Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Not understanding some parts of wave refraction
K7ITM wrote: "Let's see... e=m*c^2. Now what c is that? I think I know which one, and as far as I know there hasn't been a dispute about that on RRAA. The question posed on the newsgroup, and the one which still seems to be a point of contention is which one should go in *this* equation: f = c / w I maintain the answer is still - it depends on the medium. I am sorry to have gotten so many pairs of panties wadded up about this. Seemed a noncontroversial notion to me at the time. 73, Jim AC6XG |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Not understanding some parts of wave refraction
Jim Kelley wrote in news:eve92l$mip$1
@news.service.uci.edu: K7ITM wrote: "Let's see... e=m*c^2. Now what c is that? I think I know which one, and as far as I know there hasn't been a dispute about that on RRAA. The question posed on the newsgroup, and the one which still seems to be a point of contention is which one should go in *this* equation: f = c / w I maintain the answer is still - it depends on the medium. Jim, I am not a physicist... but I recall when introduced to e=m*c^2 at high school, that "c" was defined as "the velocity of light in a vacuum". If the "in a vacuum" qualification was unnecessary, if wasn't relevant, I wonder why they complicated and restricted the definition? I am with you (until someone presents a convincing argument otherwise). This leaves all those books, software etc giving a value for "c" as not necessarily in need of revision. Owen |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Not understanding some parts of wave refraction
john Wiener wrote:
c/c' = n, index of refraction for the c' medium, (c always used as the constant in a vacuum). That's the convention we used at Texas A&M 50 years ago. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Not understanding some parts of wave refraction
Being that I have zero qualifications as an expert on C I will tell
you how I see it.. pun intended First, C is specified as the speed of photon travel in a vacuum, per definition... Or as our attorney brethern say it, Per Se... Second, C' is the measured speed of the propagation of the wave front we call light through an atomic medium, air, water, glass, diamond, etc.... The thing to keep in mind is that the two, C and C', are not identical physical entities... C is the unimpeded propagation of a photon - i.e. a single entity - through a non atomic medium we call a vacuum - 'aether' if you will... The photon that left Proxima Centauri ~4 years ago is the same photon that slams into the front lens of the Hubble telescope (according to that photon's wrist watch that ~4 years happened instantaneously, but that's another rant)... Now if you were in orbit at the eyepiece of the Hubble the photon that enters your retina is not the same Proxima Centauri photon that slammed into the Hubble's mirror... And that makes all the difference... C' happens when the photon smashes into the Hubble's glass and is caught up in the electrical fields sorrounding the atoms making up the glass, primarily the electrical field of the outer (valence) electrons of the Protons... Like a house fly at full speed hitting a spiders web the photon begins to tumble and veer sideways and rapidly decellerate causing it to dump it's energy, i.e. radiate an electromagnetic field of it's own... The electron's field absorbs the energy radiated off the photon, causing in increase in the electrons energy level, usually forcing it to jump to a higher 'orbit'... Now at this instant the photon has disappeared (eaten by the spider) and the electron has been pumped up (like Hulk Hogan)... After a short interval the electron drops back to a lower energy level emitting a new photon... This photon takes off like a scalded rabbit at C (or very near C) but doesn't get far before another electron field sucks it up again... And so it goes for the passage of the photon (actually information) through the atomic structure of the transparent material... The photon that pops out of the eyepiece and slams into your retina is the lebenty sebenth generation descendent of the original photon that hit your scope... The process of repeated absorption and emission of a photon by multiple electrons is what slows the light (wave front) when it travels through transparent material... (and also what creates refraction, circles of confusion, and a bunch of other phenomena) Clear as mud, eh wot... denny / k8do |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Not understanding some parts of wave refraction
On Apr 5, 11:00 am, Richard Clark wrote:
On 5 Apr 2007 07:36:49 -0700, "MRW" wrote: c = f*w (c = m/s, f = frequency, w = wavelength) This frequency is relevant ONLY for vacuum (or with a very, very slight alteration) air. Now, it may seem that all air is air, but no. There are slight variations here too that on the global scale small shifts make large changes. Those small shifts are accounted for by pressure, water content (vapor), and temperature. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Same thing happens with light through water, the light slows down but doesnt change in color(frequency). Jimmie |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Newbie ?: I've Built A Simple 1/4 Wave Dipole for 2 Mtrs. Could IMake a1/2 Wave? | Antenna | |||
Newbie ?: I've Built A Simple 1/4 Wave Dipole for 2 Mtrs. Could IMake a1/2 Wave? | Homebrew |