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: 69
74
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel


Every direction.

You're probably confused with quantum mechanics where the EM field is connected to probabilities of observing photons--the latter may be compact (like gamma-rays in a photo detector) and isolated but the EM field spreads out.



No! I am not confused with quantum mechanics, I only recognize one reality existing, call it what you will.

I am talking about fundamental truth, and that is all!

An electron exists (at least more than 'nothing')!

The EM field exists (at least more than 'nothing')!

EM radiation exists (at least more than nothing)!

EM radiation is caused to exist, when an electron is accelerated.

EM radiation is the EM field disturbed, via the acceleration of an electron.

In the simplest, most fundamental case, of EM radiation coming into existence, via the acceleration of an electron, how does that EM radiation come into existence, via the disturbance of the EM field, the electron is coupled to?

There is no quantum mechanics or anything, this is simple reality = reality truth.

According to theory of truth and reality, because the electron is coupled to the EM field (which for lack of you ever stating otherwise, instead of directing me to textbooks, just give me a few statements, that is, if you know... I will view the entire EM field as... well yes I dont know exactly what to view it as, but maybe you can give me an analogy as to how the total EM field exists. Its not balls of photons, as I now believe photons are never ball like particles, but in order for there to be wave, there needs to be 'something' that is doing the waving and/or being waved. So what kind of substance is the entire EM field, that exists when not disturbed, and when disturbed is considered EM radiation, and is coupled to the electron?)...According to theory of truth and reality, because the electron is coupled to the EM field, when the electron is accelerated, the EM field which is coupled to the electron, is 'accelerated' or disturbed, or caused to 'wave away'.

In truth and reality, in this simplest most fundamental case, when a single electron, is accelerated the least amount to cause the existence of EM radiation, is the local field (and over time, and space, the far field, as if the local field is effected, it doesnt 'stay there' it propagates, by law of nature) effected surrounding the electron, more similarly to the local water effected surrounding a stone dropped in water? Or more similarly to the local topography of (out of '360 degrees in one plane') a gun firing a bullet? That second one was the one Arb was arguing for, in the sense that, when an electron is accelerated, it produces around all the degrees of connection to the EM field, a single or double (E and B) omni directional propagation of energy. This belief, which with little thought, at first, I perhaps even believed, as I cant say what I believed, as I had not given this much focus on the topic, but when I gave even a little, in the progressions of our arguments and thoughts, I and we, arrived at this discussion.




posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel


It has value zero, classically, yielding a 3-d vector at the origin for electric and magnetic fields: E(x,y,z,t) = (0,0,0) = B(x,y,z,t).

In quantum field theory the wavefunction of the EM field (note, a different object than the Maxwell field) is in the vacuum state, and this is not mathematically zero, although it is what is meant by empty space.

Note when people say a photon is an excitation of the EM field, it really means it's an excitation of the wavefunction of the EM field which is the fundamental quantity in QFT.

In classical physics (Maxwell) there is no minimum energy or size, i.e. the value of E & B can be as small as you like. In quantum physics (QED), this is not true for any finite frequency/wavelength.



Ok, awesome, now we are getting somewhere.

So I am wondering, if you are saying value 0.

Ok..... The quantum portion with vacuum and stuff not equaling 0. Is that because they realized that there is a physical field that exists everywhere always? Or is that because they cannot in an instance say where there is 0 and greater than 0 radiation everywhere in the universe, so they cannot for certain say 'that empty space has 0 radiation' because it might have some, since there are charged particles surrounding it, and so on average they must say it is 'vacuum' but that doesnt mean 0 value, it means 'our new 0 value' which means 'maybe fractions of degrees of value greater than 0'.

I am trying to get at or to; In the universe, but away from all matter and radiation; IS that PURE! nothing? OR is, every planck length in/of the universe, pure energy (or pure something). I am trying to comprehend, how energy and matter exist in/as the universe, I am trying to see how an electron is attached to an EM field, what that EM field EXACTLY is, how it is exactly attached, where after it is attached, and so we are following its attachments away from the electron, so the em field is attached to the electron, now we leave the electron, and are on the EM field, if this electron is stationary or constant speed, how far away until the EM field becomes value 0? AND AT THAT POINT!!!! what begins to exist? WHat is that EM field made of? THat it can just exist, as an extended,, guaranteed relational object, off of the electron, and then 'drop off', round off, into nothingness, BUT!!! ALso!!!! be projected, ejected, propagated, away from the electron, as a wave.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel


Classically yes, unless you have a plane wave, the intensity will be lower the further away you are. This is physically obvious because of conservation of energy.

In quantum mechanics this means that the *rate* of detecting photons per unit time through a certain area will be lower the further away you are. Roughly, the rate of detecting photons will be proportional to the energy flux computed classically which is the Poynting vector integrated over a surface.

The image sensors on common digital cameras are sensitive and with the electronics, can count individual photons. This is why physically larger sensors give better pictures with less 'grain': they are averaging a larger number of photons and the effect of the random QM fluctuations is diminished.


So are you saying, when an electron is accelerated, a ring of EM radiation which propagates away from the common central point of electron acceleration, is produced?

And; the area of this ring grows with time?

How then, is the view of EM wave, as a electric field which creates a magnetic field indefinitely, all that is needed to explain this phenomenon; if there is some lateral mystery going on as well? The electric wave making magnetic wave etc. that view would have to increase the line of that wave, to being a thick line laterally, and then extending it around in a circle, and then propagating outward and increasing area.

With water, it has to do with things like the tension of the 'water field' right? That allows the ring to appear continuously connected laterally (as a continuous arc) and linearly, as a propagating linearly arc increasing its perimeter?





Yes that's correct for acceleration of a point charge. I think you were misunderstanding Arb and the difference between the classical field and quantum mechanics involving that field, how you can have a spreading and continuous field in many directions, and simultaneously observe compact photons pointing in one particular direction (when observed) related to that field (which is spreading). This is not intuitive in the slightest and can't be truly understood without knowing the mathematical description of those words.

To take something morbid in the news, pretend that the "area of spread of Ebola virus cloud on a map" is like the field, and each occurrence of an individual person getting sick in a particular location like the observation of a photon.
(QFT is more complicated still but this serves as a start).


I find everything highly intuitive, I have no presupposed beliefs or biases or desires, other than letting truth be truth, and desiring to know it as it is.

So you mention digital camera, it can register single photons. Isnt a single photon just 'anywhere' on the ring? Say in the rock dropped in water version, if you made a device that could register the movement of water at point and time x and then register it every second after, to then compare the registered activity over a projection of time, and you put this device anywhere in the water (even say you had multiple devices all put arround at different distances away from the common central point of rock being dropped) and then the rock is dropped, and the ripple spreads outwards, and passes over the device, that would be analogous to a photon right?

And so you can have different apertured devices, that can measure the water better, bigger, smaller holes, etc. And as long as it can detect the difference in force felt when the wave passes, it will have detected a 'photon' or, event of field wave energy?

What would it be considered, if you had a detector that took up 90 degrees (out of the 360 of the circular ripple) of the pond, and you placed it there, dropped the stone, and it detected the wave. Would that be a photon? Or it would be compared to the smallest possible detection, and the energy levels detected therein, to be added up to be whatever multiple?

And so detected real photons, getting out of the water, in real life, the means of detection, involve using the most minimal in size and sensitivity piece of equipment to measure the most minimal fluctuation in the otherwise constant field it was detecting, and then that becomes the standard for the smallest of the quanta of photon?



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

You will probably find the "limit" in your detection apparatus.

There is no theoretical upper limit to the energies of gamma-ray photons and no lower limit to gamma-ray wavelengths; observed energies presently extend up to a few trillion electron volts—these extremely high-energy photons are produced in astronomical sources through currently unidentified mechanisms.

www.britannica.com...



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Cauliflower



There is no theoretical upper limit to the energies of gamma-ray photons and no lower limit to gamma-ray wavelength

There is indeed a theoretical limit to the energy of a gamma ray. That would be a wavelength equal to the Plank length. The wavelength of electromagnetic radiation corresponds to its energy level. Electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength equal to Plank length would be really, really energetic but there is that theoretical limit.

There is indeed a lower limit to gamma. It's called x-ray.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel


Classically yes, unless you have a plane wave, the intensity will be lower the further away you are. This is physically obvious because of conservation of energy.

In quantum mechanics this means that the *rate* of detecting photons per unit time through a certain area will be lower the further away you are. Roughly, the rate of detecting photons will be proportional to the energy flux computed classically which is the Poynting vector integrated over a surface.

The image sensors on common digital cameras are sensitive and with the electronics, can count individual photons. This is why physically larger sensors give better pictures with less 'grain': they are averaging a larger number of photons and the effect of the random QM fluctuations is diminished.


So are you saying, when an electron is accelerated, a ring of EM radiation which propagates away from the common central point of electron acceleration, is produced?

And; the area of this ring grows with time?


Yes, did you follow this link?

www.tapir.caltech.edu...



How then, is the view of EM wave, as a electric field which creates a magnetic field indefinitely, all that is needed to explain this phenomenon; if there is some lateral mystery going on as well? The electric wave making magnetic wave etc.


That's what Maxwell discovered. It appears to be fundamental.


that view would have to increase the line of that wave, to being a thick line laterally, and then extending it around in a circle, and then propagating outward and increasing area.


Yes, go to the web page I posted and learn!


With water, it has to do with things like the tension of the 'water field' right? That allows the ring to appear continuously connected laterally (as a continuous arc) and linearly, as a propagating linearly arc increasing its perimeter?


There are a number of different kinds of waves in liquids. If you are thinking about ripples on a pond, they're called surface gravity waves, and what keeps it going is the inertia of the water in the gravitational field. There's only some analogy to electromagnetism, other things are different. In surface gravity waves, the effective field on which there is a wave equation (partial differential equation of motion) is a scalar: the height of the water above and below it's mean level. In electromagnetism it's a vector, which is why light has polarizations, and sound and surface gravity waves don't.




I find everything highly intuitive, I have no presupposed beliefs or biases or desires, other than letting truth be truth, and desiring to know it as it is.

So you mention digital camera, it can register single photons. Isnt a single photon just 'anywhere' on the ring?


Before being observed the probability function is distributed around that ring.


Say in the rock dropped in water version, if you made a device that could register the movement of water at point and time x and then register it every second after, to then compare the registered activity over a projection of time, and you put this device anywhere in the water (even say you had multiple devices all put arround at different distances away from the common central point of rock being dropped) and then the rock is dropped, and the ripple spreads outwards, and passes over the device, that would be analogous to a photon right?

And so you can have different apertured devices, that can measure the water better, bigger, smaller holes, etc. And as long as it can detect the difference in force felt when the wave passes, it will have detected a 'photon' or, event of field wave energy?


Approximately yes.




What would it be considered, if you had a detector that took up 90 degrees (out of the 360 of the circular ripple) of the pond, and you placed it there, dropped the stone, and it detected the wave. Would that be a photon?


If you're thinking about surface gravity waves it would be like detecting the smallest quantum mechanical allowable pressure deviation. In practice over 90 degrees in macroscopic world you will be detecting the sum of zillions of them and can't distinguish them individually.


Or it would be compared to the smallest possible detection, and the energy levels detected therein, to be added up to be whatever multiple?


Yes, the sum of the effects of all the photons, when the number of photons is large compared to 1, looks like the Maxwell equations. This is the correspondence principle in quantum mechanics.



And so detected real photons, getting out of the water, in real life, the means of detection, involve using the most minimal in size and sensitivity piece of equipment to measure the most minimal fluctuation in the otherwise constant field it was detecting, and then that becomes the standard for the smallest of the quanta of photon?


Yes. In practice it is relatively easy to detect single photons when they have sufficiently high energy, the technological devices, from a CCD to detectors used in nuclear & particle physics, are designed so that the effect of a single photon is amplified in a cascade to macroscopic size so that it can be detected and counted with electronics.

Below visible light in frequency, it becomes harder and harder to detect individual photons because each one's individual energy is lower and so the graininess from quantum mechanics is less noticeable. As a consequence the individual photon nature of, for example, radio waves is irrelevant and not used in almost any practical technological device, and the Maxwell equations are good enough for predicting physical results. In practice: Maxwell equations are good enough for radio. They're not good enough for gamma rays, look up the Compton effect which wouldn't be the case classically.

The analogy (not the same precisely though) would be like trying to measure pressure of surface waves. In truth, fluids like water are not a continuum, but are composed of individual atoms. If you had a tiny pressure meter then in some regimes (very dilute) you might be able to count individual atoms of the fluid banging on you, with randomized impulses of energy & momentum. The averages over more than a thousand atoms or so could be called the pressure and velocity which are described by classical fields in the field of fluid mechanics.

There is an analogy there. The laws of fluid mechanics are really good approximations for many practical circumstances, like Maxwell's laws. If you get to some physical extremes though you start to notice the individual atomic nature of matter.

The same thing is roughly true as the relationship between photons and EM fields.

edit on 1-11-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: mbkennel

I am just trying to prove Arbs belief wrong.

He believes when a single electron is accelerated, EM radiation is only propagated in one infinitesimal direction. I intuitively suggested that that does not seem plausible, and asked him to support his claims with additional statements.
First, I didn't say that's what "em radiation" will do, you're still commingling classical and quantum mechanics. The EM field does expand in the classical approximations defined by Maxwell's equations, and I've reiterated this many times, but emphasized such an approximation doesn't work with a single electron emitting a single photon.

ErosA433 already cited his personal experiments which prove a single photon won't trigger multiple photon detectors, it will only trigger one of them. Moreover this is an extremely well documented characteristic of photons.


originally posted by: ErosA433
If you create 1 photon, it will travel in a straight path, the form of the photon isn't a outwardly expanding ring.

If what you say is correct, when a light source emits a single photon, we should be able to detect it anywhere on this ring that expands outwards at the speed of light (going on your description of what you think is happening).

This is NOT what we see. Simple lab experiments can be conducted to test this and it is simply not what is observed. Iv done single photon counting experiments and if what you said is true the alignment and positioning of sensors is irrelevant. I can tell you it is extremely relevant.
And if you don't believe Eros either, you can go to school and take a physics lab where you can conduct experiments like this one:

experiments with single photons

When detected, a photon excites only a single detector element.



originally posted by: mbkennel
Yes that's correct for acceleration of a point charge. I think you were misunderstanding Arb and the difference between the classical field and quantum mechanics involving that field, how you can have a spreading and continuous field in many directions, and simultaneously observe compact photons pointing in one particular direction (when observed) related to that field (which is spreading). This is not intuitive in the slightest and can't be truly understood without knowing the mathematical description of those words.
Yes, this is the correct idea. You can surround the electron with photon detectors. If it emits only one photon, only one of the photon detectors will be triggered.

Exactly what path the photon took to reach that one detector is still an open question. In Copenhagen interpretation, the photon had no definite position until the wave function collapsed. In deBroglie-Bohm interpretation, the photon has a definite position at all times and its path is guided by the wave function which doesn't collapse. We can't yet distinguish these two interpretations in experiment, and of course there are others. I'm sure you already knew that but that clarification is for imafungi.


originally posted by: ImaFungi
And so detected real photons, getting out of the water, in real life, the means of detection, involve using the most minimal in size and sensitivity piece of equipment to measure the most minimal fluctuation in the otherwise constant field it was detecting, and then that becomes the standard for the smallest of the quanta of photon?
At low frequencies, detecting photons becomes a problem of "signal to noise" ratio, where the energy of the photon is such that it is difficult or impossible to distinguish it from the noise, which results from thermal emissions.

Space satellite experiments like the Herschel Space Observatory used coolant to reduce the thermal emissions near the satellite's detectors, to reduce this thermal noise thus improving its ability to detect lower energy photons above the thermal noise level.



originally posted by: Phage
There is indeed a lower limit to gamma. It's called x-ray.
Not precisely, but approximately, yes. It's a little fuzzy.

X-rays versus Gamma Rays

There is no universal consensus for a definition distinguishing between X-rays and gamma rays. One common practice is to distinguish between the two types of radiation based on their source: X-rays are emitted by electrons, while gamma rays are emitted by the atomic nucleus.[6][7][8][9] This definition has several problems; other processes also can generate these high energy photons, or sometimes the method of generation is not known. One common alternative is to distinguish X- and gamma radiation on the basis of wavelength (or equivalently, frequency or photon energy), with radiation shorter than some arbitrary wavelength, such as 10−11 m (0.1 Å), defined as gamma radiation.



originally posted by: DeadSeraph
What is "outside" of the universe?

If the universe is expanding as a result of the big bang, that must mean that there is something for it to expand into. What is that, and how is it quantifiable?
Please see essentially the same question and the answer on page 53, the third quote block in this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 1-11-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel




Before being observed the probability function is distributed around that ring.


But in theory, if it is known that, when an electron is accelerated, the EM field surrounding that electron is disturbed, and that disturbance propagates away from the electron as a circularly expanding wave, than it is not probability, it is truth, that in that fundamental scenario, of an electron being accelerated, there is the ring.

If somehow, detectors could be set up surrounding an electron, which we wish to accelerate, in theory, after the electron is accelerated, would all the detectors set up on the appropriately corresponding perpendicular plane to the direction of acceleration, register EM wave detection? If it is accelerated once, 1 wave? which depending on distance away from center point, would increase the amount of detectors that could fit, and therefore detect the wave?






If you're thinking about surface gravity waves it would be like detecting the smallest quantum mechanical allowable pressure deviation. In practice over 90 degrees in macroscopic world you will be detecting the sum of zillions of them and can't distinguish them individually.


But if the ring as a whole, is created, the beginning of the existence of the ring, is created at the same instant, that instant when the electron begins to accelerate, is the ring not connected to itself? So you are saying sums of zillions, but in one event of one quanta of acceleration, is the ring really a sum of parts, or is it a continuous substance of sorts? If it is a sum of parts, you are saying each part on that ring, is the maxwell wave in its own 'lane' so to speak, but because as the total ring propagates it expands its perimeter, where are the extra waves on the arc coming from? Or are you suggesting that it starts as a legit circle, but as it expands the arc/perimeter of the circle begins to have holes in it, and begins to turn into more well defined, very finite quantities of exact directional bursts, separated by what perhaps could be considered destructive interference, or the relative absence of this burst...argh.

Oh! And related to the idea of the ring expanding, like in the water scenario, if you place a detector or object at some point away from the common center point of rock droppage, and the detector detects the wave, their for 'disturbing the wave itself' by measuring the disturbance, which is a wave itself; after the continual nature of the arc, or wave, is disturbed/broken at that point, the arcs on either side, would continue to propagate... and would they eventually form a connection again? Or not this gets into the wave view of double slit type things, the center connecting the two slits, would be like the breaker of the wave, which than creates two arcs on either side, that then continue to propagate, but no longer as a linked circular arc, but as two arcs now, that create some sort of wave pattern between them? ( I suppose there are all sorts of differences if it is only 1 ring/1 wave/1 initial disturbance, and the multiples usually shown in such double slit wave visualizations) .




The analogy (not the same precisely though) would be like trying to measure pressure of surface waves. In truth, fluids like water are not a continuum, but are composed of individual atoms. If you had a tiny pressure meter then in some regimes (very dilute) you might be able to count individual atoms of the fluid banging on you, with randomized impulses of energy & momentum. The averages over more than a thousand atoms or so could be called the pressure and velocity which are described by classical fields in the field of fluid mechanics.

There is an analogy there. The laws of fluid mechanics are really good approximations for many practical circumstances, like Maxwell's laws. If you get to some physical extremes though you start to notice the individual atomic nature of matter.

The same thing is roughly true as the relationship between photons and EM fields.


Ok, interesting, so the analogy... It just gets so weird, because you say, deep down the continuous nature of water waves is really particulate, atoms... but then go a bit deeper, and we are back to waves? electrons and quarks that make the atom? Or are they particles? At the deepest level is 1 EM wave, a wave composed of particles or a particle composed of waves? What is the bottom? Is the wave an actually 'long' line ways, or is the wave a 'drag' effect, of a particle being detected while 'in the act of moving'? Is a light wave like a basketball moving forward while also moving up and down? Or like a string of connected basketballs not moving forward, but only moving up and down? Or like one long basketball, not moving forward, but only moving up or down? Is the entire EM field one big basketball, that is perfectly connected to itself as a single substance, but because tiny particles exist in it, when the particles move, the perfect connected substance is disturbed and move? Is the entire EM field like near infinite small basketballs that are all connected together, in which slightly larger tiny basketballs exist in and make the smaller ones wave away when accelerated?


Anyway. I hope we have agreed that it seems as if, however the electron is connected to the EM field, which when the electron is accelerated, the surrounding and connected EM field reacts to the accelerated, by 'absorbing its energy' and subsequently cannot 'contain it in place' so 'propagates it' as the 'action of least resistance', that the subsequent disturbance is caused at least in more than one direction away from the accelerated electron.

But we, or I, am still unsure about what is the substantial nature of the EM field, which is attached to the electron, is it lines like hairs sticking out from the electron, and how many of them? is it balls that make lines sticking out from the electron? Are the lines or particles densly packed together, extending away from the electron and indeffinitly beyond, or are the lines or particles that (are the EM field) are extending from the electron only extending so far locally, and then absolute nothingness is just beyond, but when the electron is moved, the lines or particles, go up and down, away from the electron, and actually leave the electron? Or by them going up and down near the electron, if the lines or particles exist indefinitely, (which would necessitate a greater than 0, in terms of energy/substance/matter of anywhere in the universe of EM field) and are always there, waiting to be disturbed?
edit on 1-11-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-11-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
There is no quantum mechanics or anything, this is simple reality = reality truth.
In 1900, Max Planck hypothesized the quantization of energy which would form the basis of quantum mechanics. On April 24, 1914, James Franck and Gustav Hertz presented an experiment to the German Physical Society which proved the quantization of energy:


Franck and Hertz had designed a vacuum tube for studying energetic electrons that flew through a thin vapor of mercury atoms. They discovered that, when an electron collided with a mercury atom, it could lose only a specific quantity (4.9 electron volts) of its kinetic energy before flying away. This energy loss corresponds to decelerating the electron from a speed of about 1.3 million meters per second to zero. A faster electron doesn't decelerate completely after a collision, but loses precisely the same amount of its kinetic energy. Slower electrons just bounce off mercury atoms without losing any significant speed or kinetic energy.

...This feature was "revolutionary" because it was inconsistent with the expectation that an electron could be bound to an atom's nucleus by any amount of energy, just as a planet can be bound to a star by any energy.

On December 10,1926, Franck and Hertz were awarded the 1925 Nobel Prize in Physics "for their discovery of the laws governing the impact of an electron upon an atom."
Indeed it was revolutionary and there was a revolution in physics.

Just over a century ago in 1914, Max Planck's hypothesis about "the quanta" was confirmed and thousands more experiments refined the hypotheses into well developed theories which today can predict observations very accurately even if the observed behaviors are counterintuitive.

I said in the OP that understanding the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics is a mystery as outlined in the OP video by Sean Carroll. There is no consensus on the correct interpretation, but there is complete consensus that quantum mechanics experiments demonstrate repeatable evidence of a real phenomenon.

Here I see an even greater mystery, where an individual who claims to be interested in reality and truth can apparently deny thousands of experiments over the last century confirming quantum mechanics is a real observed phenomenon, and make a statement like "There is no quantum mechanics or anything, this is simple reality = reality truth."




posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

If somehow, detectors could be set up surrounding an electron, which we wish to accelerate, in theory, after the electron is accelerated, would all the detectors set up on the appropriately corresponding perpendicular plane to the direction of acceleration, register EM wave detection?


Yes, under the restriction that the number of photons is large, meaning that the intensity & energy is much more than h*f, the energy of one photon.

If you saw them one at a time, then each photon would be detected at a single place but you could move the photon detector(s) around the ring and statistically you would get the numbers & intensity expected from a classical computation of Maxwell equations when you averaged.

For example, if you compute the power emitted, and a typical frequency f, the power emitted divided by h*f will give you approximately
the number of photons being emitted every second. So if you had a billion photons emitted each second, and you had 100 detectors in the ring surrounding you then you'd have 10 million detections per second in each detector. So if you take a snapshot over one second, you will get results centered around the classical Maxwell value, with a statistical fluctuation of standard deviation sqrt(10^7)/10^7, being a relative fluctuation of 0.00031, so about 0.03% (one stddev) relative accuracy.

This is exactly what's happening in a digital camera. In low light conditions, they can count individual photons on a pixel on the CCD, and the electronics add them up over the exposure. If you have enough exposure time the resulting image is just what you expect from Maxwell's laws, which would be used in the form of 'geometrical optics' for cameras.

If you took a very short exposure and got 'grain' (which can come from fundamental photon noise, and non-fundamental noise from heat in the electronics, so let's pretend you supercooled your CCD to cold temperatures like astronomers do), there would be a random pixelation and fluctuation. There is no cause or fluctuation of this form in the Maxwell equations, this is a result of quantum mechanics of EM field, which is the actual fundamental field theory for electromagnetism as far as we are aware.

Maxwell equations are a large-intensity approximation and much easier to use for most computations with continuous media & images.
edit on 3-11-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
But we, or I, am still unsure about what is the substantial nature of the EM field, which is attached to the electron, is it lines like hairs sticking out from the electron, and how many of them? is it balls that make lines sticking out from the electron? Are the lines or particles densly packed together, extending away from the electron and indeffinitly beyond, or are the lines or particles that (are the EM field) are extending from the electron only extending so far locally, and then absolute nothingness is just beyond, but when the electron is moved, the lines or particles, go up and down, away from the electron, and actually leave the electron? Or by them going up and down near the electron, if the lines or particles exist indefinitely, (which would necessitate a greater than 0, in terms of energy/substance/matter of anywhere in the universe of EM field) and are always there, waiting to be disturbed?


No. It's not like that. E(x,y,z,t) and B(x,y,z,t) are vector valued functions. The maxwell partial differntial equations show how they change with time, and are generated by charges. The E field is pointing radially outward/or inward (depending on the charge & sign convention) from an elementary point charge, with amplitude 1/r. This goes up to infinity at r=0, so the Maxwell equations are not completely valid at small distances from elementary particles---but they are very small. At rest and in a stationary case, the non-zero field extends out to the end of the Universe.

Yes, the field was always there, waiting to be disturbed---that is what a field means in physics. The field existence is everywhere---the values change on location and time. There is no place in the Universe where an electric field does not exist (as opposed to having value zero) and is not possible to measure even theoretically.

On their own, moving electric and magnetic fields interact with one another (EM radiation) and move. In addition, they exert forces on charges, and charges also influence creation of fields. But both sides have their own dynamics independently (EM radiation on the fields, and mechanical motion in the particles), as well as mutual cross interactions.

The "lines" you see are representational graphics used to display, for human, purposes, the harder to see values of the field. Like the equal-height lines on a contour plot of elevation in a topographic map. There are not real lines like that painted on the mountain.


edit on 3-11-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-11-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Sorry, I was asking for the case of one electron, being accelerated exactly once (one electron, being accelerated once, would create what I could correctly called "one moment, one event, one point in time and space, of the creation, of EM radiation". As, EM radiation, is directly related, to the acceleration of a charged particle. As, the EM field, which is pre waving EM radiation, is directly related, attached, to the charged particle.)

In theory. If there was a way to accelerate a single electron, while all detectors involved in the experiment could ignore/cancel out the energy that would be initially needed to accelerate the electron once; And there was a perfect sphere surrounding the single electron (at any distance away, the area of the sphere is any area for this thought experiment, and I suppose in the sphere besides one electron is, close as possible to vacuum), and the inner walls of the sphere were the finest grain of EM radiation detectors (so imagine millions or billions of them if you must, composing the inner walls);

When the electron is accelerated the minimum amount an electron needs to be accelerated to produce EM radiation, which my reason for stating it this way is...well, this part as all these parts do, gets tricky; as it may be impossible to 'disturb the em field, just 'once', like dropping a rock in water and creating only 1 set of ring/ripple.

So the electron is stationary, at point A time A. Then it starts to move, and therefore the EM field locally attached to it starts to move. And is that the end of it, we can get away with producing 1 set of EM ripple, in hypothetical theory? I imagine it much harder in practice as it is almost literally like trying to catch lightning in a bottle, and then tell it what to do, but anyway...

So the electron in the middle of our sphere, we send in an amount of perfectly directed energy (or charge particle, however it would theoretically be possible to do this... but you see, I am so more concerned and wondering about just the absolute nature, of the electron and EM field it is coupled to, and EM radiation it produces, that in theory, if you know these elements, you should be able to understand what would happen, without invoking the practical necessities, of introducing the means to actually do the experiment, such as, needing a small hole in our detector, to send in a charged particle or burst of EM radiation (sending in a burst of EM radiation, when that is the entire thing I am trying to figure out what it even is, and then having to be messy and backtrack and calculate which radiation is from what, and when, when it is detected in our very sensitive device)

So, the electron in the middle of our sphere is accelerated the tiniest bit needed to produce the tiniest/subtlest amount of EM radiation. If that EM radiation were able to be tracked in real time, as it, as objective 'somethingness' that exists. Would it interact with more than 1 of our detectors, or just 1?



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel


Yes, the field was always there, waiting to be disturbed---that is what a field means in physics. The field existence is everywhere---the values change on location and time. There is no place in the Universe where an electric field does not exist (as opposed to having value zero) and is not possible to measure even theoretically.



Ok, and having non zero value means what?

An electron has non zero value, because of its mass and charge right? You take an electron, remove its mass and its charge, and you are left with literal nothing right (you cant have an object with no mass and charge but spin, I hope, right?)?

So, you say, the field itself, the electric field that exists (at all planck lengths? literally the embedment of universal reality?) everywhere, has no mass (is it continuous, is the electric field itself, composed of particles (not talking charged particles, only focused on the nature of the electric field in and of and as itself) and has no charge? So what is it?



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I have a question about general relativity (or is it SR? I really don't know the difference).

In various articles I've read it's been stated that if faster than light travel were possible (like a tachyon for instance) the object going FTL would go backwards in time. I find this to be counterintuitive since light takes time to travel. For example, a light packet sent from Earth towards Proxima Centauri takes about 4 years to get there. Therefore I would assume something going twice as fast would get there in half the time (2 years). It still would've gone forward in time. I don't get the time reversal bit.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: PraiseTheHighestOne
A few months ago thereabouts, a plane with a very unique sounding engine(military/experimental methinks) flew overhead and used some sort of psychotronic weapon on me.

The air around me smelled burnt and I could definitely feel like I was being hit by some kind of radiation.

What was this?


Active Denial System
en.wikipedia.org...

I thought this was designed more for crowd dispersal.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: circlemaker
In various articles I've read it's been stated that if faster than light travel were possible (like a tachyon for instance) the object going FTL would go backwards in time.
This is related to the Tachyonic antitelephone thought experiment which is related to Einstein's 1907 thought experiment, later formulated by Tolman in 1917 which became known as "Tolman's paradox". What you have to remember is that in different "reference frames", time passes at different rates, and from your reference frame, an object traveling at 2c (twice light speed) may be traveling forward in time, however this would not be true in all frames.

In an example where Alice sends a message to Bob using hypothetical faster than light tachyons, then Bob sends a reply back to Alice, they can be in reference frames such that:


Alice will receive the message back from Bob before she sends her message to him in the first place.
You can see the link for details of how that works. Hence if you receive the reply before you send the initial message, isn't this backward time travel (and a causality violation)?

There's no evidence tachyons exist so this shouldn't be an issue, but quantum tunneling observations can imply faster than light travel. However I've never seen any causality violations demonstrated as a result. (Receiving a reply to a message before you send the initial message would be an example of a causality violation). Here's an article which mentions the tunneling phenomenon:

What is known about tachyons, theoretical particles that travel faster than light and move backward in time?

we have discovered that photons which tunnel through a quantum barrier can apparently travel faster than light (see "Measurement of the Single-Photon Tunneling Time" by A. M. Steinberg, P. G. Kwiat, and R. Y. Chiao, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 71, page 708; 1993). Because of the uncertainty principle, the photon has a small but very real chance of appearing suddenly on the far side of the barrier, through a quantum effect (the 'tunnel effect') which would seem impossible according to classical physics. The tunnel effect is so fast that it seems to occur faster than light.


Quantum entanglement is faster than light, but because it's just a correlation, it doesn't result in any known causality violations.
edit on 3-11-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: PraiseTheHighestOne
A few months ago thereabouts, a plane with a very unique sounding engine(military/experimental methinks) flew overhead and used some sort of psychotronic weapon on me.

The air around me smelled burnt and I could definitely feel like I was being hit by some kind of radiation.

What was this?


A vivid imagination?

There aren't any psychotronic weapons. And anything that's ionizing the air is going to have some pesky side effects on you.

But why would the military go to the trouble to find your whereabouts, fuel up an experimental plane with a weird engine (why would you need that? Wouldn't it be far less obvious to use a common airplane like a Beechcraft Bonanza?), crew the thing up with a bunch of fairly costly personnel, fly to your position, and deploy some sort of secret experimental and obviously non-lethal weapon to annoy you?

It's a lot less expensive to send "the phone man" or "the fedex guy" to your house and pop a 9mm in you. Easier to organize by far as well.
edit on 3-11-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: PraiseTheHighestOne
A few months ago thereabouts, a plane with a very unique sounding engine(military/experimental methinks) flew overhead and used some sort of psychotronic weapon on me.

The air around me smelled burnt and I could definitely feel like I was being hit by some kind of radiation.

What was this?


A vivid imagination?

There aren't any psychotronic weapons. And anything that's ionizing the air is going to have some pesky side effects on you.

But why would the military go to the trouble to find your whereabouts, fuel up an experimental plane with a weird engine (why would you need that? Wouldn't it be far less obvious to use a common airplane like a Beechcraft Bonanza?), crew the thing up with a bunch of fairly costly personnel, fly to your position, and deploy some sort of secret experimental and obviously non-lethal weapon to annoy you?

It's a lot less expensive to send "the phone man" or "the fedex guy" to your house and pop a 9mm in you. Easier to organize by far as well.


I would have to disagree with your opening statement (see the links provided below), though I also find it unlikely that the Active Denial System (mentioned upthread) would be targeted toward one individual.

Voice to Skull Advertising
adage.com...

Army Yanks ‘Voice-To-Skull Devices’ Site
www.wired.com...



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: elfie

I would have to disagree with your opening statement (see the links provided below), though I also find it unlikely that the Active Denial System (mentioned upthread) would be targeted toward one individual.

Voice to Skull Advertising
adage.com...

Army Yanks ‘Voice-To-Skull Devices’ Site
www.wired.com...



If you scour ATS, you'll find some posts by me (or my previous nom de forum, Tom Bedlam) where I discuss getting one of the first prototypes of your first link. That was done originally by the same guys that do the LRAD, but they spun it off to a side corporation for doing adverts. Years ago. However, projecting localized sound (they demoed it in Hartsfield International maybe 10 years ago!) isn't a psychotronic weapon in any way. And it doesn't "burn the air", and you can't "feel it as radiation". So it's not very related to the post.

The other link is one of those that's bandied about as if it were something major. But if you had gone to the site when it was up, you'd have seen that the site as a whole was a sort of wiki that anyone with the right certificate could post to, and the particular entry in the wiki was a definition. It wasn't a lurid expose of secret military equipment.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: elfie

I would have to disagree with your opening statement (see the links provided below), though I also find it unlikely that the Active Denial System (mentioned upthread) would be targeted toward one individual.

Voice to Skull Advertising
adage.com...

Army Yanks ‘Voice-To-Skull Devices’ Site
www.wired.com...



If you scour ATS, you'll find some posts by me (or my previous nom de forum, Tom Bedlam) where I discuss getting one of the first prototypes of your first link. That was done originally by the same guys that do the LRAD, but they spun it off to a side corporation for doing adverts. Years ago. However, projecting localized sound (they demoed it in Hartsfield International maybe 10 years ago!) isn't a psychotronic weapon in any way. And it doesn't "burn the air", and you can't "feel it as radiation". So it's not very related to the post.

The other link is one of those that's bandied about as if it were something major. But if you had gone to the site when it was up, you'd have seen that the site as a whole was a sort of wiki that anyone with the right certificate could post to, and the particular entry in the wiki was a definition. It wasn't a lurid expose of secret military equipment.



I probably read your old thread. Nowhere did I say that the devices were related to the post we had both responded to, only that I agreed with your assessment.

Where we disagree, is that the existing technology for psychotronic weapons may be put to such use.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join