LHC@home

For light:
At what wavelength is the amplitude 1/2 of the wavelength? (or: When does an amplitude's cycle demand the same length as the wavelength? or When is twice the amplitude equal to the wavelength?)

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Uhm, E=MC2 ? Wait, let me get some coffee and a physics doctorate..

The question that comes to mind is .. what wavelength of light are you speaking of (visible, microwave, x-ray..) .. the answer would be conditional to that, methinks. If you're desiring an equation, I'm sure you'll find it here.

---

ok, I'll ask this first:
Does a specific particle of red light, wavelength x, have a specific corresponding amplitude?

addit:
if so,
then I'm looking for the cross over point where they are not equal, but amplitude is 1/2 the wavelength.

addit 2:
In the electromagnetic spectrum:
It's said the frequency and wavelength are matched. One goes up, the other down.
Is the same true for amplitude and wavelength?

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

OK, I did a quick check. The amplitude of light is related to intensity, not wavelength. If a light is brighter, it has a larger amplitude.

---

BOINC WIKI

Thank you
yet they seem to imply here:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/light/s3.htm
that intensity is strictly more light, although they don't say a particular particle can or can't be more intense.

should have given that link before. :|

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

I'm under the impression that intensity is more photons.

This site explains it...

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/photoelectric2.html

---

I'm not the LHC Alex. Just a number cruncher like everyone else here.

Alex,
ok, so lets take it as a wave for now.
The amplitude, like the wavelength, must take up a certain amount of 'room' in space around the axis of origin which is where the wavelength is.

I'm trying to find the point where the wavelength COULD REPRESENT the diameter of a circle with radius = amplitude.

I'm on a cirle hunt. They intrigue me. I hate Pi. It is too abnormal.

addit:
and/or where twice the amplitude is the diameter and wavelength the radius.

addit 2:
I guess I'll just find that amplitude has not been converted to 'occupied space' and that it is only given in Jules, point final. :(

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Hi,

this question is related to units and dimensions.

Imaging a wave as a sine fonction, x axis is space thus the wavelenght is the smallest distance (expressed in meter in International System Unit) to find back the same signal.
y axis is the amplitude of the electric field in case of electromagnetic wave expressed in Volt per meter also in SI units.

Thus one can not compare meters and volt per meter directly, because they don't have the same physical dimension. Ok in a graph you could find your answer, but what happend if you change the unit (for example using millimeters and volt per meters ?)

This may be different for example if your wave is an deformation wave, such as arising during the propagation of a mechanical shock in a piece of matter, and then one can record the amplitude of deformation (as meters) and the wavelength (also as meters).

@+




<blockquote>Alex,
ok, so lets take it as a wave for now.
The amplitude, like the wavelength, must take up a certain amount of 'room' in space around the axis of origin which is where the wavelength is.

I'm trying to find the point where the wavelength COULD REPRESENT the diameter of a circle with radius = amplitude.

I'm on a cirle hunt. They intrigue me. I hate Pi. It is too abnormal.

addit:
and/or where twice the amplitude is the diameter and wavelength the radius.

addit 2:
I guess I'll just find that amplitude has not been converted to 'occupied space' and that it is only given in Jules, point final. :(
</blockquote>

---

Thanks,
appreciation to all with the interest.

So the new question will be:
- due to the fact that a wave is atleast 2 dimensional,

Can we, and is someone, calculating how much space a light particle takes up 3 dimensionally?
a) are the magnitudes of the electric field and magnetic field equal?
b) and are those 2 on the same scale?
c) does my question fall under a specific category of study?

- ofcourse I think I can see here the importance of the spacetime the particle/wave is in so, will a different spacetime ?compression? change wavelength and amplitudes equally?

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Due to the wave/particle nature of light, some of these questions are meaningless, or have solutions that make no sense in three dimensions. There is also the question of the method of observation. Relativistic effects will affect the 'size' of a photon, depending on the acceleration of the observer. This 'size' will be different for different observers, and it can be shown that under some circumstances any given photon will not exist for a particular observer.

The 'simple' part is intensity: any given photon has a certain amount of energy. This energy is dependent entirely on the frequency of the light, so blue light, which has a shorter wavelength will have more energy then a photon of red light. Intensity is due to the number of photons arriving at the observer. More photons results in greater intensity. The split beam experiment raises some interesting questions with regard to the intensity of a single photon.

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

Thanks

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Magnetic fiels are expressed in Tesla unit and electric field in volt per meter. Thus you cannot compare then. (they are not on the same scale).
You may found scientific development related to your question in electromanetism, electrodynamism, devolped in book such as (far from exhostiv) Jackson 'Classical electrodynamism', Feynman ...
You will see that amplutides of fields are related to each other by equations.



<blockquote>Thanks,
appreciation to all with the interest.

So the new question will be:
- due to the fact that a wave is atleast 2 dimensional,

Can we, and is someone, calculating how much space a light particle takes up 3 dimensionally?
a) are the magnitudes of the electric field and magnetic field equal?
b) and are those 2 on the same scale?
c) does my question fall under a specific category of study?

- ofcourse I think I can see here the importance of the spacetime the particle/wave is in so, will a different spacetime ?compression? change wavelength and amplitudes equally?
</blockquote>

---

If we accept quantum theory as it stands today, most things are happening in 10 or 11 dimensions ...

Even better, there is an expiriment that showed that it may be possible to demonstrate that light is both particle and wave at the same time ...

Something that the 2-slit expiriments said could not be done ...

---

<blockquote>If we accept quantum theory as it stands today, most things are happening in 10 or 11 dimensions ...

Even better, there is an expiriment that showed that it may be possible to demonstrate that light is both particle and wave at the same time ...

Something that the 2-slit expiriments said could not be done ...</blockquote>

The experiment in question is still the subject of considerable debate - it's by no means clear that the experiment was sufficiently well designed to demonstrate the dual nature simultaneously.

In any case, photons are neither wave nor particle. It's just that under differing circumstances thay can best be modelled as one or the other. One has to remember that the physical processes associated with quantum mechanics aren't really understood. The maths worked out by Schrodinger and Bohr, amongst others, model the effects well, but what is actually going on remains something of a mystery.

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

<blockquote> The maths worked out by Schrodinger and Bohr, amongst others, model the effects well, but what is actually going on remains something of a mystery.</blockquote>And when they figure it out maybe we can convert various potential energies into free beer.

---

Split beam
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html
- As is stated in many other places, in different words, light is only visible-light as long as it can be perceived by the eyes. Some magnification and boosting may be needed for far away galaxies. Q: Have any non visible-light sources of galaxies(meaning other than background radiation) been found or looked for?
- Why, when:
holding my hands open, fingers point up, palms towards me,
palm sides and pinkies resting against each other leaving small hole where the 4 meet,
1/3 the way towards computer screen,
closing one eye, and focusing on this word "would" through hole,
making the hole the size needed to make that 'fake' dark bar vertically in center of hole,(a slit)
well, why does moving my hands or head left and right make the text look like it's curving? (optical illusion as answer not an option :)

Equations: (aka formulae)
Ok, I've got this:
Formulae tell us the process requirements. Correct? That's all a formula gives us?
1) The formula for running through the periodic table: Increase pressure.
Process: Find a way to increase pressure. Stars already doing that.
- They still stop at iron then do their thing, correct?
2) Find the formula for a given beer, make the process, stick in the ingredients, and you get that beer.
3) Find a product you like, find the process, write the formula, make the process, input the ingredients, get the product.
4) Theoretically then, no, no tv's popping into outerspace or anywhere. Correct? But, Beam me up Scotty a possibility!?!

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

<blockquote>If we accept quantum theory as it stands today, most things are happening in 10 or 11 dimensions ... ...
</blockquote>

Ok, light is not a wave, not a particle.
Again based on:
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html

Obviously whatever it is that is split into 2 directions, IS no longer. What we get are 2 lesser representations of the original. They are lesser in what way? Did I read over it? Did they say?

Something else. Can we focus on 1 whatever of light? Are they really saying that we can half 1 whatever of light? Is this where the word 'split' is most important then? (sounding like they are changing the 1's intensity or beingness.)

If they do split the 1, and get 2 that each hold the information of the original 1, and together become the 1 again, then that is hologram talk. Correct?

I'm rereading it to grasp how they make it a particle or wave.
Very interesting/intriguing.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

<blockquote>The experiment in question is still the subject of considerable debate - it's by no means clear that the experiment was sufficiently well designed to demonstrate the dual nature simultaneously.</blockquote>

Maybe so. But, the "official" explanations for the two slit expiriments is that the nature of the expiriment prevents one appearance or the other. The "thingie" decides what it will be based upon how we run the expiriment, even if we run it one "photon" at a time.

For the moment I can agree that there is debate about the expiriment, yet, the apparatus does show attributes of both characteristics at the same time. Thus, invalidating the explanation for the two slit expiriments and in part quantum "spooky action at a distance" ...

We live in interesting times ...

---

For my hand experiment/thing:
I can only think it is similar to a mirage.
I can see the light reflecting off of either the left or right side of the curved slit. The 'fake' dark band being the cross-over point of the now out of focus hands.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

split beam:
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html
Why don't they say that light could be coming off in waves, even though they are particles? Exactly like water waves are waves of molecules? They do say that there are so many particles, and happens so fast, that the electron could give off a continuous spiral wave, in all directions, and that there are so many, any direction still sees a normal looking wave in our time scale?

(again, the unaccepted answer: Cause their not as smart as you, duh. :)

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D