How do radio waves work?
Jedi Knight
I've been searching for an answer to this question for years. I'm
hoping somebody here can answer it or at least point me in the
direction. Or maybe I'm totally off base on my basic understanding and
so this question is out in left field.
I've been to howstuffworks.com and read a few articles on radio; I
learned a few cool things, but not what I was after.
Here's my question. When a radio tower, or whatever, sends out a wave
it has to propagate somehow. I figure this works by making electrons
do their thing, vibrate or whatever those crazy nothings do. If a
group of electrons is creating a field or sending a wave it has to be
at a specific frequency, but what I don't understand is how can there
be the plethora of frequencies all at the same time in the same place?
Can't an electron only vibrate at one frequency at a time? In simple
terms: how can my radio have the potential to tune into all the
stations; how do the waves not interfere with each other?
In wave theory, in physics class, I remember sending one water wave
from one end, and another from another end, and they cancelled each
other out. Wouldn't a radio wave work the same way?
So many questions, so little time...
Thanks,
Bodi
Richard Clark
wrote:
>Here's my question. When a radio tower, or whatever, sends out a wave
>it has to propagate somehow. I figure this works by making electrons
>do their thing, vibrate or whatever those crazy nothings do. If a
>group of electrons is creating a field or sending a wave it has to be
>at a specific frequency, but what I don't understand is how can there
>be the plethora of frequencies all at the same time in the same place?
Hi Bodi,
Let's start without electrons, but limit ourselves to how a "message"
propagates: You are in a theater waiting for your friend that you
have saved a seat for. You see your friend come in, you wave. Your
friend sees you, and waves back.
Now, a message has propagated and no power was transferred. You
didn't have to move any electrons to do it and we needn't go into the
discussion of light waves and interference or any of that to explain
it either.
A radio tower doesn't work this way, so now we can investigate what is
all that power for? It is not to push electrons at you or to suck
them either (one has to account for both directions in AC). But it
does have to do with attracting or repelling what electrons you do
have (if you didn't have any, believe me, you would never get to see
South Park on TV).
The attraction and the repulsion is a Force that is propagated. It
happens to have a frequency (or vibration as you describe).
>Can't an electron only vibrate at one frequency at a time?
Dangerous question, because, yes it can; but rarely does this have to
do with anything practical. It is properly known as a de Broglie wave
and it exists in every material object, but it is very remote from RF.
>In simple terms: how can my radio have the potential to tune into all the stations;
This is called resonance and Q: the ability to select one from many.
>how do the waves not interfere with each other?
The same way you can hear a conversation in a crowd. Interest in the
topic is resonance, interest in the speaker is Q. If you are only
mildly interested in the speaker, other speakers will divert you. If
you are only interested in the speaker, then the resonance is probably
romantic (and has nothing to do with topic of conversation).
>In wave theory, in physics class, I remember sending one water wave
>from one end, and another from another end, and they cancelled each
>other out.
Your recollection is rather hazy, or you have not described the
complete experiment.
> Wouldn't a radio wave work the same way?
It didn't work that way in the first place.
When you speak of cancellation, you must first intrude yourself or a
proxy for yourself into the situation, otherwise nothing "happens."
That proxy is often a detector (in the form of a load with a meter) or
your eye (another detector with a load), or your ear (guess what?
another detector...), or....
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Caveat Lector
Two folks talk at the same time
A listener hears both without interference NOTE1
Repeat for a telephone - same result
Electromagnetic waves work in a similar fashion
Key here is signals don't mix or interfere in a linear device or media
NOTE 1: the above doesn't work if one of the speakers is your mother-in-law
(;-)
Separation of signals is done with selective circuits -- tune to 14.200 MHz
and the selective circuits rejects all the others.
The human ear can do this -- I never hear my mother-in-law
Suspect this will get the flames (;-(
--
Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)
Help The New Hams
Someone Helped You
Or did You Forget That ?
"Jedi Knight" <azd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108488090.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Richard Harrison
"---but what I don`t understand is how can there be a plethora of
frequencies all at the same time in the same place?"
In a linear system or medium, individual frequencies don`t mix, but they
coexist without affecting each other. They "superpose".
The superposition theorem says that when any number of frequencies are
applied to the linear network simultaneously, their combined voltage and
current are the sums of their components as if the individual components
had acted alone.
An antenna can deliver many frequencies to a receiver which can select,
by using a proper filter, the desired frequency.
A radio wave consists of equal-enengy electric and magnetic fields. Each
field generates the other. These fields travel through the complete void
of deep space where there are few or no electrons to be excited by the
waves.
Sunlight is an electromagntic radiation, much like a radio wave but of
higher frequency. It is composed of many colors (frequencies) which may
be separated. Taken together, the colors are perceived as white light.
Bodi also recalled waves from opposite ends of a water tank cancelling.
That happens at some places, but they reinforce at other places. Radio
waves cancel and reinforce too. However, radio waves traveling in
opposite directions rarely affect each other`s progress, and they pass
through each other as if the other never existed.. The summation of two
waves at any particular point may be vastly different from their
summation at a different point.
Traveling waves of the same freuency can produce stationary interference
patterns called "standing waves".
Waves in far space don`t propagate by causing a group of electrons out
there to vibrate. The wave`s electric field changes according to its
cycle and this change generates a magnetic field and vice versa.
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
flashback
comprehensive understanding of electromagnetic radiation. We do not truly
know what it is. This may not happen until there is a unified theory of how
everything works, including gravity.
We know very well how to generator, transform, and receive electromagnetic
waves but we just don't understand what they are.
Anyone who says they understand the complete physics of electromagentic
energy is either full of BS or our next Einstein.
Sigh
Hal Rosser
F M
(the M stands for Magic)
Tom Ring
> 73's
> Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Nice analogies, Richard.
tom
K0TAR
Roy Lewallen
progation of radio waves doesn't require electrons. It propagates just
fine in space, or even an empty vacuum. Radio waves are of course the
same sort of stuff (electromagnetic waves) as light, just a different
frequency. So if electrons were required for propagation, the light from
the Sun would never make it here.
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Cecil Moore
> Here's my question. When a radio tower, or whatever, sends out a wave
> it has to propagate somehow. I figure this works by making electrons
> do their thing, vibrate or whatever those crazy nothings do. If a
> group of electrons is creating a field or sending a wave it has to be
> at a specific frequency, but what I don't understand is how can there
> be the plethora of frequencies all at the same time in the same place?
Free electrons are free (pun intended) to emit photons of any
frequency. Electrons that are not free are not free to emit photons
of any frequency. Superposition of EM waves is what makes it possible
for "the plethora of frequencies" to exist all at the same time in
the same place. The energy in an independent wave is, well,
independent of the energy in the other waves. A lot of hams don't
understand that the energy in the forward wave is independent of
the energy in the reflected wave and vice versa.
> Can't an electron only vibrate at one frequency at a time? In simple
> terms: how can my radio have the potential to tune into all the
> stations; how do the waves not interfere with each other?
Free electrons have the freedom to emit and absorb photons of any
and every frequency. Free electrons exist in conductors and can
travel from atom to atom or molecule to molecule as needed. The
electrons are the carriers of the EM waves, but not the EM waves,
much as water molecules are the carriers of ocean waves but are
not the waves.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Cecil Moore
> You see your friend come in, you wave. Your
> friend sees you, and waves back.
>
> Now, a message has propagated and no power was transferred.
Beg to differ. A certain amount of irradiance was decoded by
the retina of the receiver. Irradiance *is* power. Energy was
transferred and energy transfer is power, by definition. For
your statement to be correct, the event must be done in total
darkness.
Reg Edwards
magnetic and electric fields.
The field spreads out in space at the velocity of light. It can't help
itself.
As the current in the antenna changes and alternates, the field more remote
from the antenna becomes left behind in time and so becomes detached from
the vicinity.
The detached field, pushed outwards from inside by newly generated
alternating waves from the antenna, continues to expand into space at the
velocity of light for ever more.
The keywords are Time, Velocity and Distance (or Wavelength).
And so you have it. It's really all very simple.
---
Reg, G4FGQ
Cecil Moore
> However, radio waves traveling in
> opposite directions rarely affect each other`s progress, and they pass
> through each other as if the other never existed.
And that is true for forward and reflected waves in
a transmission line. They only affect each other at
an impedance discontinuity which causes reflections.
Cecil Moore
> Anyone who says they understand the complete physics of electromagentic
> energy is either full of BS or our next Einstein.
That's true, but we do understand the emission and
absorption of photons by free electrons. As Feynman
says: "A photon goes from place to place. An electron
goes from place to place. An electron emits or absorbs
a photon." This basically describes everything that
happens in a ham radio antenna system.
Cecil Moore
The free electrons in a conductor (aluminum or copper) are
required for the emission of photons (EM waves) from ham
antennas during transmit. They are required for the absorption
of photons during receive. Free electrons are the carriers for
all of our localized ham RF activities. Once the photons have
been generated, they can travel through the "aether" without
having electrons present.
Cecil Moore
> The field spreads out in space at the velocity of light. It can't help
> itself.
Reg, if fields possess a self, do they also possess self-
awareness? Inquiring minds want to know. :-)
Buck
wrote:
>Suspect this will get the flames (;-(
LOL,
You'll need them to stay warm at night.
--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW
Buck
I'll try to simplify this for you.
First of all, radio propagates by way of electro-magnetic fields.
Since they are invisible, water is used to create a picture so you can
get an idea of how they work, but they don't work exactly like water.
Secondly, electrons are used to create the wave, but they aren't the
waves.
You have seen how magnets attract and repel. You have seen an
electro-magnet that attracts iron when it is energized and ignores it
when turned off. Also, you have seen in a generator how a magnet
passes nearby a coil of wire without actually touching it. Keep these
in mind for now.
A transmitter causes electrons to move around in a particular fashion
so they can convert information into radio energy, or an
electro-magnetic wave. The circuitry manipulates and filters the
energy so it has exactly the effect necessary to transmit on some
desired frequency. The electrons are then sent through a transmission
line to an antenna. The movement of the electrons in the antenna is
like the electro-magnet producing an electro-magnetic wave. This
electro-magnetic wave is then propagated into the atmosphere where it
is effected by the conditions of the earth, the weather and the
ionosphere. This is how the waves are created.
On the other side, the receiver is designed to convert those
electro-magnetic waves into the electronic movement required to
interpret or understand the information transmitted. Just like the
electric generator, the magnetic field (waves) striking the antenna
move electrons which are sent to the receiver, manipulated filtered
and amplified and eventually converted back to a form in which the
original information can be understood.
As far as the waves cancelling each other out, I have been told
throughout my life that speakers need to be wired in a common manor,
i.e. positive and negative appropriately, so they don't 'cancel each
other out.' You may even have a speaker and/or stereo where the wire
locations are color coded. I have NEVER heard one sound cancel
another. It just doesn't happen. However, in radio, if you can get a
perfect match on the phase of a signal, it can null itself out.
However, that happening accidentally in the atmosphere is such a small
possibility that you don't need to worry about it.
I hope this helps. If nothing else, maybe it can generate a thread of
thinking in which you have new questions that lead you to the answer
you can best understand.
Take care for now.
Buck
N4PGW
Jedi Knight
I'm a little less confused and a little more confused. I think the
most certainty I have is this: no, they don't have self-awareness cause
if they did, they'd have seen my question and responded themselves,
lol.
I'm glad nobody but Einstein2 understands EM, cuz that was my next
question. I can picture something (electrons), but I can't picture
nothing (waves of energy).
So let me see if i get this concept right.
First I create a carrier wave, then I modulate it with my message, then
I send that from the antenna, which will converet it from electron
"stuff" to an EM wave. So far so good? I don't quite understand how a
carrier wave can both carry a message and itself not be a message, but
whatever. (this part I can at least pretend to accept, even tho i
don't understand the physics of it completely)
Next the wave travels through space in a way that totally dumb founds
me, and is picked up by a receiving antenna, which does the whole thing
backward. It's this part that really mucks things up (yes, that's the
technical term for it) for me. I really don't see how there can be
more than one thing occuping the same space (the whole "Back to the
Future" phenomenon, lol) at the same time. Something is missing for
me. I'm way more of a visual learner, so if anybody has
pictures....SWEET. I can make the leap of faith because I know that
color is frequency and a prism splits it up, but I don't understand how
that works either. Back to Optiks for me ;).
thx again,
Bodi
Asimov
--- on the heady topic of "Re: How do radio waves work?"
fl> From: "flashback" <ndc...@srt.com>
fl> Xref: aeinews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:5199
fl> The really bad news for all us humans is that there has been no
fl> comprehensive understanding of electromagnetic radiation. We do not
fl> truly know what it is. This may not happen until there is a unified
fl> theory of how everything works, including gravity.
fl> We know very well how to generator, transform, and receive
fl> electromagnetic waves but we just don't understand what they are.
fl> Anyone who says they understand the complete physics of
fl> electromagentic energy is either full of BS or our next Einstein.
fl> Sigh
I think I have an insight and I really don't think I'm very bright.
Basically light is the transfer of EM energy and information across a
distance. Energy is carried by the photon or quanta. Radio
transmissions are like light only at much lower frequencies. At radio
frequencies a very different method must be used to generate the
photons. Basically electrons are agitated the length of a wire at
its natural resonnance and the photons are shaken off as an
electromagnetic disturbance or field, then it propagates into free
space. Whatever modulation is impressed on the wavetrain is the
information being transmitted. What's so special about that? It may be
too simplistic but that's the way I picture it. How would you describe
it?
A*s*i*m*o*v
... My other vehicle is a Galaxy Class golfball washer...
Jim Kelley
Cecil Moore wrote:
> Free electrons have the freedom to emit and absorb photons of any
> and every frequency. Free electrons exist in conductors and can
> travel from atom to atom or molecule to molecule as needed. The
> electrons are the carriers of the EM waves, but not the EM waves,
> much as water molecules are the carriers of ocean waves but are
> not the waves.
Aren't electrons and water molecules more like 'riders' of the waves?
ac6xg
Richard Clark
wrote:
>Next the wave travels through space in a way that totally dumb founds
>me,
Hi Bodi,
That's because of relativity. Again we are speaking about inserting
an observer into the picture and gumming up the works (the proper
technical term).
>I really don't see how there can be
>more than one thing occuping the same space (the whole "Back to the
>Future" phenomenon, lol) at the same time.
This is part of Einstein's relativity, as described in Lorentz's
equations. It is found in the collapse of the space as you approach
the speed of light.
> I'm way more of a visual learner, so if anybody has
>pictures....SWEET.
Lorentzian/Einsteinian geometry predicts that at the speed of light
there is no third dimension in the direction of propagation. Hence
the sender and receiver do occupy the same space. This yields a
picture that is infinitely tall and wide (also a product of light
speed and the same prediction of geometry).
Now having said that, and offered a picture, I am sure that it means
nothing to you except as an example of metaphysical handwaving. Such
is mathematics when you divorce yourself from faith and its illusions.
On the other hand, blind faith in the illusions can bring some pretty
stupid conclusions on their own - just look at the comedy of
discussion about photons and electrons (well, maybe just skip this
advice and say you did look).
Cecil Moore
> The electrons are then sent through a transmission
> line to an antenna.
Since this is RF AC, I doubt that electrons actually make
it to the antenna from the source. Consider water molecules
carrying waves. The individual molecules don't move very
much but the wave does. Same for RF. The individual electrons
don't move very much but the RF wave does move at the speed
of light. For RF, the same electron is pumped back and forth
through the source. The energy impulse (wave energy) is what
moves.
Put your ear to a board and let someone hit the other end.
What you hear is sound energy that traveled the length of
the board but the molecules in the board hardly moved at all.
Or for a visual effect, consider balls hung on a string.
The end balls can transfer their energy to each other while
the center ball hardly moves at all.
> As far as the waves cancelling each other out, ...
Only coherent waves can cancel. Coherent waves usually
originate from a single source. Coherent waves can
originate from multiple sources only if the sources
are phase-locked or otherwise interlocked. Since our
ham radio RF sources are not phase-locked, they are
not coherent, and normally cannot cancel.
Cecil Moore
> Next the wave travels through space in a way that totally dumb founds
> me, and is picked up by a receiving antenna, which does the whole thing
> backward. It's this part that really mucks things up (yes, that's the
> technical term for it) for me. I really don't see how there can be
> more than one thing occuping the same space (the whole "Back to the
> Future" phenomenon, lol) at the same time. Something is missing for
> me. I'm way more of a visual learner, so if anybody has
> pictures....SWEET.
This is the area where photons are easier to understand than EM
waves (although an understanding of superposition of waves will
explain everything). Photons emitted from any number of sources
all arrive at your antenna at the same time. Those photons are
absorbed by the free electrons in your copper antenna. Your
receiver senses those electrons giving up their energies at
different frequencies, magnitudes, and phases.
Cecil Moore
Chicken, meet egg. :-) The electrons and water molecules are
the carriers of the waves and exist before and after the wave.
I know this implies something to carry the RF waves in free
space and there indeed seems to be something there. Empty
space is NOT empty. There is a structure of some kind in
empty space - maybe the extra dimensions implied by string
theory? Feel free to call it "aether". :-)
Unknown
Sounds like cyclic flow changes between inductance and capacitance is
instantanious
leaving free electron that do not complete safe harbour to shove photons
towards
another antenna where it meets a similar cyclic flow between the inductance
and
capacitance which operates at the given frequency.
No, I have not read this anywhere but it is as good as any theories or
predictions
offered here since it appears to comply with Newton's Laws that have
been proven time and time again.
Regards
Art
"Cecil Moore" <w5...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4213b0d5$1...@127.0.0.1...
Unknown
earth itself,
because of it constituents ,will consistently emit photons all the time such
that it will dwarf the
radio waves with respect to energy containment differences as well as energy
received from
beyond earth. It there fore can be seen that the earth itself can be mapped
out with respect to
photon emmisions and without reference to shore lines, mountains,buildings
e.t.c.
This map could in fact be made up of colours depending on frequencies of
emmissions.
It could well be that birds have the ability of 'seeing' such a map that
would allow them
to uneeringly navigate the oceans or migrate without material sign posts or
allow a homing
pigeon to speedily return to home. This does have drawbacks in that the
'map' can be totally distorted
when the earth is bombarded with outside energy leaving migratory birds in a
hopeless state until
the interference abates as with sun spots and normalcy returns with respect
to the natural
emmission of earth photons.
Moral is that you do not release homing pigeons during sun spot activity.
Perhaps I shoulds resume my antenna activities or I will never get things
done..grin
Regards
Art
"aun...@insightbb.com" <aun...@insightbb.com@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:wuQQd.10164$4q6.2269@attbi_s01...
Dave
Jedi Knight wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been searching for an answer to this question for years. I'm
> hoping somebody here can answer it or at least point me in the
> direction. Or maybe I'm totally off base on my basic understanding
and
> so this question is out in left field.
Good question, and I'm sure you got lots of good answers. I'm sort of
a beginner myself, but one way I think of radio waves is like this:
it's a different kind of light. The light you see and radio waves are
essentially the same thing (electromagnetic radiation), only your eye
can't see radio waves. A radio antenna is like a light bulb, and
different antenna shapes are like different shaped light bulbs. The
main difference between the light we see and radio waves (that are
transmitted) is that radio waves are created in phase from the antenna
(like a laser), while the light we see kinda just streams out from
whatever's creating it (ie not in phase). The fact that lasers create
light in phase is why they're used for so many things, as opposed to
just a really straight flashlight beam.
Hope that helps,
Dave
Gene Fuller
Why do you think this is "out of the box"? Photon emission over a huge
range of wavelengths is all around us.
The earth has been mapped by photon emission 'forever', in color no
less. You may choose to call it photon reflection, but the end result is
the same. Photons are everywhere.
I hate to get personal, but do you have working eyes? Can you feel heat
from the sun?
Photons rule.
73,
Gene
W4SZ
Unknown
radio waves and photons my own
way even tho it may be in error. As for color I can see that also as in
infra red pictures but I am not sure whether birds see photon maps in black
and white or in color. .I wonder if that is why whales beach themselves and
even after they are towed away to sea they 'look' at their distorted map and
head right back to the beach!
And with respect to your terminology of 'photon reflection'.. is that not
how the dish works as there is no resonance or
or capacitive/inductive occillations that allow then to reunite with free
electrons, in other words a direct reflection off the dish face so that all
impacts can be focussed to a single point without interference from
electrical fields as in nearby near resonant elements ? Oh if Tom W8TI was
still with us, the director /reflector augument would immediately ignite
again
and various opinions would flow again and learning would increase.
Regards
Art
"Gene Fuller" <W4SZz...@att.net> wrote in message
news:qW3Td.268400$w62....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Dave
Cecil Moore wrote:
> Buck wrote:
> > The electrons are then sent through a transmission
> > line to an antenna.
>
> Since this is RF AC, I doubt that electrons actually make
> it to the antenna from the source.
Most electrons in comsumer electronics are moving only a few cm/sec to
m/s. Slower than most people can run.
Dave
Cecil Moore
> ... I am not sure whether birds see photon maps in black
Most birds have color vision - most mammals don't.
> And with respect to your terminology of 'photon reflection'..
If I remember correctly, the theory is that photons are not
reflected but instead are first absorbed and then emitted but
my memory might be wrong.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Tom Ring
> Hello,
>
> I've been searching for an answer to this question for years. I'm
> hoping somebody here can answer it or at least point me in the
> direction. Or maybe I'm totally off base on my basic understanding and
> so this question is out in left field.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Bodi
>
Albert Einstein, when asked to describe radio, replied:
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull
his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you
understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send
signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there
is no cat."
Tom K0TAR
K5TB
inhibited upon.
the travel just like the ripple effect ie: throwing a stone in a pond.
Jedi Knight wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been searching for an answer to this question for years. I'm
> hoping somebody here can answer it or at least point me in the
> direction. Or maybe I'm totally off base on my basic understanding
and
> so this question is out in left field.
>
> learned a few cool things, but not what I was after.
>
> Here's my question. When a radio tower, or whatever, sends out a
wave
> it has to propagate somehow. I figure this works by making electrons
> do their thing, vibrate or whatever those crazy nothings do. If a
> group of electrons is creating a field or sending a wave it has to be
> at a specific frequency, but what I don't understand is how can there
> be the plethora of frequencies all at the same time in the same
place?
> terms: how can my radio have the potential to tune into all the
> stations; how do the waves not interfere with each other?
>
> from one end, and another from another end, and they cancelled each
> other out. Wouldn't a radio wave work the same way?
>
> So many questions, so little time...
>
> Thanks,
> Bodi
Richard Harrison
"radio waves travel in a straight line unless they are stopped or
somehow inhibited upon."
Yes. Refraction and reflection can change the direction of a radio wave.
My physics book says:
"The unifying concept (for all electromagnetic radiation) here is that
electromagnetic radiation is produced when electric charge is
accelerated. We have seen this illustrated for radio eaves. As charges
rush back and forth along the antenna, they are undergoing rather rapid
accelerations, especially at the two ends."
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
Cecil Moore
> K5TB wrote:
> "radio waves travel in a straight line unless they are stopped or
> somehow inhibited upon."
>
> Yes. Refraction and reflection can change the direction of a radio wave.
So can gravity. :-) The earth's gravity bends the
radio waves by a very slight amount that can be
calculated if not measured. The earth's gravity also
affects frequency since it affects the length of a
second in "cycles per second". :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Richard Harrison
"So can gravity."
My physics book says:
"--Gravity waves, which should have many similarities to electromagnetic
waves even though as far as is known there is no direct connection
between the twp types of waves."
Also something the book, although I can`t find it right now, says:
Masses don`t exert gravitational forces on each other based upon where
they have been but instead upon upon where they are located right now.
In other words, there is no delay in the transmission of gravitational
forces. This is different from electromagnetic forces which are
transmoitter at no faster than the speed of light.
If the velocity of a gravitational wave is infinite, how could frequency
and wavelemngth have any meaning for it?
Cecil Moore
> Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
> "So can gravity."
>
> Also something the book, although I can`t find it right now, says:
> Masses don`t exert gravitational forces on each other based upon where
> they have been but instead upon upon where they are located right now.
I'm talking about the effect gravity has on EM waves.
Einstein predicted that the light passing close to
the sun would bend. It did exactly that during a total
eclipse of the sun within the accuracy of the measurements
possible at the time.
EM waves don't travel in a straight line around a Black
Hole which sucks them in from all directions never to
be seen again.
And we know that clocks located at ground level run
slower than clocks located on mountain tops. Gravity
warps time as well as space.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Doug McLaren
Richard Harrison <richard...@webtv.net> wrote:
I believe that gravity waves are expected to travel at the speed of
light as well. If not, then that would probably violate general
relativity as it would give you a way to transmit information faster
than the speed of light. (Though sending and receiving gravity waves
is not really easy for mere mortals to do.)
(Note that relativity does not say that things cannot go faster than
the speed of light, only that physical objects cannot attain the speed
of light. Tachyons are a theoretical particle that goes faster than
the speed of light, though of course we have not observed any. Except
on Star Trek.)
I imagine one could talk about this for quite some time, but I'll
leave it at this :)
--
Doug McLaren, dou...@frenzy.com, AD5RH
Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?
ml
wrote:
> Richard Harrison wrote:
>
> > K5TB wrote:
> > "radio waves travel in a straight line unless they are stopped or
> > somehow inhibited upon."
> >
> > Yes. Refraction and reflection can change the direction of a radio wave.
>
> So can gravity. :-) The earth's gravity bends the
> radio waves by a very slight amount that can be
> calculated if not measured. The earth's gravity also
> affects frequency since it affects the length of a
> second in "cycles per second". :-)
> --
> 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
>
>
> --
that last part is deep, very deep
so when i am communicating to my deep space friends, how do i prevent
gravity from effecting my frequency
do you think converting to a particle based transmission (one uneffected
by gravity) might be the best approach?
ml
little hamster --help me put him back onthe wheel...
>
> Lorentzian/Einsteinian geometry predicts that at the speed of light
> there is no third dimension in the direction of propagation. Hence
> the sender and receiver do occupy the same space.
mean i know about the idea of occupying the 'same' space, except it's
not really the same space, it's what was two points 'curved' to become
one at the end points and so isn't it kinda no longer then 2 points? as
the ''3rd' dim then no loger exists (thusly allowing that curve end
points, whilest the 'path' inbetween does occupy space or another
dimension (sorta like a string w/two balls at ends the string still
exists
This yields a
> picture that is infinitely tall and wide (also a product of light
> speed and the same prediction of geometry).
<<umm at what point then is infinite mass achieved? , at very near the
speed of light (for norm mass) or were you discussing a simple
dimensinal shift into 2nd dim? for ex.
>
> N
just look at the comedy of
> discussion about photons and electrons (well, maybe just skip this
> advice and say you did look).
> <<<
<<<>>umm don't get me started on those little suckers
and yes i am still trying to figure out how to go 'faster' than the
speed of light , while never reaching at or near it
m
ml
"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq...@ZZZbtinternet.com> wrote:
> There is an alternating current in the antenna conductor which sets up
> magnetic and electric fields.
>><<<<can you have a electricial field or any EMF, whereby their is no
magnetic field?? dosn't if 'a" occurs isn't b a must?
>
> The field spreads out in space at the velocity of light. It can't help
> itself.
>
> As the current in the antenna changes and alternates, the field more remote
> from the antenna becomes left behind in time and so becomes detached from
> the vicinity.
>
> The detached field, pushed outwards from inside by newly generated
> alternating waves from the antenna, continues to expand into space at the
> velocity of light for ever more.
<<<<gee i thought for sure radio waves do not actually travel at the
speed of light, , and same for electrons arent't they slower than
photons? , and those electrons can only occupy a single dimensional
state?
>
> The keywords are Time(??) what function or what would 'time' be here, the
particles location in e space??
>>these i kinda understand>>, Velocity and
but<< >>this Distance (or Wavelength). distanste meaning from the
original force source?
>
> And so you have it. It's really all very simple.
> ---
> Reg, G4FGQ
ml
>
> Free electrons are free (pun intended) to emit photons of any
> frequency. Electrons that are not free are not free to emit photons
> of any frequency. Superposition of EM waves is what makes it possible
> for "the plethora of frequencies" to exist all at the same time in
> the same place.
how can this be??
dosn't it voilate E=mc 2??
if two particles traveling at speed of light collided with enough energy
to attempt occupying the same space , would'nt it yield E?
T
>
> > Can't an electron only vibrate at one frequency at a time? In simple
> > terms: how can my radio have the potential to tune into all the
> > stations; how do the waves not interfere with each other?
>
> Free electrons have the freedom to emit and absorb photons of any
> and every frequency. Free electrons exist in conductors and can
> travel from atom to atom or molecule to molecule as needed. The
> electrons are the carriers of the EM waves, but not the EM waves,
> much as water molecules are the carriers of ocean waves but are
> not the waves.
at non sub zero temps' arent all atoms' /particuls really '''vibratiing'
a lot? ie never vib at one freq at one time(well not for long) , and
if it did wouldn't it then become something elese?
i had a tough day my brain hurts this is one tough post
ml
wrote:
> Jim Kelley wrote:
>
> > Cecil Moore wrote:
> >> Free electrons have the freedom to emit and absorb photons of any
> >> and every frequency. Free electrons exist in conductors and can
> >> travel from atom to atom or molecule to molecule as needed. The
> >> electrons are the carriers of the EM waves, but not the EM waves,
> >> much as water molecules are the carriers of ocean waves but are
> >> not the waves.
> >
> > Aren't electrons and water molecules more like 'riders' of the waves?
>
> Chicken, meet egg. :-) The electrons and water molecules are
> the carriers of the waves and exist before and after the wave.
> I know this implies something to carry the RF waves in free
> space and there indeed seems to be something there. Empty
> space is NOT empty. There is a structure of some kind in
> empty space - maybe the extra dimensions implied by string
> theory? Feel free to call it "aether". :-)
hmmm what i ponder is when you say space, if you mean like space around
galaxy's stars' solar systems or even kinda areas that seems devoid of
large stellar stuffs (as above) however particulate matter exists, what
was thought of as empty space is not truly empty, thou it's theoriezed
that their are a few areas that seem really really truly 'empty' but
who knows if a radio wave would 'propagte' there??
guess it would if the particles maintained their quantum interconnected
simutenious 'space' and time, aka demsional ''links'
in fact i am trying to build a com device that uses this, difficult
using materials here on earth, but once completed i'll wisk myself away
Cecil Moore
> so when i am communicating to my deep space friends, how do i prevent
> gravity from effecting my frequency
If your friends are close enough to a black hole, you will
die of old age while they are receiving your transmission.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Richard Clark
On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:56:53 GMT, you<m...@di.net> wrote:
>dear rich seem my inserted question, you've gone ahead and confused my
>little hamster --help me put him back onthe wheel...
>>
>> Lorentzian/Einsteinian geometry predicts that at the speed of light
>> there is no third dimension in the direction of propagation. Hence
>> the sender and receiver do occupy the same space.
><<you got me on this one, dosn't sound quite true to the actual theory i
>mean i know about the idea of occupying the 'same' space, except it's
>not really the same space, it's what was two points 'curved' to become
>one at the end points and so isn't it kinda no longer then 2 points? as
>the ''3rd' dim then no loger exists (thusly allowing that curve end
>points, whilest the 'path' inbetween does occupy space or another
>dimension (sorta like a string w/two balls at ends the string still
>exists
Where did you get the curve, and what string?
With no dimension in the path of propagation, there is no space; no
path; no curve; no ball(s), not even circles; no string - NADA except
for width and height.
There is no need to go into issues of "approaching" the speed of light
when light is already "at" the speed of light.
>> This yields a
>> picture that is infinitely tall and wide (also a product of light
>> speed and the same prediction of geometry).
>umm at what point then is infinite mass achieved?
Light was never mass in the first place, so why do we have to worry
about achieving (a gerundial verb which implies time, no time exists
either) a "point" that we are already at?
>and yes i am still trying to figure out how to go 'faster' than the
>speed of light , while never reaching at or near it
What would it bring you? Just take a step over any nearby event
horizon to find out.
Richard Clark
> ?
? indeed!
>>
>> Free electrons are free (pun intended) to emit photons of any
>> frequency. Electrons that are not free are not free to emit photons
>> of any frequency. Superposition of EM waves is what makes it possible
>> for "the plethora of frequencies" to exist all at the same time in
>> the same place.
>
>
>how can this be??
It can't Myles, what you are experiencing is gibberish as a result of
a paper jam in the Xerox of one page reference material. Call the Key
Operator.
>dosn't it voilate E=mc 2??
Yes it violates e = mc too - and quantum dialing for dollars... (the
list has been growing for some years now).
ml
Cecil Moore <w5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ml wrote:
> > so when i am communicating to my deep space friends, how do i prevent
> > gravity from effecting my frequency
>
> If your friends are close enough to a black hole, you will
> die of old age while they are receiving your transmission.
didn't someone just prove quite easily that blackholes can't , don't
exist
?? i used to like them poor s hawking
ml
Richard Clark <kb7...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi Myles,
>
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:56:53 GMT, you<m...@di.net> wrote:
>
> >dear rich seem my inserted question, you've gone ahead and confused my
> >little hamster --help me put him back onthe wheel...
> >>
> >> Lorentzian/Einsteinian geometry predicts that at the speed of light
> >> there is no third dimension in the direction of propagation. Hence
> >> the sender and receiver do occupy the same space.
> ><<you got me on this one, dosn't sound quite true to the actual theory i
> >mean i know about the idea of occupying the 'same' space, except it's
> >not really the same space, it's what was two points 'curved' to become
> >one at the end points and so isn't it kinda no longer then 2 points? as
> >the ''3rd' dim then no loger exists (thusly allowing that curve end
> >points, whilest the 'path' inbetween does occupy space or another
> >dimension (sorta like a string w/two balls at ends the string still
> >exists
>
> Where did you get the curve, and what string?
***<< well i thought the , point above about occupying the same space..
, my understanding was that truly matter in any 1 dim can't occupy the
same space, but for example the way dimensional travel would work,
relating to 'time' travel (thou time"" dosn't exist ) goes like this
your at a particular point, ''now' you wish to get to any other point(in
space) typically you travel point a to b (linear i guess)
so you have 2 points and a path in between, i visualize this as a
string with a ball or marble at each end , now reading above marble a
starts to travel conventionally down the route or string and the above
states that marble a can occupy same space as marble b?? i dunno
now if you mean , which i can also interpert above to mean, given lack
of cart coordinates, and assumption of our dim as default #3rd dim
i can then say to travel from a to b (really fast) , you simply alter
gravity thusly collapsing momently our e space aka passing another dim
and pow your not really traveling down a 'straight line ' that string
going from a to b anymore ''straight'' the two endpoints are now 'at
the same' place , you'd get their immediately
from your point of view you went instantly from a to b and ended up at
b(their was no 'space' inbetween so you didn't really travel along the
string you went from marble to marble ,
t might appear that the a nd b point occupy the same space but a didn't
really meld into b as it's no longer at the same space it is b space
at a 'new time' and if time is different then the 'space' must be
wich i believe is the fasted , and only way to travel since your 'time'
would be instant handy when going say a distance measured in
lightyears
if iwas smart i'd remember that theory properly but as you can see i
am only playing w/2 marbles
*yes i know 'time' dosn't exist , and yes i know their is nosuch thing
as a straight"" line, dam gravity warping everything by 'straight' i
just mean a near straigh aka shortest distance path
>
> With no dimension in the path of propagation, there is no space; no
> path; no curve; no ball(s), not even circles; no string - NADA except
> for width and height.
>
> There is no need to go into issues of "approaching" the speed of light
> when light is already "at" the speed of light.
>
> >> This yields a
> >> picture that is infinitely tall and wide (also a product of light
> >> speed and the same prediction of geometry).
> >umm at what point then is infinite mass achieved?
>
> Light was never mass in the first place, so why do we have to worry
> about achieving (a gerundial verb which implies time, no time exists
> either) a "point" that we are already at?
>
> >and yes i am still trying to figure out how to go 'faster' than the
> >speed of light , while never reaching at or near it
>
> What would it bring you? Just take a step over any nearby event
> horizon to find out.
Guess they don't exist if blackholes don't exist i used to be a
believer guess einstein is still 'the man'
you think hawking is upset,?? what about hollywood they have millions
of unsold copies of The blackhole
H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H
H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H
That's good.
"Richard Clark" <kb7...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:28bo81pp1af8cqtdp...@4ax.com...
Cecil Moore
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 01:13:39 GMT, ml <m...@di.net> wrote:
>>>Free electrons are free (pun intended) to emit photons of any
>>>frequency. Electrons that are not free are not free to emit photons
>>>of any frequency. Superposition of EM waves is what makes it possible
>>>for "the plethora of frequencies" to exist all at the same time in
>>>the same place.
>>
>>how can this be??
>
> It can't ...
But it appears to be nonetheless. Quantum Physics is not logical
but makes extremely accurate predictions.
From "QED", by Feynman: "So now, I present to you the three basic
actions, from which all the phenomena of light and electrons arise.
- Action #1: A photon goes from place to place.
- Action #2: An electron goes from place to place.
- Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon."
Feynman describes the free electron in a lithium atom: "- the third
electron is farther away from the nucleus than the other two ... and
exchanges fewer photons (with the nucleus). This causes the electron
to easily break away from its own nucleus under the influence of
photons from other atoms." This "breaking away from its own nucleus"
describes the action and reaction of free electrons in metals such as
aluminum and copper.
A lithium atom has one free electron. That free electron is capable
of emitting or absorbing photons of any frequency including ham
frequencies. A helium atom has no free electrons and therefore can
emit only photons of frequencies associated with discrete orbits.
Cecil Moore
> didn't someone just prove quite easily that blackholes can't , don't
> exist
Like aether, the original definition was wrong. Black holes
exist but they leak radiation and therefore are not truly black.
Apparently, without a fresh supply of matter, a black hole will
leak radiation and eventually fade away.
Richard Clark
Richard Clark
wrote:
>Apparently, without a fresh supply of matter, a black hole will leak radiation
Richard Clark
>***<< well i thought the , point above about occupying the same space..
>, my understanding was that truly matter in any 1 dim can't occupy the
>same space,
If there's only one dimension (called a Quantum Dot), then there is no
"Space" to talk about. A marble cannot exist at a point. It is like
saying Moby Dick inhabits your watch pocket (OK so perhaps this is
your favorite line in a mixers bar - if we follow that path, someone
is going to drop their marbles).
>but for example the way dimensional travel would work,
>relating to 'time' travel (thou time"" dosn't exist ) goes like this
>
>your at a particular point, ''now' you wish to get to any other point(in
>space) typically you travel point a to b (linear i guess)
Wrong guess.
>so you have 2 points and a path in between
Not if we are talking about light or radiation of any frequency.
There are no paths, no points, unless what is being discussed is NOT
light.
True, you can stand at a point and aim your flashlight at another
point and there "seems" to be a path along which it is shining. These
are all figments of your perception and wholly divorced from what is
going on with the light (or other radiation).
>, i visualize this as a string with a ball or marble at each end
This is also your problem. A simple substitution could as easily
confuse the presentation if you substitute fish for marble 1 and ocean
for marble 2.
>, now reading above marble a
>starts to travel conventionally down the route or string and the above
>states that marble a can occupy same space as marble b?? i dunno
Can a fish occupy the same space as the ocean?
>now if you mean , which i can also interpert above to mean, given lack
>of cart coordinates, and assumption of our dim as default #3rd dim
It seems to me if I say the ocean is 20 feet west of me at coordinates
x,y,z degrees and the fish is also 20 feet west of me at coordinates
x,y,z degrees I can fully expect if I drop a fishing line 20 feet west
of me at coordinates x,y,z degrees that I stand a chance of the fish
being hooked.
However, all this is a fish story - and so are the marbles.
>i can then say to travel from a to b (really fast) , you simply alter
>gravity thusly collapsing momently our e space aka passing another dim
>and pow your not really traveling down a 'straight line ' that string
>going from a to b anymore ''straight'' the two endpoints are now 'at
>the same' place , you'd get their immediately
There are so many things wrong with this. How can "you" tell the
string is not a 'straight line?' If "you" can tell, then "you" are
not traveling on that line.
>you think hawking is upset,?? what about hollywood they have millions
>of unsold copies of The blackhole
It was a mediocre movie from Disney anyway. Try the "13th Floor"
instead.
Cecil Moore
> Baloney from a free lunch:
This web page might help to remedy your ignorance
on the subject:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/how_l2/xray_generation_el.html
"The mechanisms for producing x-rays from free electrons
are similar to those responsible for production of other
energies of electromagnetic radiation."
> Cecil Moore <w5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>That free electron is capable
>>of emitting or absorbing photons of any frequency including ham
>>frequencies.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Cecil Moore
> Cecil Moore <w5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Apparently, without a fresh supply of matter,
>>a black hole will leak radiation
>
> Apparently Planck plumbing problems
Commonly believed to be a disintegration of
the space-time medium at the event horizon.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Cecil Moore
> True, you can stand at a point and aim your flashlight at another
> point and there "seems" to be a path along which it is shining. These
> are all figments of your perception and wholly divorced from what is
> going on with the light (or other radiation).
Not photons traveling at the speed of light?
Jim Kelley
ml wrote:
> in fact i am trying to build a com device that uses this, difficult
> using materials here on earth, but once completed i'll wisk myself away
Are you using it to type your newsgroup messages by any chance?
ac6xg
Richard Clark
wrote:
>Not photons traveling at the speed of light?
Not Falun-Gong waving a Banner.
Not Republicans offering a balanced budget....
... not green eggs and ham - fuggitit!
Richard Clark
wrote:
>> Baloney from a free lunch:
>This web page might help to remedy your ignorance
>on the subject:
N7ZZT - Eric Oyen
then explain Cygnus X-1 ( and other high energy X-ray sources that shouldn't
occurr naturally)...
just a thought.
--
DE N7ZZT
Eric Oyen
Phoenix, Arizona
e-mail: n7zzt(at)hotmail(dot)com
the difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H
Electron-positron pair production happens all the time.
If a pair is produced near the event horizon of a black hole and one of the
two falls in, the other escaps as radiation.
"Richard Clark" <kb7...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qrhp81l9palfn2hgi...@4ax.com...
Richard Clark
<NQ...@ARRL.net> wrote:
>Electron-positron pair production happens all the time.
Hi OM,
Of course it does! My goodness, so much so that the rafters in my
garage filled up with them every spring (until I added venting with a
new roof).
As usual with a ceciltrivance, such self-containted, vacuum packed
factoids have nothing to do with anything in general.
In other words: Perhaps somewhere, sometime, in a kingdom far away and
long ago....
H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H
Get an education and get back to us.
Better yet, look up pair production and Hawking radiation.
"Richard Clark" <kb7...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:m9aq811hi06devtdj...@4ax.com...
Richard Clark
<NQ...@ARRL.net> wrote:
>WRONG OM
>
>Get an education and get back to us.
>
>Better yet, look up pair production and Hawking radiation.
Hi OM,
So which is it, they do or they don't?
Cecil Moore
> So which is it, they do or they don't?
Perhaps this will help. "The idea is that when you quantize
(say) the electromagnetic field, you take solutions of the
classical equations (Maxwell's equations) and write them as
a linear combination of positive-frequency and negative-frequency
parts. Roughly speaking, one gives you particles and the other
gives you antiparticles." Quoted from:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
Richard Clark
wrote:
>Perhaps this will help.
Like I said, the vents in the roof cleared it up.
ml
>
> (Note that relativity does not say that things cannot go faster than
> the speed of light, only that physical objects cannot attain the speed
> of light. Tachyons are a theoretical particle that goes faster than
> the speed of light, though of course we have not observed any. Except
> on Star Trek.)
>
> I imagine one could talk about this for quite some time, but I'll
> leave it at this :)
<<>That's incorrect, it does not state that ''physical objects' can't go
faster than light speed , no way
in fact when time travel was proved, thously proving Einsteins theory
sorta, well some of it , that things 'did' go faster than light
thou this prob isn't the best proof of the above, askide from simply
reading his theory but one that pops to mind
when researchers took a bit of matter w/a very short and well known half
life and put it into the 'machine' the particle lasted longer than
usual
time was 'temporarly' suspended for the particle, or from our view point
went into the future
so transdimensionally speaking it exceeed light speed (not in e space)
how much longer till worp drive scottie??
m
ml
> ml wrote:
> > so when i am communicating to my deep space friends, how do i prevent
> > gravity from effecting my frequency
>
> If your friends are close enough to a black hole, you will
> die of old age while they are receiving your transmission.
,,,<<umm i thought near the rim time would seem to 'suspend ' for me
relative to the ourside world aka my 5min around the rim, i'd come
back to earth it'd be into the future
??
Richard Clark
> i thought near the rim time would seem to 'suspend ' for me
>relative to the ourside world aka my 5min around the rim, i'd come
>back to earth it'd be into the future
Not if the Republicans have anything to say about it.
You talkin' that E vo Looshin nonsense, bubba?
Richard Clark
John Smith
Barring development of the "transporter" before "warp drive"... our
spacecraft, and ourselves, will be held to mere thousands of miles
per/hr--in the foreseeable future... <frown>
Good news!!! Right now you are traveling at over 1,000 MPH and you feel
like you are just standing still--kinda gives ya a head start--don't ya
think? <grin>
Warmest regards,
John
"ml" <m...@di.net> wrote in message
news:m-B9193C.18...@news.verizon.net...
Larry Dighera
I haven't read the rest of this thread, but you may find a clue to
your question here: http://youtu.be/aAcDM2ypBfE
Uploaded by atommodel on Aug 11, 2010
UNLOCKING THE MYSTERIES BEHIND RADIO WAVES.
Electric current creates magnetic field, oscillating electric
current creates oscillating magnetic field and not
"electromagnetic wave" as current belief. Electron has a standing-
electric field and magnetic field at right angle (watch video
structure of electron). The flow of electrons in a conductor is
essentially caused by the attraction between the electric fields
of mobile electrons and "fixed" positive charges in the conductor.
Oscillation of electrons in a conductor is caused by the
alternation of electric polarity in the conductor. Because of
electric field and magnetic field of an electron is at right
angle, when oscillates the electric field of the electron will be
parallel to the oscillation and magnetic field will be
perpendicular to the oscillation.This oscillation of the electron
creates transverse wave on its magnetic line and the oscillating
magnetic line is radiated to space.
http://www.physics-edu.org
On 15 Feb 2005 09:21:30 -0800, "Jedi Knight" <azd...@hotmail.com>
wrote in <1108488090.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
>Hello,
>
>I've been searching for an answer to this question for years. I'm
>hoping somebody here can answer it or at least point me in the
>direction. Or maybe I'm totally off base on my basic understanding and
>so this question is out in left field.
>
>I've been to howstuffworks.com and read a few articles on radio; I
>learned a few cool things, but not what I was after.
>
>Here's my question. When a radio tower, or whatever, sends out a wave
>it has to propagate somehow. I figure this works by making electrons
>do their thing, vibrate or whatever those crazy nothings do. If a
>group of electrons is creating a field or sending a wave it has to be
>at a specific frequency, but what I don't understand is how can there
>be the plethora of frequencies all at the same time in the same place?
>Can't an electron only vibrate at one frequency at a time? In simple
>terms: how can my radio have the potential to tune into all the
>stations; how do the waves not interfere with each other?
>
>In wave theory, in physics class, I remember sending one water wave
>from one end, and another from another end, and they cancelled each
>other out. Wouldn't a radio wave work the same way?
>
>So many questions, so little time...
>
>Thanks,
>Bodi
Larry Dighera
What's the diference betwee an photon and an electron?
http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-photon-and-an-electron
... an electron is a tiny particle that has an electric charge, and
a photon is a tiny, massless particle that we can perceive as
light.
http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2348
Q: Why are photons (all wavelengths) considered to be
instruments of the so-called "electromagnetic force"? So far as I
know, please correct me, photons have no electrical charge nor are
they influenced by magnetic fields. The term "electromagnetic
spectrum" seems to me to be very inappropriate and highly
misleading.
A: Grahame- You're right that electromagnetic waves, whether
viewed classically or in terms of quantized photons, are not
affected by static electrical or magnetic fields. They have no
charge. Nevertheless, they do exert electrical and magnetic forces
on charged particles and magnetic particles. Viewed classically,
they consist of nothing but electrical and magnetic fields
propagating through space, so it's entirely appropriate to call
them electromagnetic waves. ...
Photons are little units of light -- they are the original "quanta" of
quantum mechanics. Their existence was hypothesized to explain the
details of the photoelectric effect -- photons with enough energy can
knock electrons out of materials. Since then, photons have been found
to play a central role in the explanations of many physical phenomena,
from explaining how much heat is radiated by hot objects to modern
quantum cryptography.
But on to your question! The classical model of electricity and
magnetism makes use of the ideas of electric and magnetic fields.
Maxwell's equations describe how these fields behave, and the Lorentz
force equation, which describes how the fields push and pull charged
particles and magnets. A prediction of Maxwell's equations is that
there are waves in the electromagnetic field which travel at the speed
of light. These waves were identified with light by the experiments of
Hertz and others. We therefore have two very different ideas for how
light works -- as waves in the electric and magnetic fields, and as
motion of particles -- photons. This pair of explanations is called
"wave-particle duality" and is a recurring theme of quantum mechanics.
Depending on the experimental situation, light acts as a wave or as a
particle (but never both simultaneously).
Weirder still -- static electric and magnetic fields also exhibit
wave-particle duality. The collision of a charged particle with
another (repulsive or attractive) can be modeled as the exchange of
photons and you get the same answer as if you had calculated
everything with just the classical fields (in the limit that the
classical calculation applies -- slow incoming particles). The quantum
calculation involving the exchange of photons is more accurate in
describing actual collisions at higher energies.
And now the really weird part. You might ask -- "Photons travel in
straight lines at the speed of light. Why doesn't the electric field
of a charged object just zoom away at the speed of light?" It turns
out that the photons which make up a static electric or magnetic field
are "virtual" -- their energy and momentum doesn't satisfy the
relationship for "real" photons -- E=p*c (E is energy, p=momentum, and
c is the speed of light). The virtual photons are constantly emitted
and reabsorbed. A charged object with an electric (and possibly also a
magnetic) field is surrounded by an entourage of photons, constantly
being emitted and reabsorbed.
Photons, real and virtual, are emitted and absorbed by charged
particles, even though they are not charged themselves. They only
interact with charged particles, and not with each other. That's why
photons don't interact with magnetic fields -- the photons which make
up the magnetic field are not charged so other photons cannot interact
with them.
Technical p.s.: photons have entourages of electrons (and other stuff)
around them, and so photons can interact with other photons by
interacting with this cloud of charged stuff. The effect is so small
it hasn't been observed yet for low-energy photons. Very high-energy
photons produced in particle accelerators may collide with themselves
readily.
Tom
Follow-Up #1: photon sources
Q:
...and how does a photon (real or virtual) carry or represent the
information about the charge (eg +/-) that it's interacting with?
- Paul (age 57)
UK
A:
It may be easiest to describe this in terms of classical
electromagnetic fields, which already contain the essential
ingredients. Charged particles are sources of these fields. The way in
which charged particles give rise to fields is captured in the Maxwell
equations. Charge itself gives rise to a 'divergence' in the electric
field. Current gives rise to a 'curl' in the magnetic field. However,
looking at the fields in some region does not give all the possible
information about the sources. For example, a static field might come
from a little nearby charge or a lot of far-away charge.
Mike W.
I conferred with our local guru on this matter, professor Michael
Stone. He thought about it for some while and then said 'It's
tricky'. His explanation is that an ordinary, free, photon has two
different transverse polarization states as can be easily demonstrated
by the usual crossed polarizers experiment. An electron that
interacts with this kind of photon couldn't care less where it came
from. It just scatters ala Compton. Now in the case of when the
photons are virtual, such as when two electrons are close to each
other and are experiencing
Coulomb-like forces, the photon has an extra, longitudinal,
polarization state. This extra state carries information as to the
charge sign of its source. Hence the electron receiving the photon can
decide whether to be attracted or repelled.
LeeH
http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/f/photon.htm
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/183374/electron
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/photel.html
:-)
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:55:29 -0800, Roy Lewallen <w7...@eznec.com>
wrote in <1115h1q...@corp.supernews.com>:
>One thing I didn't see explicitly stated in the answers is that the
>progation of radio waves doesn't require electrons. It propagates just
>fine in space, or even an empty vacuum. Radio waves are of course the
>same sort of stuff (electromagnetic waves) as light, just a different
>frequency. So if electrons were required for propagation, the light from
>the Sun would never make it here.
>
>Roy Lewallen, W7EL
David
Just curious, why are you answering a 7 year old thread?