Jump to content
Science Forums

Seeing Is Believing


Guest Domenico
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Domenico

A few days ago I decided to write this thread. Almost immediately afterwards I thought: to whom can I tell this little story? And then I thought of this distinguished little forum, although I must say I hardly received an answer to my half a dozen posts. Yes, let it be known that the cry originated from here, from this cosy little forum.

I learned as a young man to type with ten fingers, I am still pretty fast on the key board and perhaps because of this I have on my credit 18 books mainly science books, essay-writing, and poetry. Including an Italian dictionary elaborated and written all by myself where there is usually half a dozen academics sharing the work. I am saying all this because I suppose I am trying to excuse myself for being pretty new to internet and all the paraphernalia going with it.

 

That’s enough rhetoric for the day. Last week, I was shopping around, or as they say navigating the web, when I stumbled in to the pictures you see above. I could hardly believe my eyes, I was shocked to see the electromagnetic spectrum represented from beginning to end with the same amplitude. Hundreds of drawings, man-made sketches, diagrams, figures and what not; they all had a thing in common: all types of radiations running along with the same amplitude. Be it gamma rays, visible spectrum, microwave radiation, radio waves, or whatever: they all have the same amplitude. I was stunned. The first thing I thought was: I must be one of the very few who still draws the spectrum with a cone-like figure. Incredible.

I don’t know what you out there think about it, please speak your mind. As for me, I thought about it for a day or so and I came out with some sort of an answer, here it is.

The study of the waveform of musical notes is usually represented by the fundamental frequency f0 and all the overtones 2f0, 3f0 etc., which have different amplitude, and they are mostly studied singly one at the time. Likewise, the study of stationary waves in pipes and of stationary waves in strings suggests a preference for the waveform (same amplitude) in its longitudinal aspect. A similar thing we see with water waves spread along the surface where although no particle of water is displaced the waveform is studied for a 2π, 3π distance and the fact that it is a dying wave it is hardly mentioned. With sound waves, for example, the displacement or direction of travel is shown to take place with the same waveform, this is the way sound waves carry energy. With electromagnetic waves is even worst. We all have learned and are familiar with the wave so-called progressive moving to the left or to the right while retaining the same sinusoidal form, or waveform. Light waves, for example, are said to be carried by electromagnetic waves from the radiating body to the absorber. And lastly, the study of alternate current (A.C.) circuits is perhaps what has influenced the mind more than the rest in the sense that the visual study through oscilloscopes have shown time and again the wave retaining the same profile in all its applications at very low frequency (50 or 60 cycles per second).

Coming now to a conclusion, is it possible that all these bits and pieces have brain-washed the mind and the constant waveform of the plane wave has outshone the expanding wave as well as the spherical wave? Or maybe there are out there too many amateurs having fun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Electromagnetic waves are defined by wavelength. There is no need to show different amplitudes on the eclectromagnetic spectrum. Equal amplitudes often alow you to see the changes in wavelength better. Keeping this in mind, why draw different amplitudes?

 

Also, an electromagnetic wave does not change in amplitude over time, except as shown by the wave's own shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Domenico

Electromagnetic waves are defined by wavelength. There is no need to show different amplitudes on the eclectromagnetic spectrum. Equal amplitudes often alow you to see the changes in wavelength better. Keeping this in mind, why draw different amplitudes?

 

Also, an electromagnetic wave does not change in amplitude over time, except as shown by the wave's own shape.

 

Thank you for the clarification. I can well see your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Domenico

As to the thread title, I do not find that "seeing is believing". The truth would be the opposite, "not-seeing is believing", while "seeing is knowing'. This is how I see things.

With the title I meant to convey the idea that although the drawings I saw were incongruent, to believe that someone has done them, you must see them. The English expression “I believe it, if I see it” would synthesize what I mean. However, your way is yet another way of seeing it, and that’s why Man with his intellect has mastered the world here, there and everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Domenico

Domenico, the graphs you show are mathematical representations of a phenomena that we do not quite understand. Your missing amplitude is the wavelength verses time. The propagation of the photon somewhat resembles that of the sound wave, JJ Ihompson http://scienceforums.com/topic/20998-photon-creation/

 

By associating sound waves to the photon, you have touched on the underlying argument of my thread. I was hinting at the difference between the gradation scale of the spectrum which includes the full range of frequencies (all wavelengths) and any frequency carrier (one wavelength) along which electromagnetic signals are being transported. In my view it is incorrect to draw the spectrum the way it is done on internet and maybe also at school level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Domenico

A photon's energy never changes unless it interacts with a boundry.

 

Electromagnetic 'signals' are not 'transported' along anything, except in special cases (i.e. a Faraday Cage). They are merely two interacting fields, one electrical, one magnetic, that are self-propagating.

 

With reference to the photon, that’s exactly what Little Bang and I were implying: same frequency therefore same energy.

As for the rest, I am an outlaw and as such relegated in the “speculation” forum here called, thanks to the nice people running the show, “Alternative theories” forum. Nonetheless, you have given me a piece of your mind and to be courteous I must answer you politely as I have already done with my little introduction and as I shall continue to do now.

Here I go: If I say “hello” in my mobile phone I have there and then generated an electromagnetic signal which will imprint or, if you want the radio technical word, will modulate “ipso facto” a wave-packet which was and still is part of an existing (sorry for this word) electromagnetic network or, if you like, electromagnetic field called by Einstein: time-fabric; that is, the fabric of space. I apologize to you if I sustain that space is filled with something like the time-fabric: an all-permeating, all-pervasive substance very much like the old ether. Nothing new under the Sun, other people thought the same way. For your benefit, here they are, my friend, a handful of distinguished scholars to whom I gave one thousand maybe two thousand hours of my life. Here are their names and the dear little baby they nursed.

the dielectric field of James Clerk Maxwell

the zero-point field of Max Planck

the negative energy of Albert Einstein

the stochastic covariant ether of Paul Dirac

the thermal bath of Louis de Broglie

the Higgs field of Peter Higgs

the subquantum level of David Bohm

the vacuum energy of the ongoing formalism

Most likely you belong to the last lot of addicts. We are somehow or other all addicts. People with a mind in motion are bound to form ideas. In 1907 Einstein declared the old ether to be “superfluous” to all electromagnetic phenomena. He did it in order to promote his “empty space” which suited his theory. One hundred years down the road and after some false start with the “vacuum energy”, this generation is having a go at “dark energy” to replace the defunct ether. Generations of people running parallel to the above distinguished great men of our glorious past have thought in different ways. We all think, Polymath, we all think. Sorry about my ranting and raving. I was saying...

Yes, the electromagnetic signal generated artificially and the wave-packet or if you prefer the train-of-waves together form what you call a “photon”. My “hello” (from above) 8 minutes and 17 seconds later is already skimming the Sun, 5 and a half hours later has left the solar system, 3 and a half thousand years later is enjoying the site of Alfa Centauri stellar system, and 2 million and a half years later has just left the Andromeda galaxy never to return. All of this, Polymath, happens in my theory because in my theory the electromagnetic carrier is embedded into space. The wattage on the antenna of my mobile phone (a few watts) or if I speak from a radio station (ten kilowatts) are needed only to imprint the waves, the more watts the stronger the signal. Remember, the big job, very big job of carrying the signal around is done by mother nature. If a radio signal should radiate on its own steam, it wouldn’t even get out of town. A ray of light without a carrier wouldn’t even make a hundred feet, it doesn’t have the energy to do it. A little girl playing with a domestic mirror can do anything she wants with a ray of light, anything at all.

Maybe you had enough of me. I understand, and that’s OK with me. However, if you decide to give me an answer; would you please read at least one of my threads, say: the dual nature of space which you’ll find in the “Alternative theories” forum, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Domenico

It appears as though you did not read the thread I pointed to, is that assumption correct?

 

Correct Little Bang, correct. I sincerely apologize for it. I started reading and then I was interrupted by visitors. I shall read it tonight in the quietness of my study. Tomorrow I'll relate to you. Cheers for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Domenico

I shall answer your first two paragraphs by saying the same thing I said above to The Polymath, that is: I am an outlaw. As such I do not accept particles of matter running at any speed. You are suggesting that a photon moves under its own steam (electric field) and it radiates in a radial manner (360 degrees). We are continuously receiving photons of light from Andromeda, the distance in-between the two galaxies is only the radius vector of the photon’s radial running. How much energy does the photon need to make the trip without an embedded carrier into space to move it around? If the photon generates its own energy, what is the physical process doing it, and where is the source? Only two of the many questions that your idea raises.

 

I started to read the two-slit experiment and I had to leave it at that. I am sorry Little Bang for not being of any help to you. I do know what it means to have an idea and finding around you only blank faces.

 

As for the rest, for me to get involved in an exchange of documented facts it would be a tremendous effort, and I don’t have the time to do it. Little bang, you have most probably embraced a doctrine (Relativity/QM) which has left unattended dozens and dozens of physical concept with no explanation. By the look of things the real physics requiring a lot of work has been put aside leaving the front lawn and the backyard almost deserted because 3 out of 4 men of physical science prefer to play their games 13 and a half billion years down the road. What a wasted talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A photon does not need to create energy, because it does not move under its own energy or that of any outside force beyond its point of creation. All a photon is is an electrical field and a magnetic field that are both perpendicualr to each other and the direction of propagation during one instant of time. A photon is not a particle, so it has no mass, so it needs no energy to move. To answer the questions raised by Domenico: 1. it takes no energy for a photon to move any distace, be it across a room or across the Milky Way, and 2. because it takes no energy for a photon to move it doesn't need to produce any energy on its own during its trip.

 

Also, Einstein did not say that Space-Time is an electromagnetic field. There are five types of forces that have been defined, the electrical force, the magnetic force, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, and the gravitational force. The electrical and magnetic forces have been found to be the same force, which is called the electromagnetic force. This force is the same as the weak nuclear force, so it has been renamed the electroweak force. So, there are only three distinct forces, Electroweak, Strong Nuclear, and Graviational. Space-Time is not a force. Electromagnetism is. They cannot be the same thing.

 

One more note: a photon ratiates (propagates) in a straight line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Domenico

A photon does not need to create energy, because it does not move under its own energy or that of any outside force beyond its point of creation. All a photon is is an electrical field and a magnetic field that are both perpendicualr to each other and the direction of propagation during one instant of time. A photon is not a particle, so it has no mass, so it needs no energy to move. To answer the questions raised by Domenico: 1. it takes no energy for a photon to move any distace, be it across a room or across the Milky Way, and 2. because it takes no energy for a photon to move it doesn't need to produce any energy on its own during its trip.

Ok Polymath, you are a good bloke. I don’t quite understand whether you do or you don’t accept the electromagnetic carrier embedded into space. The alternative would be: is the photon getting a free ride? Some of the things seem to be similar to what I said with my previous answer to you, I am glad we are harping the same cord on some issues.

Anyway, listen to this please. A friend of mine whispered in my ear the following: A planet in another stellar system is moving away from Earth with a velocity V. A radio amateur wanting to communicate with us sends from his radio shack a photon whose energy is E1 = hc/λ1. The photon is received by us with a value of λ2. The redshift is of course: Δλ = λ2−λ1. Because λ2 is greater than λ1, we have that E2 < E1.

It appears that energy has been lost in transit. But that’s impossible! says my friend in my ear, what’s wrong? Nothing is wrong, I say. This is one of the dozens of issues swept under the carpet by three, that’s right three, generations of scientists. I have an idea, whispers my friend again, that we may find the answer in the 1905 Einstein’s papers.

 

Also, Einstein did not say that Space-Time is an electromagnetic field. There are five types of forces that have been defined, the electrical force, the magnetic force, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, and the gravitational force. The electrical and magnetic forces have been found to be the same force, which is called the electromagnetic force. This force is the same as the weak nuclear force, so it has been renamed the electroweak force. So, there are only three distinct forces, Electroweak, Strong Nuclear, and Graviational. Space-Time is not a force. Electromagnetism is. They cannot be the same thing.

I do not know what sort of doctrine you profess. I don’t believe in space-time and naturally enough I don’t believe in spacetime. The first one was fathered and proclamed to the world from his Vienna professorial chair by the great mathematician Hermann Minkoski who had the decency of putting an hyphen in-between space and time simply because he had no idea at all what space was and had a vague idea of what time could be. He tagged, however, the speed of light to time and felt pretty confident to propose the space-time union because he knew the speed of light was itself carrying a mighty strength. The second one was put together by Albert Einstein on the strength of Marcel Grossmann mathematical work; so much so, that he (Einstein) didn’t even think twice to drop the hyphen and bestow to the world the “two-words-one-meaning toy to play with for (up to now) a century or so. Needless to say that Einstein was no better off than Minkoski as far as knowing the inner structure of space or for that matter the inner structure of time.

We are Polymath in the unpleasant situation to have to say that both the space-time and the spacetime authors did not know much about time and space. Likewise we are in a similar somewhat dismaying position to have to aknowledge that well over a century later (three generations of scientists), no one can tell you or I what the inner structure of space is or why time is allowed to go back and forth in the time’s scale. What they can tell you was well known by our ancestors over five thousand years ago. You only have to read his book of physics to realize that Aristotle knew about time much more than the whole of Science can dish out today.

 

One more note: a photon ratiates (propagates) in a straight line.

I know as well as you do, but isn’t it Relativity that identifies a ray of light with a geodesic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Polymath, you are a good bloke. I don’t quite understand whether you do or you don’t accept the electromagnetic carrier embedded into space.

Sorry, but I kinda have a hard time wrapping my head around an all-permeating 'electromagnetic carrier'. So no.

 

The alternative would be: is the photon getting a free ride?

No. It does not consume energy, so it has no need to gain extra energy.

 

Anyway, listen to this please. A friend of mine whispered in my ear the following: A planet in another stellar system is moving away from Earth with a velocity V. A radio amateur wanting to communicate with us sends from his radio shack a photon whose energy is E1 = hc/λ1. The photon is received by us with a value of λ2. The redshift is of course: Δλ = λ2−λ1. Because λ2 is greater than λ1, we have that E2 < E1.

It appears that energy has been lost in transit. But that’s impossible! says my friend in my ear, what’s wrong? Nothing is wrong, I say. This is one of the dozens of issues swept under the carpet by three, that’s right three, generations of scientists. I have an idea, whispers my friend again, that we may find the answer in the 1905 Einstein’s papers.

Don't confuse the Dopplar Effect with energy loss. What happens is the frequency of the photon is reduced due to the fact that the 'wave' is 'streached' behind the planet the signal is sent from. The wave has the same absolute energy, but a lower apparent frequency, and so a lower apparent energy, to the observer.

 

isn’t it Relativity that identifies a ray of light with a geodesic?

That may be so, but remember that the straightness of a line is determined by perception, which is also warped by the curvature of space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...