|
Waves vs Particles
An airplane (particle) traveling at the speed of sound
causes shock waves in the air which, if passed through double slits, would no doubt cause interference. How about: A photon (particle) traveling at the speed of light causes shock waves in the aether which, when passed through double slits, causes interference? Impossible for empty space - but we now know that space is not empty. :-) Quoting "Alpha and Omega", by Seife, "Empty space is an incredibly complex substance, and scientists are just beginning to understand its properties." -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Waves vs Particles
On Feb 1, 11:43 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
An airplane (particle) traveling at the speed of sound causes shock waves in the air which, if passed through double slits, would no doubt cause interference. How about: A photon (particle) traveling at the speed of light causes shock waves in the aether which, when passed through double slits, causes interference? Impossible for empty space - but we now know that space is not empty. :-) Quoting "Alpha and Omega", by Seife, "Empty space is an incredibly complex substance, and scientists are just beginning to understand its properties." -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Perhaps you should read up a little on fluid dynamics. Any movement in a fluid causes "shock waves" or disturbances caused by energy transfer to the fluid. The so called speed of sound is when the cause of the disturbance moves at the same speed as the propagation of the energy transfer. Are you saying space is a fluid? Paul, KD7HB |
Waves vs Particles
" wrote in message ... On Feb 1, 11:43 am, Cecil Moore wrote: An airplane (particle) traveling at the speed of sound causes shock waves in the air which, if passed through double slits, would no doubt cause interference. How about: A photon (particle) traveling at the speed of light causes shock waves in the aether which, when passed through double slits, causes interference? Impossible for empty space - but we now know that space is not empty. :-) Quoting "Alpha and Omega", by Seife, "Empty space is an incredibly complex substance, and scientists are just beginning to understand its properties." -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Perhaps you should read up a little on fluid dynamics. Any movement in a fluid causes "shock waves" or disturbances caused by energy transfer to the fluid. The so called speed of sound is when the cause of the disturbance moves at the same speed as the propagation of the energy transfer. Are you saying space is a fluid? Paul, KD7HB ----------- Yes, but a compressible fluid - with temporal implications. G Ed, NM2K |
Waves vs Particles
|
Waves vs Particles
AI4QJ wrote: "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Quoting "Alpha and Omega", by Seife, "Empty space is an incredibly complex substance, ... Are you saying space is a fluid? Maybe "an incredibly complex substance" exhibits some characteristics of a fluid? I should say "characteristic" impedance is 377 Ohms. It also has a permitivity and permeability of 1 ;-) I'm sure you mean relative permittivity and relative permeability. The characteristic impedance is the square root of permeability divided by permittivity, so if both are one, the characteristic impedance would have to be one. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Waves vs Particles
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Quoting "Alpha and Omega", by Seife, "Empty space is an incredibly complex substance, ... Are you saying space is a fluid? Maybe "an incredibly complex substance" exhibits some characteristics of a fluid? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com If the photon creates a shock wave in the aether then it must be imparting some energy into the aether and the photon should slow down over time. Peter http://members.optushome.com.au/vk6ysf/vk6ysf/main.htm |
Waves vs Particles
Peter wrote:
If the photon creates a shock wave in the aether then it must be imparting some energy into the aether and the photon should slow down over time. Photons cannot slow down but you could be right about them losing energy over time. Lengthening the wavelength of a photon is certainly a loss of energy. That could explain the red-shift of light from distant galaxies. "Optics", by Hecht, 4th edition, Page 52: "Photons are stable, chargeless, massless elementary particles that *exist only at the speed of light*." -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Waves vs Particles
Cecil Moore wrote:
Peter wrote: If the photon creates a shock wave in the aether then it must be imparting some energy into the aether and the photon should slow down over time. Photons cannot slow down but you could be right about them losing energy over time. Lengthening the wavelength of a photon is certainly a loss of energy. That could explain the red-shift of light from distant galaxies. "Optics", by Hecht, 4th edition, Page 52: "Photons are stable, chargeless, massless elementary particles that *exist only at the speed of light*." While I cannot dismiss the existence of the photons, I am not aware of any experiments which have been able to measure them. However, to me, the fact that there is some type of interaction with our antennas and the ether is undeniable ... and, indeed, I do not believe that transmission of radio signals would be possible, on most frequencies--at least, if not for the ether. Regards, JS |
Waves vs Particles
John Smith wrote:
While I cannot dismiss the existence of the photons, I am not aware of any experiments which have been able to measure them. Hecht says: "... researchers ... have conducted experiments in which they literally counted individual photons". -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Waves vs Particles
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: While I cannot dismiss the existence of the photons, I am not aware of any experiments which have been able to measure them. Hecht says: "... researchers ... have conducted experiments in which they literally counted individual photons". I was aware of light, not RF. And, of course, at the extreme "frequencies" (others would state "Higher Energy Particles" for all RF--I guess), photons (particles) become undeniable--x-rays, gamma rays, etc. However, "light transmitters" have always been of a differing design/construction (example: light bulb) than RF transmitters. My readings and studies have been of a "circular nature", just when I have, in the past, decided that rf are/is waves, I have read something which convinced me particles are responsible--then the opposite occurs and I am back standing on square one. Hopefully, and in a "BLATANT" manner, some experiment will make the truth of this whole subject ABSOLUTELY apparent. Until then, I think it is OK to remain undecided and firmly set in ones beliefs ... but cautious of poking too much fun at anothers'. Warm regards, JS |
Waves vs Particles
John Smith wrote:
I was aware of light, not RF. I will go out on a limb and assert that light waves and RF waves are both electromagnetic waves with differing wavelengths. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Waves vs Particles
Cecil Moore wrote:
... I will go out on a limb and assert that light waves and RF waves are both electromagnetic waves with differing wavelengths. :-) Well, my "limb" is probably well known ... I don't think we "know" anything, until we deal with what part the ether plays in all this ... I see it as we are flying a plane without paying any heed to the existence of air--I am sure it could be done--just happen to stumble upon a set(s) of math which would allow it--it is just a "bunch easier" knowing about the air. Regards, JS |
Waves vs Particles
On 1 feb, 20:43, Cecil Moore wrote:
An airplane (particle) traveling at the speed of sound causes shock waves in the air which, if passed through double slits, would no doubt cause interference. How about: A photon (particle) traveling at the speed of light causes shock waves in the aether which, when passed through double slits, causes interference? Impossible for empty space - but we now know that space is not empty. :-) Quoting "Alpha and Omega", by Seife, "Empty space is an incredibly complex substance, and scientists are just beginning to understand its properties." -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Hello Cecil, I don't believe you can compare the two phenomena. The photons are created because of an accelerating charge (so the photon is the wave itself, not the source that created the wave). However, as far as I know, there is an (almost) equivalent for the airplane/air shockwave. When you shoot a charged particle (v close to c0) into a material with rel. eps 1 the particle will not abruptly slow down when entering the material with high rel.eps. So it can have a speed that is above the propagation speed of EM waves in that material. In that case an EM shock wave occurs. Look for Cherenkov shockwave. Best regards, Wim PA3DJS www.tetech.nl |
Waves vs Particles
"AI4QJ" wrote in message ... "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message ... AI4QJ wrote: "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Quoting "Alpha and Omega", by Seife, "Empty space is an incredibly complex substance, ... Are you saying space is a fluid? Maybe "an incredibly complex substance" exhibits some characteristics of a fluid? I should say "characteristic" impedance is 377 Ohms. It also has a permitivity and permeability of 1 ;-) I'm sure you mean relative permittivity and relative permeability. No, this is not correct. The permitivities and permeabilities of all materials are relative to free space. Free space is assumed to be 1 and the other values are relative to it. The characteristic impedance is the square root of permeability divided by permittivity, so if both are one, the characteristic impedance would have to be one. No, this is not correct. According to "Reference Data for Radio Engineers", published by International Telephone and Telegraph, fourth edition, page 35: "Properties of Free Space" Permeability = 1.257 * 10^-6 henry per meter. Permittivity = 8.85 * 10^-12 farad per meter. Characteristic impedance = sqrt(Permeability/Permittivity) = 376.7 ohms John |
Waves vs Particles
On 2 Feb, 09:21, John Smith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: ... I will go out on a limb and assert that light waves and RF waves are both electromagnetic waves with differing wavelengths. :-) Well, my "limb" is probably well known ... I don't think we "know" anything, until we deal with what part the ether plays in all this ... I see it as we are flying a plane without paying any heed to the existence of air--I am sure it could be done--just happen to stumble upon a set(s) of math which would allow it--it is just a "bunch easier" knowing about the air. Regards, JS To have a mind set around liquids and solids prevent true understanding of the elements and their magnetic fields which is the basis of all the universe. If one thinks of H2O as being elements with a electrical field where the energy contained in that field determines the density of like particles. One way of looking at it is the transformation from ice to a gas with each transformation being ruled by the change in energy ( latent energy) One can simulate this action between a solid and a liquid by filling a vessel with fine particles that is so dense that one cannot poke a finger into it. When a gas (potentialenergy) is injected (now kinetic) into the bottom of the vessel the particles become liquid in form such that one can stir the contents in cluster form plus a pressure wave in advance. Is it not a coincidence that 95% of elements are diamagnetic where the difference between that and paramagnetic is very small and reflected in field strength or potential energy? |
Waves vs Particles
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message t... John Smith wrote: I was aware of light, not RF. I will go out on a limb and assert that light waves and RF waves are both electromagnetic waves with differing wavelengths. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com A limb? Even I know that! |
Waves vs Particles
Suzy wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message I will go out on a limb and assert that light waves and RF waves are both electromagnetic waves with differing wavelengths. :-) A limb? Even I know that! Thus the smiley face. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Waves vs Particles
art wrote:
... To have a mind set around liquids and solids prevent true understanding of the elements and their magnetic fields which is the basis of all the universe. If one thinks of H2O as being elements with a electrical field where the energy contained in that field determines the density of like particles. One way of looking at it is the transformation from ice to a gas with each transformation being ruled by the change in energy ( latent energy) One can simulate this action between a solid and a liquid by filling a vessel with fine particles that is so dense that one cannot poke a finger into it. When a gas (potentialenergy) is injected (now kinetic) into the bottom of the vessel the particles become liquid in form such that one can stir the contents in cluster form plus a pressure wave in advance. Is it not a coincidence that 95% of elements are diamagnetic where the difference between that and paramagnetic is very small and reflected in field strength or potential energy? Frankly Art, until we move a bit further forward--I am very open to the arguments/ideas/text you contribute. My mother has always said, "It is better to listen than to think you understand [know] it all." And, her advise has served me well in life, so well, I have never been able to dismiss it. Regards, JS |
Waves vs Particles
Cecil Moore wrote:
Suzy wrote: "Cecil Moore" wrote in message I will go out on a limb and assert that light waves and RF waves are both electromagnetic waves with differing wavelengths. :-) A limb? Even I know that! Thus the smiley face. :-) Yes, let's not forget that! :-) LOL! A gentleman never would ... :-D Warm regards, JS |
Waves vs Particles
AI4QJ wrote:
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message ... AI4QJ wrote: "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Quoting "Alpha and Omega", by Seife, "Empty space is an incredibly complex substance, ... Are you saying space is a fluid? Maybe "an incredibly complex substance" exhibits some characteristics of a fluid? I should say "characteristic" impedance is 377 Ohms. It also has a permitivity and permeability of 1 ;-) I'm sure you mean relative permittivity and relative permeability. No, this is not correct. The permitivities and permeabilities of all materials are relative to free space. Free space is assumed to be 1 and the other values are relative to it. The characteristic impedance is the square root of permeability divided by permittivity, so if both are one, the characteristic impedance would have to be one. No, this is not correct. Wow. Sometimes even this newsgroup surprises me. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Waves vs Particles
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 14:00:30 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote: No, this is not correct. "If again it was not well cut, he disabled my judgment. This is call'd the Reply Churlish." No, this is not correct. "If again it was not well cut, he would answer I spake not true. This is call'd the Reproof Valiant." Wow. Sometimes even this newsgroup surprises me. A Liberal Education gives one perspective. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Waves vs Particles
On Feb 2, 2:00 pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
AI4QJ wrote: "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message ... AI4QJ wrote: "Cecil Moore" wrote in message . net... wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Quoting "Alpha and Omega", by Seife, "Empty space is an incredibly complex substance, ... Are you saying space is a fluid? Maybe "an incredibly complex substance" exhibits some characteristics of a fluid? I should say "characteristic" impedance is 377 Ohms. It also has a permitivity and permeability of 1 ;-) I'm sure you mean relative permittivity and relative permeability. No, this is not correct. The permitivities and permeabilities of all materials are relative to free space. Free space is assumed to be 1 and the other values are relative to it. The characteristic impedance is the square root of permeability divided by permittivity, so if both are one, the characteristic impedance would have to be one. No, this is not correct. Wow. Sometimes even this newsgroup surprises me. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Since this thread started on the premise that a photon is a particle, which it clearly is not, what did you expect? Cheers, Tom |
Waves vs Particles
K7ITM wrote:
Since this thread started on the premise that a photon is a particle, which it clearly is not, what did you expect? A photon is not a particle???? Do you have a reference? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Waves vs Particles
Richard Clark wrote:
A Liberal Education gives one perspective. I'll have to take your word for that. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Waves vs Particles
Richard Clark wrote:
... A Liberal Education gives one perspective. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC ABSOLUTELY! Having spent a lifetime in the sciences, those following Shakespeare have always puzzled me ... grin Indeed, leaves me feeling want to "speak the language" they are ... NOT! Regards, JS |
Waves vs Particles
K7ITM wrote:
... Since this thread started on the premise that a photon is a particle, which it clearly is not, what did you expect? Cheers, Tom Frankly, that statement stuns me! (and, maybe I have missed something) Please explain, what is a photon? Regards, JS |
Waves vs Particles
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Peter wrote: If the photon creates a shock wave in the aether then it must be imparting some energy into the aether and the photon should slow down over time. Photons cannot slow down but you could be right about them losing energy over time. Lengthening the wavelength of a photon is certainly a loss of energy. That could explain the red-shift of light from distant galaxies. "Optics", by Hecht, 4th edition, Page 52: "Photons are stable, chargeless, massless elementary particles that *exist only at the speed of light*." -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com This is a humbling discussion! Hadn't thought about it in terms of increasing the wave-length, but you are now messing with some of my basic assumptions about the universe with the obvious implication being its size and age. We might be able resurrects the steady state model! Question: If photons are stable, chargeless, massless elementary particles, how do they react with anything? Cheers Peter VK6YSF http://members.optushome.com.au/vk6ysf/vk6ysf/main.htm |
Waves vs Particles
John Smith wrote:
Richard Clark wrote: ... A Liberal Education gives one perspective. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC ABSOLUTELY! Having spent a lifetime in the sciences, those following Shakespeare have always puzzled me ... grin Indeed, leaves me feeling want to "speak the language" they are ... NOT! Regards, JS You mean the "creation sciences?" Having your mind programmed with fairy tales is no education at all. Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Waves vs Particles
Tom Donaly wrote:
... You mean the "creation sciences?" Having your mind programmed with fairy tales is no education at all. Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Creation sciences? H*ll man, you know that takes a belief system surpassing a belief it God! Indeed, if you can believe that, life came from rock, let me tell you about the bridge I got for sale! GRINNING-BEYOND-BELIEF-I-HAVE-FOUND-SUCH-AN-EXTRAORDINARY-IDIOT! But, heck man, you already knew that--and, if not, everyone else did! :-D Regards to the IDIOT, JS |
Waves vs Particles
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Peter wrote: If the photon creates a shock wave in the aether then it must be imparting some energy into the aether and the photon should slow down over time. Photons cannot slow down but you could be right about them losing energy over time. Lengthening the wavelength of a photon is certainly a loss of energy. That could explain the red-shift of light from distant galaxies. "Optics", by Hecht, 4th edition, Page 52: "Photons are stable, chargeless, massless elementary particles that *exist only at the speed of light*." -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Follow up. If the energy is lost over time (Not including the effect of acceleration) by lengthening of the wavelength and by definition lowering the frequency I would have thought this would be one the easiest theories to test. And as far as I know there is no observations of radio signals changing frequency due to distance by even the slightest degree. I was thinking about this over lunch. Thanks Cecil! -- Peter VK6YSF http://members.optushome.com.au/vk6ysf/vk6ysf/main.htm |
Waves vs Particles
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:40:13 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:
Your groupies will once again be sorely disappointed. Thank heavens for that! You guys would be indistinguishable from museum pieces if you didn't get dusted off once in a while. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Waves vs Particles
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 02:30:46 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:40:13 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote: Your groupies will once again be sorely disappointed. Thank heavens for that! You guys would be indistinguishable from museum pieces if you didn't get dusted off once in a while. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Yes, but what is the characteristic impedance of free space? The value has been established; that I am sorely disappointing you has been established; and that I am content with those outcomes has been established. Any further interest for others is how long this groupie drama of betrayed faith will play out. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Waves vs Particles
Peter wrote:
Question: If photons are stable, chargeless, massless elementary particles, how do they react with anything? "Stable" doesn't mean they are inert. Photons are emitted and absorbed all the time while interacting with other particles. I believe Hecht means that photons don't decay over time all by themselves (but there is some debate on that subject). -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Waves vs Particles
Peter wrote:
And as far as I know there is no observations of radio signals changing frequency due to distance by even the slightest degree. I think you will find many examples from radio astronomy where radio signals are red-shifted just like light. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Waves vs Particles
On 3 feb, 00:45, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"Wimpie" wrote in message ... On 1 feb, 20:43, Cecil Moore wrote: An airplane (particle) traveling at the speed of sound causes shock waves in the air which, if passed through double slits, would no doubt cause interference. How about: A photon (particle) traveling at the speed of light causes shock waves in the aether which, when passed through double slits, causes interference? Impossible for empty space - but we now know that space is not empty. :-) Quoting "Alpha and Omega", by Seife, "Empty space is an incredibly complex substance, and scientists are just beginning to understand its properties." -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Hello Cecil, I don't believe you can compare the two phenomena. The photons are created because of an accelerating charge (so the photon is the wave itself, not the source that created the wave). Does the wave have energy? Hint: The correct answer will tell you if the photon has mass. AI4QJ Hello, I am not a specialist in relativity. The EM shock wave generated by the particle with rest mass (for example electron) entering a medium with c v(particle) contains energy, but as far as I know, the photon has no rest mass, it carries momentum. It can therefore exert a force on an object (radiation pressure in classic electromagnetic theory). Best regards, Wim PA3DJS. |
Waves vs Particles
John Smith wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote: ... You mean the "creation sciences?" Having your mind programmed with fairy tales is no education at all. Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Creation sciences? H*ll man, you know that takes a belief system surpassing a belief it God! Indeed, if you can believe that, life came from rock, let me tell you about the bridge I got for sale! GRINNING-BEYOND-BELIEF-I-HAVE-FOUND-SUCH-AN-EXTRAORDINARY-IDIOT! But, heck man, you already knew that--and, if not, everyone else did! :-D Regards to the IDIOT, JS Q.E.D. Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Waves vs Particles
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message et... Peter wrote: And as far as I know there is no observations of radio signals changing frequency due to distance by even the slightest degree. I think you will find many examples from radio astronomy where radio signals are red-shifted just like light. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com I understand red-shift in terms of astronomy, but you can never be sure of all the effect in that situation such as acceleration and gravity. I suggest that there is no observations of radio signals changing frequency due to distance under lab conditions, which I still believe would be a relatively easy test. -- Peter VK6YSF http://members.optushome.com.au/vk6ysf/vk6ysf/main.htm |
Waves vs Particles
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:00:34 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:
Your groupies will once again be sorely disappointed. Thank heavens for that! You guys would be indistinguishable from museum pieces if you didn't get dusted off once in a while. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Yes, but what is the characteristic impedance of free space? The value has been established; that I am sorely disappointing you has been established; and that I am content with those outcomes has been established. Any further interest for others is how long this groupie drama of betrayed faith will play out. So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377 Ohms and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm? You still have a chance to recover your cred, bro. Have you been reading any of this? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Waves vs Particles
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 16:57:50 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:
I assume you made a typo when you say cv; you meant vc. He didn't. It is most common and evident (meaning you can trust your eyes this time) in cooling water pools for nuclear reactors. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Waves vs Particles
On Feb 3, 2:47 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:00:34 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote: Your groupies will once again be sorely disappointed. Thank heavens for that! You guys would be indistinguishable from museum pieces if you didn't get dusted off once in a while. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Yes, but what is the characteristic impedance of free space? The value has been established; that I am sorely disappointing you has been established; and that I am content with those outcomes has been established. Any further interest for others is how long this groupie drama of betrayed faith will play out. So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377 Ohms and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm? You still have a chance to recover your cred, bro. Have you been reading any of this? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Hahahahaha! Thanks, Richard! ;-) I'd been wondering that myself. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com