Message boards : Number crunching : amplitude vs wavelength...light
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2

AuthorMessage
Profile Alex

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 378
Credit: 10,765
RAC: 0
Message 10549 - Posted: 2 Oct 2005, 6:04:43 UTC

In reply to the 'amplitude is in another dimension' people...
Don't forget that you can have polarized light just by passing it through a line grating etched on glass (which is polarizing filter on a camera or sunglasses)
Altering a RF wave by passing it through a physical object implies that the wave itself is in your 3 physical dimensions.

If you look at RF websites, you will see that Radio waves can be polarized as well ( google polarized radio )



I'm not the LHC Alex. Just a number cruncher like everyone else here.
ID: 10549 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Alex

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 378
Credit: 10,765
RAC: 0
Message 10550 - Posted: 2 Oct 2005, 6:14:01 UTC - in response to Message 10545.  

<blockquote>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. :)</blockquote>

The shorter the wavelength, the more it 'acts like' a particle in that it goes in a straight line.


I'm not the LHC Alex. Just a number cruncher like everyone else here.
ID: 10550 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile meckano
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 150
Credit: 20,315
RAC: 0
Message 10551 - Posted: 2 Oct 2005, 6:55:11 UTC - in response to Message 10550.  

You have a link where it is accepted, by everyone, that it is a wave?

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D
ID: 10551 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile meckano
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 150
Credit: 20,315
RAC: 0
Message 10552 - Posted: 2 Oct 2005, 6:59:10 UTC - in response to Message 10551.  
Last modified: 2 Oct 2005, 7:09:00 UTC

I see it now. What ever is vibrating is the particle. It's vibration is the wave. Now what do they say is vibrating? Are we back to Flux?

addit:
according to this:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/light/s2.htm
I think they have them in the wrong synch.
A magnetic field is created by a change in electric field/current(hope those 2 are interchangeable here), so the magnetic field should be peaking as the electric field is passing through 0.

addit 2:
- and now I can accept one being zero as it's couple is then maxed.
-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D
ID: 10552 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Gaspode the UnDressed

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 506
Credit: 118,619
RAC: 0
Message 10554 - Posted: 2 Oct 2005, 7:41:47 UTC
Last modified: 2 Oct 2005, 7:42:04 UTC

Let's get this straight: Light is neither wave nor particle, but it has properties of both. An analogy:

I have a young son. He's very fit and agile. He swims like a fish, and he climbs like a monkey. I'm not saying he is a fish or monkey, just that he behaves sometimes like one or other.

An attempt to understand light as a vibrating particle is akin to understanding my son as a tree-climbing fish.

BTW - this thread should really be in Cafe LHC, shouldn't it?



Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk
ID: 10554 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : Number crunching : amplitude vs wavelength...light


©2025 CERN