Re: Waves
- From: srp <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:35:02 GMT
Der alte Hexenmeister a écrit :
"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:43B4BBEC.7020708@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Der alte Hexenmeister a écrit :
"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:43B455AB.805@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
oisin a écrit :
Before I ask my question I would like to state that both by knowledge
and understanding of physics is barely elementary. I have only studied the
subject up to secondary school level.
As I understand it, waves require "something" to travel through.
Sound waves do, since they correspond to a motion of the supporting material (air, water, solid matter, etc. and simply could not exist without the supporting material.
A vacuum as I understand it, is a space from which mater is absent. So
how can waves from the electro-magnetic spectrum travel through a vacuum,
If light really was "waves" at the fundamental level, a medium would probably be required. But waves, or more precisely "plane waves" is simply a mathematical treatment that accounts at the macro level (our level) for what is happening at the sub microscopic level.
Ahem... One can hardly call a wavelength of 3 metres "sub microscopic". The FM band on your radio is centred at 100 MHz and roof top antenna are that large. I doubt you have sub microscopic eyes, either. Der alte Hexenmeister.
So you think that a visible light photon emitted by a de-energizing electron in an atom and lower energy 100 MHz photon emitted by a dipole can be differentiated by more than their difference in energy ?
Please tell us more.
I didn't tell you what I thought. What I know from experience is that people who make assumptions about what I think are invariably incorrect.
I don't think I made any assumption. You said "One can hardly call a wavelength of 3 meters sub microscopic".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but whichever way I look at it, that sentence, irrespective of who issued it, given that you were commenting on my statements that photons are discrete quantities of energy at the sub microscopic level, implies that a photon having that wavelength was not sub-microscopic.
You introduced the notion of wavelength, not me.
You seem to imply that the 3 m wavelength has anything to do with the size (that you seem to assume as being "not sub microscopic") of the related photon. If so, I would like you to tell us more on this.
If you have a question then ask it,
Well here it is:
In what way do you consider a photon of energy .0000004 eV moving 3 meters in 1.0E-8 sec as not being sub microscopic ?
but do not assume I shall return your preconception of what I think.
Fine. Same for me.
Define "photon", then we'll discuss definitions.
I have defined it in context (in my first post in this thread) as a discrete amount of EM energy travelling individually.
If we reach agreement then we'll proceed.
Agreement not required. Objective reality doesn't seem to care much about what any of us think.
André Michaud .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Waves
- From: Der alte Hexenmeister
- Re: Waves
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Uncle Al
- Next by Date: Re: Space and entanglement
- Previous by thread: Re: Waves
- Next by thread: Re: Waves
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|