Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang

From: vonroach (hadrainc_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 07/01/04 

Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 23:37:25 GMT

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 17:57:22 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
<feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:

>vonroach wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:34:18 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
>> <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>vonroach wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:15:19 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
>>>><feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nevertheless, there is a difference between "energy of individual
>>>>>photons" and "energy (density) of the wave". What's so hard to
>>>>>understand there???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nothing, but that is irrelevant.
>>>
>>>No, not at all!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The frequency is the important characteristic.
>>>
>>>The frequency determines the energy of an individual photon.
>>>
>>>The amplitude determines the energy (density) of the whole wave.
>>>
>>>
>>>Bye,
>>>Bjoern
>>
>> No snips.
>
>Thanks. Well, there was almost nothing to snip...
>
>
>> Just a question or two: which is more important - the energy
>> of a photon or the energy density of the whole wave (whatever
>> precisely the latter expression means)?
>
>"Important" in what sense? For what?
>
>The energy of a radio wave would e.g. determine in what distance from
>the emitter it still can be heard. The energy in an infrared wave would
>e.g. determine by how much its absorber is heated. Is that important
>enough for you?

Not really, both are limited to their own range. Can't important
amplitude get a radiowave to mimic an x-ray or gamma ray . All three
have different frequency ranges that have important characteristics of
the radiation.
>
>> And a practical application:
>> can a wave of infrared, visible, or ultraviolet light polarized or
>> modified in any other way be given enough amplitude to cause its
>> effect to mimic that of x-rays? gamma rays? cosmic waves?
>
>Depends on the effect. Some effects depend on the energy in the wave
>(see e.g. the examples above), some others on the energy of the
>individual photons (see e.g. the examples like skin damage you brought
>up, or the photoelectric effect).

Photoelectric effect? I presume a reference to lasers or UVL
radiation. Such waves of low amplitude will have little or no effect;
however, x-ray and gamma radiations have the effect even at very low
amplitude.
>
>> I ask
>> because a fine weapon could be designed if that is possible. I have
>> only seen a lazar used to produce very superficial effects.
>
>I see that despite Franz' correction, you still can't write "laser"
>correctly.
It was noted after above tapped out. If it disturbs you just skip over
it.
>And why are you interesting in designing weapons?
Because if your belief in amplitude is correct it would be possible.
>
>> An answer indicating that any of these different areas of the spectrum
>> can be made more effective by increasing the amplitude will avoid the
>> issue.
>
>What do you mean by "effective" here?
Produce the effects of X-rays or gamma rays with comparable exposures.
>
>> I would also mention that regardless of the frequency or amplitude the
>> length and timing of exposure can greatly vary the effects.
>
>Yes, obviously.
>
>
>> No mathematical consideration is requested, I'm discussing practical
>> use.
>
>If you haven't noticed, in order to know beforehand (i.e. before
>actually constructing and testing an apparat) what is required for
>a desired practical use, one *has* to make mathematical considerations
>in general.
It probably helps with sophistication, but I suspect was little use
with early clubs or cannons. Trial and error is an alternative based
on a belief that it might be possible.

>> Incidentally, on another point, Einstein proclaimed (in a lucky
>> guess?) that the speed of light (electromagnetic radiation) was
>> constant, `Speed' (physical kind not pharmaceutical kind) is a simple
>> ratio, so does it take a genius to see that as `time slows', distance
>> is `compressed'? and as `time accelerates', `distance expands'.
>
>No. But it does take a genius to abandon the then-hold idea that the
>speed of light has to be relative to a medium in which it travels.
>
>
>> Ok, if `time' slows does radioactive decay slow?
>
>Yes. Ever heard of the measurement of time dilation with muons which
>were produced in the atmosphere? Muon decay is very similar to the
>radioactive decay of nuclei.
Earth atmosphere remains in a high mass milieu.
>
>> If so, I assume than a `time
>> standard' sent far into massless (?) space would beam inaccurate
>> earthtime back to us.
 In massless `space' or absence of much mass, `space' would contract?
time would `slow'? but would the radioactive standard produced on
earth `recognize' these changes and still send the correct earthtime
in messages back to the distant earth cradled in a space craft and
unaware that the craft was in motion relative to earth, or would it
demonstrate effects of motion?. (Muons do decay, but I don't know if
anybody uses it for a time standard) Atomic clocks are used based on
the natural decay of their standard.

>How did you arrive at that conclusion?
An interrogatory is not a `conclusion'. An answer may be.
>
>
>> I think that I understand matter, mass/energy,
>> and change, but can not get a handle on time. It seems to me to be
>> similar to `space' (space time), something invented by the mind to
>> deal with the ceaseless activity of the process called the universe,
>> such activity as light moving around hither and yon, or breezing
>> around in a comfortable SUV gobbling but fossil fuels and blowing off
>> the exhausted remains.
>
>I don't know what to say about that...
A rare admission. I was visualizing time as an arrow moving ever
forward from an infinite past towards an infinite future, while space
furnishes a stage for our `points' in cataloging various interactions
and acceleration/decelleration in the ceaseless universe. I recall our
first short discussion was about the `distance' between two `points'.
>
>Bye,
>Bjoern
ta ta

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What does Plancks constant really mean?
    ... >> Planck's constant is the amount of energy contained in any single cycle ... >> of an electromagnetic wave, ... it must go through an entire cycle and then repeat. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: God=G_uv
    ... Fourier transforms can convert any pattern, ... to convert wave forms into patterns. ... Some might question the "equals sign". ... There is a finite amount of energy contained by a given region of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Read this one, the other is a mess! Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... photons per volume and not the energy of the photon as such. ... characteristics than a wave within a medium. ... at least for the considerations of Relativity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Principle of Equivalence Explained
    ... You say that E=mc^2 violates law of conservation of energy, ... to emerge from this geometry, are said to be mini gyroscopes. ... electron was also a wave. ... Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Capt kirk to really boldly go
    ... > was no upper limit to quantum sub micro based energy transference. ... accomplished through these points by using matter and muon waves. ... particles as they move from one geometry of creation to another. ... Hence matter muon wave coupling allows Man to experience ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)