Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Goldilocks Frequencies And Photon Packet Frequencies

Radio waves

  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 03:15 AM

A photon (or packet/ parcel etc) may have a wavelength that will not penetrate (say) a microwave oven door screen (but visible light will pass through the 1mm hole - microwave photon wavelength is around 60mm).

Radio techs talk about goldilocks frequencies that penetrate building materials (good for radio comms etc). Each pulse transmitted from an antenna is a transmission wave of zillions of photons. The transmission waves may be many metres apart. So it seems to me that the transmission frequency has nothing to do with the capacity of the photon to penetrate a substance as each photon had its own wavelength. Maybe it's the power in each wave that imparts the photon wavelength? I don't know - but it still doesn't explain these goldilocks frequencies. Is there a relationship between transmission frequency and photon frequency?



#2 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2576 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 06:05 AM

A photon (or packet/ parcel etc) may have a wavelength that will not penetrate (say) a microwave oven door screen (but visible light will pass through the 1mm hole - microwave photon wavelength is around 60mm).

Radio techs talk about goldilocks frequencies that penetrate building materials (good for radio comms etc). Each pulse transmitted from an antenna is a transmission wave of zillions of photons. The transmission waves may be many metres apart. So it seems to me that the transmission frequency has nothing to do with the capacity of the photon to penetrate a substance as each photon had its own wavelength. Maybe it's the power in each wave that imparts the photon wavelength? I don't know - but it still doesn't explain these goldilocks frequencies. Is there a relationship between transmission frequency and photon frequency?

Yes. They are one and the same. 

 

The issue is diffraction. Long wavelengths can diffract round obstructions, whereas short ones have a more line-of-sight behaviour. Essentially, obstructions that are smaller in size than the wavelength do not significantly interrupt the wave.  Conversely apertures in a blocking obstruction do not significantly pass waves that have a wavelength much larger than the aperture. If you look up diffraction you will be able to read more about this (I am just going from memory and may not have expressed it exactly right :)  ).


  • Mattzy likes this

#3 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 02:13 AM

Yes. They are one and the same. 

 

The issue is diffraction. Long wavelengths can diffract round obstructions, whereas short ones have a more line-of-sight behaviour. Essentially, obstructions that are smaller in size than the wavelength do not significantly interrupt the wave.  Conversely apertures in a blocking obstruction do not significantly pass waves that have a wavelength much larger than the aperture. If you look up diffraction you will be able to read more about this (I am just going from memory and may not have expressed it exactly right :)  ).

I'll check out refraction. Thanks for that exchemist. I still don't get the mismatch between spacing of pulses (transmission wavelength) and photon wavelength. Hopefully refraction will answer that.



#4 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2576 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 09:20 AM

I'll check out refraction. Thanks for that exchemist. I still don't get the mismatch between spacing of pulses (transmission wavelength) and photon wavelength. Hopefully refraction will answer that.

NO! Not refraction: DIFFRACTION. The two are quite different.  Refraction will tell you nothing about this at all. 

 

But I see where I could have misled you with part of my earlier reply. The photon wavelength will be that of the carrier wave. When you talk about the "spacing of pulses" you must I think mean the modulation that carries the signal. That I presume will be irregular and therefore will not have a wavelength as such at all.

 

Rhertz will be your man for that: he seems to be a radio engineer.


Edited by exchemist, 05 June 2019 - 09:26 AM.

  • Mattzy likes this

#5 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 01:23 AM

NO! Not refraction: DIFFRACTION. The two are quite different.  Refraction will tell you nothing about this at all. 

 

But I see where I could have misled you with part of my earlier reply. The photon wavelength will be that of the carrier wave. When you talk about the "spacing of pulses" you must I think mean the modulation that carries the signal. That I presume will be irregular and therefore will not have a wavelength as such at all.

 

Rhertz will be your man for that: he seems to be a radio engineer.

I'll check out diffraction as advised. I know about modulation of carrier waves ie amplitude modulation or frequency modulation - but that's not what I'm asking.

The carrier wave is the regular pulse of emf coming from an antenna. These pulses may be very far apart (say 100 metres) in each wave of emf there are zillions of photons. Each photon has its own frequency. A microwave oven photon has its own frequency that will not allow it to pass through quite large holes in oven door screens. So how do the radio engineers produce / change photon frequency? What are these goldilocks frequencies? Are they talking about transmission frequencies or photon frequencies? Are these frequencies related? I hazard a guess that the power in each wave will energize each photon - irrespective of carrier wave frequency.



#6 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2576 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 02:44 AM

I'll check out diffraction as advised. I know about modulation of carrier waves ie amplitude modulation or frequency modulation - but that's not what I'm asking.

The carrier wave is the regular pulse of emf coming from an antenna. These pulses may be very far apart (say 100 metres) in each wave of emf there are zillions of photons. Each photon has its own frequency. A microwave oven photon has its own frequency that will not allow it to pass through quite large holes in oven door screens. So how do the radio engineers produce / change photon frequency? What are these goldilocks frequencies? Are they talking about transmission frequencies or photon frequencies? Are these frequencies related? I hazard a guess that the power in each wave will energize each photon - irrespective of carrier wave frequency.

This seems a bit confused. Each crest of a wave does not constitute a "pulse". A pulse implies something that is present and then absent, something discontinuous. A wave is continuous, though its amplitude oscillates.

 

I repeat, the photons are the wave coming from the antenna. You do not have two different things with different frequencies. The distinction you are making between transmission frequency and photon frequency is false. There is no distinction. If you have a radio wave with a wavelength of 100m, it has a frequency of c/100 = 3 MHz.  That is the frequency of the photons that make it up, to which you can apply E=hν and calculate the energy of each photon making up the beam. There is a table showing this relation for radiation at different frequencies in this Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia...gnetic_spectrum


Edited by exchemist, 06 June 2019 - 02:47 AM.

  • Mattzy likes this

#7 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 05:15 AM

Aha! So that's where I'm going wrong and confused. I probably am. But exchemist, you don't offer me the explanation I seek.

You say "the photons are the wave coming off the antenna" . That needs explanation if I am to be corrected. I assume amplitude is the measure of energy in the wave. I am conceiving both amplitude of the carrier wave and the photon. You are saying this is false. I ask you: what is the wave made of? I believe it is photons. No?

A visible light photon will oscillate in way that allows it to go through a 1mm hole in the mesh. But even if its amplitude is greater than the 1mm hole it may well pass through if it has a long wavelength and passes at a near perpendicular to the screen - or any angle that will allow it to pass through the hole. If the wavelength is has higher amplitude "and" short enough frequency that it will always be absorbed by the screen then you have the explanation to how the screen works. Imagine a tightly concertinaed rattle snake that can't straighten out - that is how I conceive each photon (or packet or lump of energy). I think you are saying that is a misconception.

In your analogy there are still zillions of photons all doing what? If your wave is made of photons then how do you describe their movement within a wavelength of 100m? Any of them that arrive at the hole will pass through at a carrier wave frequency of 100m.

I don't think it matters about my description of a carrier wave as a pulse. The antenna is charged and discharged at carrier wave frequency, giving off waves of emf  spaced at that frequency. If you plot the emf of the wave you can rightly say it is continuous as it rises from low to high energy level. What is wrong with conceiving this as a pulse of energy just because its change is not instantaneous. That wave form that you see on an oscilloscope or a graph is just the power of zillions of photons rising and falling in number and individual energy level - yes? If not then what? What do you think the wave is made of? It must be photons - yes?

So inside the rising wave (I still like pulse) of emf there are photons - yes? Zillions of photons represented at the peak of the plotted wave and very few (in my analogy zero) half way between the peaks. Have I got this completely wrong? Where?

exchemist, what is meant by "goldilocks frequency"? Can you explain how it penetrates where other frequencies fail? Are we still talking diffraction?



#8 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2576 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 06:52 AM

Aha! So that's where I'm going wrong and confused. I probably am. But exchemist, you don't offer me the explanation I seek.

You say "the photons are the wave coming off the antenna" . That needs explanation if I am to be corrected. I assume amplitude is the measure of energy in the wave. I am conceiving both amplitude of the carrier wave and the photon. You are saying this is false. I ask you: what is the wave made of? I believe it is photons. No?

A visible light photon will oscillate in way that allows it to go through a 1mm hole in the mesh. But even if its amplitude is greater than the 1mm hole it may well pass through if it has a long wavelength and passes at a near perpendicular to the screen - or any angle that will allow it to pass through the hole. If the wavelength is has higher amplitude "and" short enough frequency that it will always be absorbed by the screen then you have the explanation to how the screen works. Imagine a tightly concertinaed rattle snake that can't straighten out - that is how I conceive each photon (or packet or lump of energy). I think you are saying that is a misconception.

In your analogy there are still zillions of photons all doing what? If your wave is made of photons then how do you describe their movement within a wavelength of 100m? Any of them that arrive at the hole will pass through at a carrier wave frequency of 100m.

I don't think it matters about my description of a carrier wave as a pulse. The antenna is charged and discharged at carrier wave frequency, giving off waves of emf  spaced at that frequency. If you plot the emf of the wave you can rightly say it is continuous as it rises from low to high energy level. What is wrong with conceiving this as a pulse of energy just because its change is not instantaneous. That wave form that you see on an oscilloscope or a graph is just the power of zillions of photons rising and falling in number and individual energy level - yes? If not then what? What do you think the wave is made of? It must be photons - yes?

So inside the rising wave (I still like pulse) of emf there are photons - yes? Zillions of photons represented at the peak of the plotted wave and very few (in my analogy zero) half way between the peaks. Have I got this completely wrong? Where?

exchemist, what is meant by "goldilocks frequency"? Can you explain how it penetrates where other frequencies fail? Are we still talking diffraction?

The energy intensity is the square of the amplitude. 

 

You do not have photons "inside" the wave. Each photon is itself a wave. You can add waves together. If you add the waves constituting each photon to one another you get the total radiation.

 

Re "goldilocks frequency" I looked this up and found no references to it. Can you provide me with a reference?   


  • Mattzy likes this

#9 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 296 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 10:06 AM

Hi, I invite you to read and comment at this thread, where I exchange some ideas about the dual nature of light with exchemist:

 

http://www.sciencefo...-dual-behavior/

 

Also, I'm copying your post and making some comments between paragraphs.

 

Original post (in black):

 

Aha! So that's where I'm going wrong and confused. I probably am. But exchemist, you don't offer me the explanation I seek.

You say "the photons are the wave coming off the antenna" . That needs explanation if I am to be corrected. I assume amplitude is the measure of energy in the wave. I am conceiving both amplitude of the carrier wave and the photon. You are saying this is false. I ask you: what is the wave made of? I believe it is photons. No?

 

Since the conceptualization of photons, early in the XX century and just when radio was rapidly creating a huge industry, differences between classical theory of electromagnetism based on waves started to clash with the spread of photonic theory of light, incorrectly proposed by Einstein's at his 1905 paper about the photoelectric effect. That shouldn't happen, and is a product of decades of miss-information by teachers and professors at high-school and college.

 

I suggest you to stick with Planck's definition of this "duality": "Light, in its broadest sense as electromagnetic radiation, propagates in the space as waves and is absorpted and emitted by matter in discrete quantities with e= h.f units of energy".

 

Then, by Planck's words (the man invented everything around the later called photons): Photons (a 1926 denomination of the discrete unit E=hf) don't travel in the physical space. An electromagnetic wave does. What is a photon, then? It's a reductionism of the discretness of EM waves when they interact with atoms and molecules, because it's SIMPLER to explain it in that way (photons emitted and absorpted).

 

If you read the whole thread I referenced, you'll understand that light, as an EM field disturbance, is expressed in FIVE DIMENSIONS (x,y,z,E,H).

 

There are no physical oscillations in the sub-space (x,y,z). Read Maxwell's definition of light in the referenced thread. Light travels as a massless point-like entity in the sub-space (x,y,z) and with time t. The oscillations exist in the sub-space (E,H), where the electrical field E and the magnetic field H oscillates in quadrature of phase, self-propagating along the space.

 

Any representation of light as a wave (at any book, publication, video) is a representation of how the components E, H or the composite value E2 changes with time. But nothing physical oscillates in light, only the values of E and H, or what's called AMPLITUDE A = (Epeak2 + Hpeak2)1/2.

 

So, talking about frequency of a "photon" or amplitude of the oscillations of a "photon" are meaningless terms. A photon is a point-like massless entity, which represent a SINGLE EM wave at the moment of its emission or absorption by atoms or molecules. STOP.

 

A visible light photon will oscillate in way that allows it to go through a 1mm hole in the mesh. But even if its amplitude is greater than the 1mm hole it may well pass through if it has a long wavelength and passes at a near perpendicular to the screen - or any angle that will allow it to pass through the hole. If the wavelength is has higher amplitude "and" short enough frequency that it will always be absorbed by the screen then you have the explanation to how the screen works. Imagine a tightly concertinaed rattle snake that can't straighten out - that is how I conceive each photon (or packet or lump of energy). I think you are saying that is a misconception.

 

That's the problem: a photon doesn't oscillate, nor have wavelength or frequency. It is the EM wave which oscillates, but not in a physical sub-space (x,y,z).

It oscillates in the sub-space (E,H), without any manifestation of spatial oscillations. If you could see a photon or an EM wave, you would see only a point-like entity (without any physical oscillations). What changes along space are the values of E and H components, for which there is a wavelength and a frequency, but you will never be able to observe this parameters unless your eyes can observe things in the subspace (E,H) besides your usual 3D visualization (x,y,z).

 

At the sub-atomic level, where "photons" exist (and only there), things HAVE TO be interpreted in THIS WAY:

 

1) Assume that you are a virtual observer, with a size of 1 Armstrong = 10-10 meters and you observe (in slow motion) that a beam of light is

    incoming toward atoms that surround you. Assume that the energy of this beam of light is A and that the light beam is monochromatic with

    frequency f.

 

2) What you'll observe is a shower of point-like particles (let's call them photons), in an amout N = A/(h.f) photons.

 

3) You'll observe how some photons "hit" electrons and are absorpted, while others pass through atoms or just kics electrons out of atoms,

    if the energy of the photon is higher than 13.6 eV. If the photon is ultra-energetic (MeV or GeV), then other things happens, which are

    explained within QFT.

 

This happens when you observe interactions at an atomic level.

 

But, in the macroworld, what happens has to be studied under classic electromagnetism. So, forget photons and think about EM waves and antennae. The interaction between EM waves and macro-matter is explained ONLY by classic electromagnetism and the simplification of antennae as single dipoles.

 

The absorption of an EM wave by a dipole is calculated by a mathematical expression which relates the VIRTUAL AREA OF CAPTURE of the dipole and the wavelength of the incoming EM wave.

 

An EM wave, using this math (which is the basis of radio-engineering) can be absorpted by the dipole only if the Virtual Area of Capture of the antenna has magnitudes similar to the wavelength of the EM wave. Anything else is NOT ABSORPTED by the antenna.

 

Now, what remains are phenomena of difraction, refraction and reflection (and there is NOTHING besides these three phenomena).

 

Difraction, refraction and reflection of any kind of light (EM visible OR NOT) are phenomena studied for centuries, long before Maxwell enlightened the world in 1865 with his theory of electromagnetism.

 

In the days of Newton, Huygens, Snell, Young, Biot, Kirchoff, etc. (which covers more than 150 years) there was a conviction that light was a wave which displaced by "mechanically" pushing and pulling the ether (luminuferous ether, as it was called for visible light).

 

The ancient scientist were clever (maybe 10X than the ones today) and they equated the behavior of a rope and sound to the one of light. Each one required a medium to oscillate (mechanical waves at the rope needed the rope, the sound needed the air "molecules" and the light needed the ether).

 

By using this interpretation of a PHYSICAL oscillation of light, and with the proverbial formula  w = L.f (velocity = wavelength x frequency) PLUS the OLD wave equation (developed for mechanical oscillations of a rope, and later applied to sound and light), every single aspect of the behavior of light was understood and mathematically modelled. When Maxwell came along with his theory, it didn't change anything known, but opened new doors with electromagnetism. Consider that, by Newton's time, it was already known that white light was composed by primary colors and aditional mixes.

So, refraction, difraction and reflection were explained assuming that light displaced with physical oscillations in the (x,y,z) sub-space.

 

Now we know that this is not true, but the whole body of knowledge built around light survived because the formulae worked and still work.

Try to find any expression different than Fresnel equations, Snell equations, Huygens equations and else to be used today, and you'll fail.

Microscopy, telescopes and interferometry were developed by using these pre-Maxwell and pre-Planck theories, and are used today.

 

Now, if you want to know the REAL SCIENCE behind classical explanations for absorption, emission, refraction, difraction and reflection using

the REAL NATURE of EM waves, then you'll need to go to the atomic world and explain the interaction of electrical and magnetical fields with

matter, and also explain which is the effect of polarization of light in the atomic world.

 

 

In your analogy there are still zillions of photons all doing what? If your wave is made of photons then how do you describe their movement within a wavelength of 100m? Any of them that arrive at the hole will pass through at a carrier wave frequency of 100m.

 

Already explained.

 

I don't think it matters about my description of a carrier wave as a pulse. The antenna is charged and discharged at carrier wave frequency, giving off waves of emf  spaced at that frequency. If you plot the emf of the wave you can rightly say it is continuous as it rises from low to high energy level. What is wrong with conceiving this as a pulse of energy just because its change is not instantaneous. That wave form that you see on an oscilloscope or a graph is just the power of zillions of photons rising and falling in number and individual energy level - yes? If not then what? What do you think the wave is made of? It must be photons - yes?

 

Most of it already explained.

Regarding how an antenna works, this is another phenomenom and it's caused by acceleration of free electrons under electrical fields of high energy present at the antenna. As Maxwell predicted, an accelerated charge emits EM radiation.

A dipole, for efficiency, is designed to be half the wavelength of the central carrier frequency, under AM, FM, CW or SSB modulations.

When radiating (transmitting) the antenna ELECTRICALLY RESONATES at the designed frequency, when a power amplifier inject current

into its terminations (two monopoles). For a transmission at 30 Mhz (10 meters wavelength) any point (infinitesimal one) at the antenna oscillates 30 million times per second.

This electrical oscillation generates an acceleration dE/dt, which forces electrons to radiate at such frequency (an average frequency).

At the receiver side, a dipole is HIT by an incoming wave of EM energy. If the energy is strong enough, it will cause the opposite effect: the electrons at each point of the antenna will oscillate, causing an electrical current to be detected, amplified and demodulated.

 

No photons involved here, as you can understand (I hope so).

 

In telecommunications, photons are used (for simplicity) in fiber optics communications. Light travels within the FO as a monochromatic wave, codified. When amplification is needed, optical amplifiers are used (tipically EDFA amplifiers). At the emitting and receiving side, diode lasers and photodiodes are used for electro-optical conversions (remember Planck).

 

So inside the rising wave (I still like pulse) of emf there are photons - yes? Zillions of photons represented at the peak of the plotted wave and very few (in my analogy zero) half way between the peaks. Have I got this completely wrong? Where?

 

exchemist, what is meant by "goldilocks frequency"? Can you explain how it penetrates where other frequencies fail? Are we still talking diffraction?

 

Hope this can help you.


Edited by rhertz, 06 June 2019 - 10:09 AM.

  • Mattzy likes this

#10 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 296 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 02:49 PM

A photon (or packet/ parcel etc) may have a wavelength that will not penetrate (say) a microwave oven door screen (but visible light will pass through the 1mm hole - microwave photon wavelength is around 60mm).

Radio techs talk about goldilocks frequencies that penetrate building materials (good for radio comms etc). Each pulse transmitted from an antenna is a transmission wave of zillions of photons. The transmission waves may be many metres apart. So it seems to me that the transmission frequency has nothing to do with the capacity of the photon to penetrate a substance as each photon had its own wavelength. Maybe it's the power in each wave that imparts the photon wavelength? I don't know - but it still doesn't explain these goldilocks frequencies. Is there a relationship between transmission frequency and photon frequency?

 

Goldilocks frequencies is a misnomer and is not commonly used by experts. Read this link along with my explanation.

The link contains mixed up concepts, but hold onto what I've explained and you'll understand. It takes time to digest everything.

 

https://www.physlink...perts/ae175.cfm


  • Mattzy likes this

#11 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 03:03 AM

Very many thanks rhertz! I'm very grateful for putting me straight on what was clearly my total misconception. I will thank exchemist for roping you in too - on my behalf.

He was right.

I will have to read all that you've sent a number of times to re-perceive a radio wave without photons. I doubt that I will ever understand quantum mechanics but maybe I'll learn enough to be dangerous! Thanks again rhertz.



#12 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 03:12 AM

The energy intensity is the square of the amplitude. 

 

You do not have photons "inside" the wave. Each photon is itself a wave. You can add waves together. If you add the waves constituting each photon to one another you get the total radiation.

 

Re "goldilocks frequency" I looked this up and found no references to it. Can you provide me with a reference?   

exchemist, you were right. I will have to read rhertz's reply a number of times to re-learn the theory on radio waves. I'm not going to study quantum mechanics - it's too late for that - but at least I'll have some better chance of not making a fool of myself in future! Thanks for bringing in rhertz on my behalf. I think this is what these sites should be about. Good result - for me.



#13 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2576 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 04:24 AM

exchemist, you were right. I will have to read rhertz's reply a number of times to re-learn the theory on radio waves. I'm not going to study quantum mechanics - it's too late for that - but at least I'll have some better chance of not making a fool of myself in future! Thanks for bringing in rhertz on my behalf. I think this is what these sites should be about. Good result - for me.

Be a bit careful with rhertz. He may know his radio engineering, but he has some crank ideas when it comes to physics. All this guff about extra E and H dimensions forms no part of the model physics uses. His ideas of what a photon is are his own homespun notion and not what modern physics says. Rhertz des not believe in modern physics, basically, and wants to take us all back to the end of the c.19th.  

 

I suggest if you are in any doubt, you consult the various Wikipaedia articles. They are not always clear or accurate, but in general they are not a bad place to start. I think you will find that what people such as Oceanbreeze and I have to say is broadly in line with what you will find there. 


  • Mattzy likes this

#14 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 296 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 08:03 AM

Be a bit careful with rhertz. He may know his radio engineering, but he has some crank ideas when it comes to physics. All this guff about extra E and H dimensions forms no part of the model physics uses. His ideas of what a photon is are his own homespun notion and not what modern physics says. Rhertz des not believe in modern physics, basically, and wants to take us all back to the end of the c.19th.  

 

I suggest if you are in any doubt, you consult the various Wikipaedia articles. They are not always clear or accurate, but in general they are not a bad place to start. I think you will find that what people such as Oceanbreeze and I have to say is broadly in line with what you will find there. 

 

LOL, exchemist. I'm starting to like our argumentative discussions. I say something and you find "holes" in what I say. Then I'll try to find "holes" into your "holes", and this keep happening ad infinitum. No problem, because you make me work aditional time to refute your refutations!

 

Here are some depictions (graphs) that I've found, where the E and H space exists, plus something else that I'll find next.

 

EM.jpg

 

Do you see the E and H dimensions at this graph? No xyz dimensions, only E,H plus time. An EM wave is a point-like entity

at any arbitrary instant t. Do you see it?

 

See? No oscillations at the xyz subspace. This 3D subspace would be used to represent the trajectory of the point-like entity

(call it "photon", if you want, but it's a simplification which captures the imagination of people. Remember the "Photon Torpedo" from Star Trek?

 

 

And I don't have any problem with modern physics, like Solid State Physics (which originated in the '40s) and is the key

for the semiconductor's industry, or Optic Physics (laser, etc.), or Particle's Physics. I'm against physics that is not based

in the scientific method (like relativity, the big bang theory, the string theory, the black holes theory, the cosmological

Lambda-CDM model, the falsification of the origin of the Cosmic Background Radiation (it's impossible to be

measured properly), the photonic Einstein-Bose condensate, the Schrodinger equation (even HE regretted inventing it),

E=mc2, many outcomes of the QFT, etc.).


  • Mattzy likes this

#15 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2576 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 09:51 AM

LOL, exchemist. I'm starting to like our argumentative discussions. I say something and you find "holes" in what I say. Then I'll try to find "holes" into your "holes", and this keep happening ad infinitum. No problem, because you make me work aditional time to refute your refutations!

 

Here are some depictions (graphs) that I've found, where the E and H space exists, plus something else that I'll find next.

 

EM.jpg

 

Do you see the E and H dimensions at this graph? No xyz dimensions, only E,H plus time. An EM wave is a point-like entity

at any arbitrary instant t. Do you see it?

 

See? No oscillations at the xyz subspace. This 3D subspace would be used to represent the trajectory of the point-like entity

(call it "photon", if you want, but it's a simplification which captures the imagination of people. Remember the "Photon Torpedo" from Star Trek?

 

 

And I don't have any problem with modern physics, like Solid State Physics (which originated in the '40s) and is the key

for the semiconductor's industry, or Optic Physics (laser, etc.), or Particle's Physics. I'm against physics that is not based

in the scientific method (like relativity, the big bang theory, the string theory, the black holes theory, the cosmological

Lambda-CDM model, the falsification of the origin of the Cosmic Background Radiation (it's impossible to be

measured properly), the photonic Einstein-Bose condensate, the Schrodinger equation (even HE regretted inventing it),

E=mc2, many outcomes of the QFT, etc.).

You are welcome to your ideas. Occasionally, when I am feeling energetic, or bored, I look at them and see if I feel like taking you up on a point. (I've given  you up on CMBR, for now)

 

However I don't think it is fair to Mattzy to start putting these ideas of your forward to him or her, without making clear where standard physics ends and your own ideas begin. That is why I suggested Wiki as a check on what he or she reads on this forum. 

 

But OK, let me put 50p in your slot and see what I get:

 

Regarding E and H vs. x, y, z, when a dipole antenna radiates radio waves, the electrons move up and down the antenna, do they not? Along a spatial axis perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the radiation. So if we designate z as the propagation direction we have an oscillating electric field, in space, along the x or y axis, do we not? 


  • Mattzy likes this

#16 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 296 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 11:15 AM

You are welcome to your ideas. Occasionally, when I am feeling energetic, or bored, I look at them and see if I feel like taking you up on a point. (I've given  you up on CMBR, for now)

 

However I don't think it is fair to Mattzy to start putting these ideas of your forward to him or her, without making clear where standard physics ends and your own ideas begin. That is why I suggested Wiki as a check on what he or she reads on this forum. 

 

But OK, let me put 50p in your slot and see what I get:

 

Regarding E and H vs. x, y, z, when a dipole antenna radiates radio waves, the electrons move up and down the antenna, do they not? Along a spatial axis perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the radiation. So if we designate z as the propagation direction we have an oscillating electric field, in space, along the x or y axis, do we not? 

 

There is a problem there. Simplified Maxwell's equations (Heaviside's vectorial expression) apply only to FAR fields, which start at three or four wavelenghts from any antenna (whichever). There is another expression for the NEAR field, which is highly more complex and the known laws of electromagnetism don't work very well there, specially around high-power radiating antennae (above 10 watts up to 100 Kilowatts). It seems like the magnetic field dominates over the E field, and doesn't follow the inverse square power law. An AM or FM radio-receiver works in a very funny way close to such antennae, like having much higher amplification than several wavelengths far away (to receive distant stations).

 

Have you ever heard of loop antennae? They were used in the early days of radio (and TV), and are based on the capture of the magnetic field of the EM wave.

 

Standard receivers, today, are based on dipoles (even fractal ones) which capture the electric field of the EM wave received.

 

Dipoles mean electric field TX/RX, and this is valid even for advanced radars with hundreds of dipoles at 80 Ghz (military ones).

 

Watch this link. It has an animated gif with the radiation pattern for a dipole antenna. The electrical field that you mention is originated by

electrons, and its displacement create the magnetic field (in the FAR FIELD), following Maxwell's equations.

 

https://en.wikipedia...Antenna_(radio)


Edited by rhertz, 07 June 2019 - 11:21 AM.

  • Mattzy likes this

#17 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 04:45 PM

Be a bit careful with rhertz. He may know his radio engineering, but he has some crank ideas when it comes to physics. All this guff about extra E and H dimensions forms no part of the model physics uses. His ideas of what a photon is are his own homespun notion and not what modern physics says. Rhertz des not believe in modern physics, basically, and wants to take us all back to the end of the c.19th.  

 

I suggest if you are in any doubt, you consult the various Wikipaedia articles. They are not always clear or accurate, but in general they are not a bad place to start. I think you will find that what people such as Oceanbreeze and I have to say is broadly in line with what you will find there. 

Roger that exchemist. Yes I should use wiki pedia more often. I forgot to answer your request. You can see a mention of goldilocks frequencies in relation to 5G networks. A friend of mine mentioned them a few months ago - he works in telecoms but he is an organiser and no more technically knowledgeable than I am. I have seen it mentioned on a site called "between towers" its the range 1 to 7GHz and said to be 'just right' hence the goldilocks term.