frequency' is *not* the 1/rise-time of your impulse generator. It is
how
186--> often your impulse generator creates impulses. Two completely
different
187--> things.
188-->
189--> <snip>
190--> >
191--> > I wasn't trying to say anything,
192--> > other than what I stated,
193--> > and have restated in this post.
194--> >
195-->
196--> We were discussing experiments that show how e-m radiation is not
just a
197--> wave, or particle. Just as I was explaining how a rather famous
198--experiment
199--> proved the 'particle' aspects of light, you came in with your post
about
200--> plants, animals and bells, and how impulses generate harmonics of
'lower
201--> tones'. If you had said something like, "Impulse generators create
202--> harmonics lower than *1/rise-time* of the impulse (and higher than
the
203--> impulse train frequency)", we wouldn't be having this argument.
204-->
205--> The analogy of ringing a bell with an impulse does not compare well
with
206--> using a high energy photon to cause an ionization event in a g-m
tube. A
207--> high energy photon does not have 'harmonics' of some lower frequency.
A
208--> more accurate analogy would be to have a high-frequency sine wave
(with no
209--> harmonics) try to ring a bell. It won't do a very good job unless
the
210--> frequency is near one of the resonant frequencies of the bell (they
have
211--> more than one resonant frequency), or is an even multiple of one.
212--> Similarly, light of one wavelength may not interact with a particular
213--object
214--> unless the object contains an atomic structure that can match the
215--frequency
216--> of the incoming light to absorb it (or one of the other 'interactions
with
217--
218--In order to clarify the issues in play,
219--let's look at my original post,
220--and see what the issues are:
221--
222--My original post follows:
223--==================
225--226--
227--> The quantized or "photon" character of the light is shown by tuning
the
228--> ionizing radiation to longer wavelength or lower frequency, until h
nu
229--> is just less than the ionization energy of the gas in the Geiger
230--> counter, and noting that you now get *no* clicks at all, no matter
how
231--> high you turn up the power or intensity of the incoming radiation.
This
232--> proves the "quantized energy" character of the light -- at least, I
233--> think that's how Einstein argued it.
234--
235--It is interesting to see that [email protected]
236--seems to be suggesting that the ringing of a bell,
237--or any high Q circuit, is a function of excitation quanta,
238--rather than a function of the bell or circuit.
239--
240--I suggest that events (Which are quanta)
241--are functions of absorbing objects
242--rather than the environment the object is in.
243--
244--Animals, plants, and field sensitive objects (Like charges, and atoms)
245--orient themselves (Seek out topologically)
246--to emit or absorb quanta from homogenous spectra.
247--
248--To test this theory, place a plant in a completely
249--homogenous spectra, and modulate the spectra
250--with relative motion to insure homogeneity,
251--and I assert that the plant will absorb events
252--in a spectrum that defines the plant,
253--rather than a spectrum that defines a photon.
254--
255--The mere fact that light is affected by the Doppler effect
256--rules out the concept that photons are energy packets.
257--
258--Shift the spectrum all over the map, (With relative velocity)
259--and the plant will always chose the spectrum that fits the plant.
260--.
261--Shift the spectrum all over the map, (With relative velocity)
262--and the Geiger counter will always chose the spectrum
263--that makes it click.
264--
265--Try to make a bell ring with a lower tone,
266--and it won't ring. It will ring from steep impulses,
267--because an impulse is composed of many lower tones.

I have numbered the lines of the old posts
so that they can be referenced.

Note that we are in agreement from line 0-40,
but diverge in line 41 where
daestrom implies that "amplitude" is a physical property,
and can be factored in physics equations.
Note that he tries to rationalize this in lines 54-90.

Amplitude is a MEASURE of a property,
it is not a property in of itself.

Note that in line 91, he implies that E-M waves
" interfere with each other and create 'bands'
of higher intensity and lower intensity",
and when the flaw in this is pointed out,
he obfuscates in lines 97-130,
using phony references, references to "high school physics",
and allusions to water and sound.

Also note that he states that water waves
are transverse waves in line 115.

Note that in line 131 he brings up the red herring
"wave theory" about which I did not comment.
As can be seen from my original post, lines 240-242,
I commented on objects reacting to events.

Lines 131- 165 contain red herrings, equivocation and spaces.

Note that in lines 166-180,
daestrom tries to circumvent his statement:
in lines 154-156
"The sharp rise time will create harmonics
*higher* in frequency than the base impulse frequency, not lower."

And note that in lines 181-187 he displays his lack of
knowledge of impulses, by writing about "fundamental frequency".
A single impulse has many frequency components, but
NO "fundamental frequency".

Lines 188- 200 are filler.
Lines 201-203 represent a second attempt to
equivocate of daestrom's statement in lines 154-156.

Lines 204-217 are a rejoining of the issue involved,
which is basically,
are events in objects
dictated by events in transient (Photons/bosons)
or by the propensity of objects to
"emit or absorb quanta from homogenous spectra"?

I don't think daestrom has made a good case for photons.
I suggest that the only thing that can be measured
between a cause and an effect, is an interaction time.

One could just as correctly assert that angels,
rather than photons,
conveyed quanta of change between objects.

 

[daestrom]

I have numbered the lines of the old posts
so that they can be referenced.

Note that we are in agreement from line 0-40,
but diverge in line 41 where
daestrom implies that "amplitude" is a physical property,
and can be factored in physics equations.
Note that he tries to rationalize this in lines 54-90.

Amplitude is a MEASURE of a property,
it is not a property in of itself.

I haven't said it is a physical property. I only stated, "...that the
energy contained in a 'wave' is a function of [the wave's] amplitude." (41).
There is no implication of physical property in that statement, just in your
interpretation (wrong again).

It is a commonly used term for describing one of the *properties* of a
*waveform*. It is a characteristic of the waveform, not the underlying
medium. Its physicality varies depending on the medium of the waveform. In
water waves it is measured in units of length; in sound waves it is measured
in units of pressure ('decibels' are referenced to a standard pressure
change). E-M 'waves' have many different standards that amplitude is
measured against depending on what range of frequencies you are working with
(radio, infrared, visible, gamma). If the term is good enough for university
physics departments, it is good enough for me.

You claim my reference of the UofM page is a 'phony reference'? How about a
reference of your own to refute it??

Note that in line 91, he implies that E-M waves
" interfere with each other and create 'bands'
of higher intensity and lower intensity",

e-m 'waves' can be made to interfere and form bands (in other than
'non-linear devices'). The results of the classic 'two-slit' experiment
show this. Your claims otherwise lack any substance. I refer you to review
almost any text on the subject (including, but not limited to, any
high-school physics text book). You have provided no credible reference to
suggest otherwise.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/two-slit2.html
http://sgra.jpl.nasa.gov/us-space-vlbi/outreach/P_Rosen.pdf
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/light/u12l1b.html

These, and other experiments, led 19th and early 20th century physicists to
believe light is simply a wave in some unseen medium. Persistent search for
such a 'medium' have been fruitless.

But other experiments with light can not be explained with this 'wave
theory' of light. These exceptions are one of the things that drove
physicists to continue experimenting and deriving new theories.

Regarding line '94 - 125'
I never said they 'beat' with each other. That term is commonly used in
radio technology to describe the combination of two different frequencies to
create 'beat frequencies' whose frequency is the difference of the two input
frequencies (and another whose frequency is equal to the sum of the two
input).

You brought up the term 'beat' when I said "Two waves of the same frequency
that interfere with each other and create 'bands' of higher and lower
intensity". You seem to have again misinterpreted what I wrote and thought
I said they create bands of different 'frequencies' when I said
'intensities'.

With regard to 115 et al.
Transverse waves in a medium are those where the displacement from
equilibrium occurs at right-angles to the direction of propagation.
Longitudinal waves occur where the displacement along the same axis as the
direction of propagation. Sound waves through air are an everyday example
of longitudinal waves.

It turns out, that water waves are actually a combination of transverse and
longitudinal. The reference below explains that a point on the surface of a
water wave actually travels in a circular manner. Sorry for the confusion
on that point.

http://www.gmi.edu/~drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html

Note that in lines 166-180,
daestrom tries to circumvent his statement:
in lines 154-156
"The sharp rise time will create harmonics
*higher* in frequency than the base impulse frequency, not lower."

I stand by that statement, as it is true. I am not trying to circumvent it.
You just continue to misinterpret terms into your own universe. You
misinterpreted my use of the term 'impulse frequency' to mean something
related to rise time. It does not.

Have you any credible reference to support your interpretation that the term
'impulse frequency' means 1/rise-time? Your interpretation seems to be
singular as many searches for the term 'impulse frequency' have not revealed
anyone else using that viewpoint.

If I had meant "the frequencies are higher than the 1/rise-time" I would
have said that. I did *not* mean that, *nor* did I say that. Since I did
not make an incorrect statement here, you have to repeatedly misinterpreted
accepted terminology in order to avoid admitting your own mistake.

Do you fail to understand the difference between 'impulse frequency' and
'1/rise-time', or are you just being obtuse?

And note that in lines 181-187 he displays his lack of
knowledge of impulses, by writing about "fundamental frequency".
A single impulse has many frequency components, but
NO "fundamental frequency".

All 'events' have a fundamental frequency, some just haven't reoccurred yet
in our lifetime. If an impulse happens only once, then the lower limit of
the frequencies which can generate drops the longer that time goes by
without another one occurring. If you create only one today, and one in
one-hundred years, then the lower limit on harmonic content is a period of
one-hundred years. If you don't create one in one-hundred years, the
fundamental frequency continues to drop.

Study spectral frequency analysis to see how any 'event' can be considered a
'periodic' event for analysis. It is a very common technique for such
analysis. Until the event recurs, its fundamental frequency can be
considered to be constantly changing (getting lower), but not reach zero.

One could just as correctly assert that angels,
rather than photons,
conveyed quanta of change between objects.

Since the whole theory of 'photon's is just an invention by physicists to
describe some of the experimental phenomena, they *could* be called 'angels'
or any other name. The photon theory exists and has uses. It has been
superceded by others, just as the 'wave theory' of light has uses but has
been superceded by quantum mechanics. The point was that both explain some
phenomena, but neither is *totally* accurate in all cases.

The experiment with intense low-frequency radiation on a g-m tube doesn't
*prove* light is composed of photons, it simply demonstrates that light is
*not* just a simple wave phenomenon. The argument about 'wave' vs.
'particle' forms of light was raging long before either of us were born
(unless you are *very* old). That neither is accurate for all circumstances
is well established.


You've repeatedly misinterpreted my statements to fuel your arguments.

I write...
"light can interfere to create bands of differing intensity"
You misinterpret
"light can interfere to create bands of differing frequency"

I write...
"energy is a function of wave amplitude"
You misinterpret
"...amplitude is a physical property"

I write...
"impulses have harmonics higher than the impulse frequency"
You misinterpret
"impulses have harmonics higher than 1/rise-time"

I provide some links to support my position,
You write 200 line 'quotes' of how you misinterpret English and denounce my
statements as 'red herrings' followed by your own twisted misinterpretation
of my statements to try and support your position.

Your technique of just quoting the 'line numbers', and supplying your own
interpretation of what I wrote is a transparent way of avoiding confronting
my actual statements.

You obviously lose this debate. Go back to class now and keep learning.

Since you have such poor reading comprehension skills, I see no reason to
continue.

daestrom

 

[Tom Potter]

I have numbered the lines of the old posts
so that they can be referenced.

Note that we are in agreement from line 0-40,
but diverge in line 41 where
daestrom implies that "amplitude" is a physical property,
and can be factored in physics equations.
Note that he tries to rationalize this in lines 54-90.

Amplitude is a MEASURE of a property,
it is not a property in of itself.

I haven't said it is a physical property. I only stated, "...that the
energy contained in a 'wave' is a function of [the wave's] amplitude." (41).
There is no implication of physical property in that statement, just in your
interpretation (wrong again).

As I posted,
"Amplitude is a MEASURE of a property,
it is not a property in of itself."

All physical properties have an "amplitude".
Force, energy, voltage, current, momentum,
you name it, it has an "amplitude".

If someone states that some property
is a "function" of some "amplitude",
they are asserting that the property changed
into some other propery as the amplitude changed,
or else they are asserting that "amplitude"
is a property itself.

Which did you mean?

It is a commonly used term for describing one of the *properties* of a
*waveform*. It is a characteristic of the waveform, not the underlying
medium. Its physicality varies depending on the medium of the waveform. In
water waves it is measured in units of length; in sound waves it is measured
in units of pressure ('decibels' are referenced to a standard pressure
change). E-M 'waves' have many different standards that amplitude is
measured against depending on what range of frequencies you are working with
(radio, infrared, visible, gamma). If the term is good enough for university
physics departments, it is good enough for me.

You claim my reference of the UofM page is a 'phony reference'? How about a
reference of your own to refute it??

Note that I called "daestrom's" statement:
"Search for 'wave interference' and you find over 100 000 hits."
"a phony reference", and he dodges the issue.

e-m 'waves' can be made to interfere and form bands (in other than
'non-linear devices'). The results of the classic 'two-slit' experiment
show this. Your claims otherwise lack any substance. I refer you to review
almost any text on the subject (including, but not limited to, any
high-school physics text book). You have provided no credible reference to
suggest otherwise.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/two-slit2.html
http://sgra.jpl.nasa.gov/us-space-vlbi/outreach/P_Rosen.pdf
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/light/u12l1b.html

Note that daestrom tries to justify his assertion the E-M waves
" interfere with each other and create 'bands'
of higher intensity and lower intensity".
by bringing up the two slit experiment
where 'bands' of higher intensity and lower intensity"
are created when ONLY ONE particle or wave
passes through the slits.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt
by assuming that he meant heterodyning"
but he digs himself a deeper hole,
by referencing an experiment where only
one object/wave is required to produce the effect.

These, and other experiments, led 19th and early 20th century physicists to
believe light is simply a wave in some unseen medium. Persistent search for
such a 'medium' have been fruitless.

Note that "daestrom" drags out another red herring a "medium".
I have always maintained that mediums, photons and angels
are excess baggage. The ONLY thing that can be measured
between a cause and an effect is an interaction time.

But other experiments with light can not be explained with this 'wave
theory' of light. These exceptions are one of the things that drove
physicists to continue experimenting and deriving new theories.

Regarding line '94 - 125'

Note he continues to assert that it take simultaneous events to
" interfere with each other and create 'bands' of higher and lower
intensity"
in the dual slit experiment.

I never said they 'beat' with each other. That term is commonly used in
radio technology to describe the combination of two different frequencies to
create 'beat frequencies' whose frequency is the difference of the two input
frequencies (and another whose frequency is equal to the sum of the two
input).

You brought up the term 'beat' when I said "Two waves of the same frequency
that interfere with each other and create 'bands' of higher and lower
intensity". You seem to have again misinterpreted what I wrote and thought
I said they create bands of different 'frequencies' when I said
'intensities'.

Note he continues to assert that it take simultaneous events to
" interfere with each other and create 'bands' of higher and lower
intensity"
in the dual slit experiment.

For the sake of time and brevity,
I have deleted the rest of the post,
which reveals "daestrom's" lack of understanding
of pulses and transverse waves,
not to mention the dual slit experiment.

 

[daestrom]

For the sake of time and brevity,
I have deleted the rest of the post,
which reveals "daestrom's" lack of understanding
of pulses and transverse waves,
not to mention the dual slit experiment.

Just one last thing. The dual slit experiment creates two, identical
frequency wave sources by passing the light from one source through two
slits (hence the name). The interaction beyond the slits is the same as if
the waves came from two separate sources. To suppose that the two waves
would only interact if they came from the same source behind a dual-slitted
wall is ridiculous.

It has been reproduced using two identical frequency light sources from two
lasers. Care to refute that this demonstrates the interference of two light
waves?

Seems you still don't grasp these things. Like the 'properties' of
waveforms. When talking about waveforms, they have many 'properties',
amplitude, wavelength, etc... The specific physical units are not
necessary until applying the abstract concepts to a concrete system.

And the statement 'x is a function of y', means simply that as x changes,
for each value of x there is a unique and dependent value of y. It only
implies that other variables that affect y are held constant while x is
varied. So the statement 'energy is a function of amplitude', means that
the energy in the waveform varies as the amplitude of the waveform varies
(and other parameters are held constant). Anyone with some basic
mathematics background would understand that statement. Guess that tells us
a lot about your background.

daestrom

 

[Tom Potter]

Just one last thing. The dual slit experiment creates two, identical
frequency wave sources by passing the light from one source through two
slits (hence the name). The interaction beyond the slits is the same as if
the waves came from two separate sources. To suppose that the two waves
would only interact if they came from the same source behind a dual-slitted
wall is ridiculous.

It has been reproduced using two identical frequency light sources from two
lasers. Care to refute that this demonstrates the interference of two light
waves?

Provide a reference to an experiment that
proves that proves that E-M waves (Not WAVE),
" interfere with each other and create 'bands'
of higher intensity and lower intensity",
and that self-interference, or heterodyning
is not the factor.

Seems you still don't grasp these things. Like the 'properties' of
waveforms. When talking about waveforms, they have many 'properties',
amplitude, wavelength, etc... The specific physical units are not
necessary until applying the abstract concepts to a concrete system.

You keep bringing up these red herring.
When you imply that I have a position,
leave in my post and reference it,
so I have some idea of what you are fantacizing about.

And the statement 'x is a function of y', means simply that as x changes,
for each value of x there is a unique and dependent value of y. It only
implies that other variables that affect y are held constant while x is
varied. So the statement 'energy is a function of amplitude', means that
the energy in the waveform varies as the amplitude of the waveform varies
(and other parameters are held constant). Anyone with some basic
mathematics background would understand that statement. Guess that tells us
a lot about your background.

I guess it tells us a lot about your <lack of> background
in physics, when you state that "'energy is a function of amplitude".

As I posted,
"Amplitude is a MEASURE of a property,
it is not a property in of itself."

All physical properties have an "amplitude".
Force, energy, voltage, current, momentum,
you name it, it has an "amplitude".

If someone states that some property
is a "function" of some "amplitude",
they are asserting that the property changed
into some other property as the amplitude changed,
or else they are asserting that "amplitude"
is a property itself.

Which did you mean?

 

[daestrom]

Provide a reference to an experiment that
proves that proves that E-M waves (Not WAVE),
" interfere with each other and create 'bands'
of higher intensity and lower intensity",
and that self-interference, or heterodyning
is not the factor.

Do your own web searches, I'm tired of you not providing any references. If
you don't have to support your claims, why should anyone else?

tells

I guess it tells us a lot about your <lack of> background
in physics, when you state that "'energy is a function of amplitude".

As I posted,
"Amplitude is a MEASURE of a property,
it is not a property in of itself."

You seem to only apply the term in a very narrow sense to describe
'magnitude' of any property or measurement. It is generally accepted by
everyone else to have an additional meaning when discussing waveforms.

When discussing waveforms, the term is used to describe the measurement of
one particular property, the one that measures the 'displacement' from
equilibrium. In water waves, the term describes the heighth the water
surface changes. In sound waves, the term describes the change in pressure.

If you think of 'amplitude' as a pseudonym for whatever physical property is
varying from equilibrium as the wave 'passes' a point, then my meaning
should become clear. The 'displacement' is a measured, physical property.
The term 'amplitude' allows one to refer to a particular concept in
discussing waveforms without having to assume a particular domain. (except
when discussing with you)

Since you refuse to acknowledge this *very common* use of the term, that is
your problem, not mine.

All physical properties have an "amplitude".
Force, energy, voltage, current, momentum,
you name it, it has an "amplitude".

If someone states that some property
is a "function" of some "amplitude",
they are asserting that the property changed
into some other property as the amplitude changed,
or else they are asserting that "amplitude"
is a property itself.

Which did you mean?

Neither. You *assume* there is no other interpretation because you cannot
concieve of a different meaning for the term 'amplitude' than the one you
have. Once you get past that and understand that the term 'amplitude' has a
narrower meaning when discussing waveforms, then a third interpretation
becomes obvious.

daestrom

 

[Tom Potter]

Do your own web searches, I'm tired of you not providing any references. If
you don't have to support your claims, why should anyone else?


You seem to only apply the term in a very narrow sense to describe
'magnitude' of any property or measurement. It is generally accepted by
everyone else to have an additional meaning when discussing waveforms.

When discussing waveforms, the term is used to describe the measurement of
one particular property, the one that measures the 'displacement' from
equilibrium. In water waves, the term describes the heighth the water
surface changes. In sound waves, the term describes the change in pressure.

If you think of 'amplitude' as a pseudonym for whatever physical property is
varying from equilibrium as the wave 'passes' a point, then my meaning
should become clear. The 'displacement' is a measured, physical property.
The term 'amplitude' allows one to refer to a particular concept in
discussing waveforms without having to assume a particular domain. (except
when discussing with you)

Since you refuse to acknowledge this *very common* use of the term, that is
your problem, not mine.


Neither. You *assume* there is no other interpretation because you cannot
concieve of a different meaning for the term 'amplitude' than the one you
have. Once you get past that and understand that the term 'amplitude' has a
narrower meaning when discussing waveforms, then a third interpretation
becomes obvious.

As can be seen
the basic problem is that daestrom
does not comprehend that "amplitude"
and "waveforms" are descriptions of physical properties,
rather than physical properties.

Physical properties like voltage, current, force, momentum,
energy, pressure, etc. have "amplitudes" and "waveforms"
(Have shapes or "forms" in time and/or space.).