It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 157
74
<< 154  155  156    158  159  160 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

radio waves are photons to ???


Yes!




posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
if this is true, radio waves are photons to ???
We can measure photons at optical frequencies and higher, including X-ray and Gamma. We know the electromagnetic spectrum is continuous and there's no reason why EM radiation would stop being photons at some point, however as the wavelengths get longer and the energy lower, it gets harder to measure individual photons above background radiation, and it gets a little weird but it is quantum mechanics after all. See this explanation:

Radio Wave Photons



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



It's true that the wave from your antenna can be described in terms of photons. Lots of them. Each photon at that 7 MHz frequency has about 5x10-19 Joules of energy. For each Watt of power, you're putting out about 2x1018 photons/sec. Even per each period of the wave that's about 3x1011 photons. In practice, what that large number means is that the quantum nature of the wave becomes unimportant. The quantum graininess is tiny on the scale of the fields involved. But I think you may want some fundamental picture of how the photons play into this. That's a little tricky without studying some quantum mechanics. The sort of things one might think- that the wave is put together out of a bunch of photon parts, each with some size and shape- are false. For example, any state with a definite number of photons has an expected value of zero for its electric and magnetic fields at any time. Radio transmitters don't work that way- they're designed to put out known fields oscillating in time- so the waves they put out have only approximately defined numbers of photons. Weird but true.


here another try to explain
That’s About the Size of It


Although photons are often referred to as particles, they aren’t particles in the traditional sense. They are light quanta, which have both particle and wave properties. Depending on the situation, sometimes the particle aspect is useful, and sometimes the wave aspect is. While photons don’t have a physical diameter, and can be treated as point particles, their quantum behavior gives them a probabilistic size. As a photon gets closer to another object, the chance of it interacting becomes greater. This is often represented as a cross section given in terms of area.


it is a construct and nothing reel !

mathematical useful but not real.

nobody can see a photon, everybody sees EM radiation.

now, the photoelectric effect


For a given metal, there exists a certain minimum frequency of incident radiation below which no photoelectrons are emitted. This frequency is called the threshold frequency. Increasing the frequency of the incident beam, keeping the number of incident photons fixed (this would result in a proportionate increase in energy) increases the maximum kinetic energy of the photoelectrons emitted. Thus the stopping voltage increases. The number of electrons also changes because the probability that each photon results in an emitted electron is a function of photon energy. If the intensity of the incident radiation of a given frequency is increased, there is no effect on the kinetic energy of each photoelectron.

For a given metal and frequency of incident radiation, the rate at which photoelectrons are ejected is directly proportional to the intensity of the incident light. An increase in the intensity of the incident beam (keeping the frequency fixed) increases the magnitude of the photoelectric current, although the stopping voltage remains the same.

Electrons can absorb energy from photons when irradiated, but they usually follow an "all or nothing" principle. All of the energy from one photon must be absorbed and used to liberate one electron from atomic binding, or else the energy is re-emitted. If the photon energy is absorbed, some of the energy liberates the electron from the atom, and the rest contributes to the electron's kinetic energy as a free particle.


I told you that's the property of the material and not that of the EM radiation itself.
It's the interaction that makes it happen.

I can kick electrons out of material without any "photons" at all, just magnetism.
and this is real, not mathematics on paper or theoretical thoughts..

photons do not exist, they do only in physicist mind, it's a concept.

EM radiation, electric and magnetic forces are real as opposite to photons.

but yeah, the Universe is not electric at all (sarcasm off)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
now, the photoelectric effect
I didn't ask you to explain the photoelectric effect, I asked you to explain this:

A New Light on Single-Photon Interferences

We report on two experiments using an atomic cascade as a light source, and a triggered detection scheme for the second photon of the cascade. The first experiment shows a strong anticorrelation between the triggered detections on both sides of a beam splitter. This result is in contradiction with any classical wave model of light, but in agreement with a quantum description involving single-photon states. The same source and detection scheme were used in a second experiment, where we have observed interferences with a visibility over 98%.
And what about the two things dragonridr mentioned? (The Compton effect and Photon Antibunching in Resonance Fluorescence).


but yeah, the Universe is not electric at all (sarcasm off)
There really is an electric universe in mainstream science, it's just that it says things completely different from "electric universe" folks. According to mainstream the sun does have lots of electromagnetic properties, but they result from a power source of nuclear fusion, not electricity from some other dimension like Eric Dollard says. There are lots of other examples too. I can't guarantee the mainstream is 100% right about everything, but it's self-correcting if provided with good evidence, which EU folks have failed to provide. I can guarantee that the EU proponents are wrong about the sun getting its power from electricity instead of fusion.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

sure, OK, a discussion to take...

usually what I observe here is that if someone makes an argument that is different from MS science, it gets ignored or played down so the one who made a statement looks like a fool...

understandably from the point of view of the opponent.

I've got more then 2 things to look at at the moment, but no time to spare to investigate those things now.

I would not deny any "energy packets" that trigger something, but I deny the recess between those "packets"
EM is continuous.

...

I'm not sure Eric Dollard is into EU theory, I myself am not 100% in agreement with it,
I have my own thought on this, EU theory is just much much closer to what I think than.. well, you know that I deny in MS science.

one thing I have to correct you on, EU theorist do have argument.
(All just about 5-30min)












there is a lot more.

I have created another thread on ATS staring with this video
www.abovetopsecret.com...


seems legit to me.

maybe it is just me that do not believe in a creation like story of the big bang.
maybe it is just me that do not believe in particle zoo proposed by the standard model.

I'm looking around...

...

think about infinity. Is it a single thing or does it have a duality?
in terms of size you can think about something infinitely small and infinitely big simultaneously.
Hard to grasp as infinity is more or less just a concept.
What if it's not ? and all energy is just the infinite difference between one side and the other side of infinity.

we are in a threshold somewhere on the infinitely line of infinite time in an infinite big universe with infinite small definition of us



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I need to add..
EU theory is not presenting much of mathematics, except for the Birkeland current that has been confirmed by satellites.
on the other side...
Mathematical theories have a problem in my eyes, negative values, you can't use it.
There is no such thing as negative energy or negative distances in space.

there is no such thing, as a room with 3 people inside, where 5 of them go out and you need 2 more going in for the room to be empty...
edit on 22-8-2015 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
I've got more then 2 things to look at at the moment, but no time to spare to investigate those things now.

I would not deny any "energy packets" that trigger something, but I deny the recess between those "packets"
EM is continuous.
That's what the link dragonridr asked you to explain shows, the recess between packets, so you're denying the results of experiments you're not even familiar with.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
That's what the link dragonridr asked you to explain shows, the recess between packets, so you're denying the results of experiments you're not even familiar with.


You are pain in the ass... I told you I don't have time to look at it now !

actually...

without looking at the experiment...

it doesn't matter what impulses in the EM radiation they have created or not, EM is continuous even if there are bits that differ from the rest,

edit on 22-8-2015 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma
Take your time my friend, I wasn't saying you need to answer it now. I said you had 100 years of catching up to do and I never expected that to happen overnight.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Is it possible that gravity is actually a pseudo force, coming from the electromagnetic force? As I have seen a few papers on experiments proving they are able to reduce the mass of the object of which they chose because of this idea. These tests are not pseudo science, they are real experiments being done by real physicists.

I want to add that after seeing KrzYma's interest in the EU theory (from his/her forum), it has somewhat sparked my interest. I do find it quite interesting that it proposes all the main forces could actually be one force in disguise. Talk about unified field theories.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: IAmTheRumble



Is it possible that gravity is actually a pseudo force, coming from the electromagnetic force?

You mean like "centrifugal force?" That is a pseudo force.


These tests are not pseudo science, they are real experiments being done by real physicists.
Can you provide sources? That would be helpful.

edit on 8/23/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well, I knew the centrifugal force is a pseudo force. And yes, I presume it would be thought of as something similar to that.

Here's one:
http:/ /www.usafa.edu/df/dfas/Papers/20062007/Null%20Findings%20of%20Yami#a%20Electrogravitational%20Patent%20-%20Seigenthaler&Lawrence.pdf


edit on 23-8-2015 by IAmTheRumble because: Didn't answer entirely



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: Phage

Well, I knew the centrifugal force is a pseudo force. And yes, I presume it would be thought of as something similar to that.

Here's one:
http:/ /www.usafa.edu/df/dfas/Papers/20062007/Null%20Findings%20of%20Yami#a%20Electrogravitational%20Patent%20-%20Seigenthaler&Lawrence.pdf


Can't see your paper and to lazy to look for it. But about gravity yes by the broadest definition it's a force. A force pushes or pulls on an object nothing more. But Einstein argued it was not a force or a "pseudo force" caused by the geometry of space time. gravity arises from how energy and momentum curve spacetime, and it's a very real thing, so one shouldn't infer from the term "pseudo-force" that gravity is somehow "fake". But, it's not a force in the sense of something which causes particles to accelerate - particles move along geodesics either.

Now a warning be careful going to websites like electric universe. They like to attack the standard model without ever truly offering any counter point other than to say we can explain it, of course they dont. As far as the electric believing gravity is tied to electricity? They can't even explain a simple test done by Apollo astronauts. They dropped a hammer and a feather and we watched them hit the ground at the same time(also performed in vacuum chambers on earth). With electricity causing gravity this feat would be impossible, And here's why it shows us objects always fall at the same rate regardless of their charge. Electric universe also has no explination for gravitational lensing be impossible if gravity was just electric interactions.

Be very careful when you look at websites like thunder bolts they will find anything that any physisist says is unusual and use that to attack the standard model. Even though there may be hundreds of papers explaining it they choose to not show you those. They have people with inflated degrees or non existent from some po box in places like bellarus. It's all about the money for conferences and selling books.

But ill stop with the EU crowd waisted enough energy all ready. Now there is something deeper then to gravity we don't understand and I can give it to you in the form of a question. what adheres matter to space-time why doesn't it just go flying out of it? This is what someone asked about earlier the higgs boson and the highs field and its importance. It's like a net not leting matter just fall through space. As we dig deeper it second rely appears aspects of gravity are indeed a force.

edit on 8/23/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: IAmTheRumble

If you type in to google: "Null findings of Yama#a" (Y_a_m_a_s_h_i_t_a) it's the first link. For whatever reason the above link doesn't work, and it doesn't like me typing his name...
edit on 23-8-2015 by IAmTheRumble because: Doesn't like his name for some reason



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: IAmTheRumble
It's the middle part of "Yama a" that's the problem. From the paper:

Although these experiments produced some interesting results, they failed to duplicate those seen by Yama#a. It cannot be
decisively concluded from these experiments that electrogravitation is a real, useful phenomenon.

edit on 8/23/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Are there any elements not found yet?.
What is the rarest element in the universe?.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to the question you gave me. I wish I did though lol


But, I must agree that those sites are probably to pull in money and sell their products, as it does have a shop button... It's very easy to attract attention when you claim to have answers to things others don't.

Now I have to comment on the hammer and feather drop, that I cannot offer any understanding under the idea that gravity could be the electromagnetic force. I think you stumped the EU theory.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

They did get a single gram in mass to fluctuate though, in a few experiments. Whether it was due to some outside force, is hard to say.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: IAmTheRumble
Yamashta claimed a 1% variation, which would be significant. The results of the attempts to duplicate his results were not statistically significant.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I liked that wording, no it wasn't "significant" but it is certainly evidence none the less.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 154  155  156    158  159  160 >>

log in

join