AM radio: 20 KHz sine-wave modulator signal present on an astronomically-low frequency carrier signal
Radium
Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question as I decreased the
modulation frequency to where it would be more realistic.
I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
carriers, and modulators.
Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal [in this
case, a pure-sine-wave-tone] with a frequency of 20 KHz and an
amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
frequency is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?
If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.
I am assuming it is mathematically-possible because Paul Cardinale
said that there is no higher limit to the frequency a carrier wave can
transport -- regardless of the carrier wave's frequency. In addition,
Karl Uppiano said 2.89e6-photons-per-second is the minimum wattage
required to carry an audio signal.
10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) second is an
extremely short amount of time. 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond is even shorter because a
nanosecond is shorter than a second.
Giga-eon = a billion eons
Eon = a billion years
*nanocycle = billionth of a cycle
Gigaphoton = a billion photons
10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 -- now that is one
large large number.
10^1,000,000,000 = 10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000
So you get:
(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)
10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) = 10^-(10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)-to-the-power-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000)
10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000) is an extremely small number at it equals 10-to-
the-power-NEGATIVE-[(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-
to-the-power-1,000,000,000)]
No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.
Thanks,
Radium
Radium
> Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal [in this
> case, a pure-sine-wave-tone] with a frequency of 20 KHz and an
> amplitude of **1-watt-per-meter-squared**
Sorry that should be **1 X [10^-6] Watts-per-m^2**
F-------------------king typos!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/sound/u11l2b.html
1 X [10^-6] Watts-per-m^2 is about the loudness of a "normal
conversation" according to the above link.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal [in this
| case, a pure-sine-wave-tone] with a frequency of 20 KHz and an
| amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
| frequency is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
| nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
| eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
| power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
| power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?
Could you rephrase this more clearly, please?
FYI, "carry" really has no meaning in regard to modulation. That's just
an abstract concept applied to it. You have a waveform that is produced
by a combination of waveforms, and hopefully you can reproduce at least
some semblence of one of the original waveforms from it.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-200...@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> Hi:
> Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question as I decreased the
> modulation frequency to where it would be more realistic.
> I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
> carriers, and modulators.
> Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal [in this
> case, a pure-sine-wave-tone] with a frequency of 20 KHz and an
> amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
As I said in one of the other groups you indendantly posted this
silly crap to, the fact that you specify the modulation amplitude
in W/M^2 says you haven't a clue WTF you are talking about.
<snip crap>
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Radium
> the fact that you specify the modulation amplitude
> in W/M^2 says you haven't a clue WTF you are talking about.
Okay. What is the modulation amplitude measured in?
Karl Uppiano
"Radium" <gluc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183232513.8...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Percent
Karl Uppiano
values, and unlikely actual interest by the OP, the answer will always be
the same:
The highest modulating frequency for AM must be less than 1/2 the carrier
frequency. Conversely, the lowest carrier frequency must be twice the
highest modulating frequency. Period. I don't care what specific frequencies
and/or energies and/or colors you propose.
If you want to modulate at 20KHz, the carrier must be at least 40KHz. It is
no coincidence that CD audio uses a 44.1KHz sample rate. It is essentially
the same principle. If you exceed the Nyquist criterion, the sidebands
overlap the baseband (i.e., aliasing occurs) and you cannot unambiguously
decode the original modulation.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
For AM, percentage of modulation.
If you don't even know that, WTF is with the inane questions?
You haven't a clue.
Radium
> For AM, percentage of modulation.
Huh?
Usually amplitude of any signal is determined by the power of the
signal. Power is usually measured in watts.
What SI unit is the amplitude of an AM modulator signal measured in?
BTW, I used W/M^2 is because W/M^2 is used on
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/sound/u11l2b.html
which states that 1 X [10^-6] Watts-per-m^2 is about the loudness of a
"normal conversation" according to the above link.
I expected an audio-frequency modulator signal of 20 KHz on an AM
radio wave to be measured analogously.
Karl Uppiano
> On Jun 30, 1:35 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> For AM, percentage of modulation.
>
> Huh?
>
> Usually amplitude of any signal is determined by the power of the
> signal. Power is usually measured in watts.
>
> What SI unit is the amplitude of an AM modulator signal measured in?
For standard broadcast AM, the amplitude of the modulating signal is
expressed as a percentage of the amplitude of the carrier. 100% is defined
as the point where the carrier becomes cut off on the negative modulating
signal excursion. The percentage could be expressed as decibels as well: dB
= 20*log(Vm/Vc), where 0 dB equals 100%. Modulation meters are calibrated in
% and dB. http://www.belar.com/AM/amm3.htm
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > For AM, percentage of modulation.
> Huh?
> Usually amplitude of any signal is determined by the power of the
> signal. Power is usually measured in watts.
Amplitude is measured in Volts, power is power.
> What SI unit is the amplitude of an AM modulator signal measured in?
Percentage of modulation also called the modulation index.
How many times do you have to be told?
> BTW, I used W/M^2 is because W/M^2 is used on
> http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/sound/u11l2b.html
> which states that 1 X [10^-6] Watts-per-m^2 is about the loudness of a
> "normal conversation" according to the above link.
So you don't understand how to apply what you read.
That isn't unexpected.
> I expected an audio-frequency modulator signal of 20 KHz on an AM
> radio wave to be measured analogously.
You expect wrong because you are a babbling idiot.
You've been given links several times that explain AM modulation.
Eric Gisse
> On Jun 30, 1:35 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> > For AM, percentage of modulation.
>
> Huh?
Story of your life.
Stop posting stupid shit, ok? The rubrik is simple: If it involves
more than 3 powers of ten, and you want to post it, it is stupid.
[...]
John Campbell
> Hi:
>
> Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question as I decreased the
> modulation frequency to where it would be more realistic.
>
> I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
> carriers, and modulators.
>
> Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal [in this
> case, a pure-sine-wave-tone] with a frequency of 20 KHz and an
> amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
> frequency is
WTF does this crap mean ?
""10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
> nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
> eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
> power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
> power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?"'"
Dan Bloomquist
> "Radium" <gluc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1183171645.0...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Hi:
>>
>>Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question as I decreased the
>>modulation frequency to where it would be more realistic.
>>
>>I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
>>carriers, and modulators.
>>
>>Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal [in this
>>case, a pure-sine-wave-tone] with a frequency of 20 KHz and an
>>amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
>>frequency is
>
>
>
> WTF does this crap mean ?
This guy is a pure troll. Look how much reaction he gets. He has studied
the art of trolling. The fact is self evident.
So, to put this to rest. The bit rate for information is one 'photon'
per. But as photons 'per' are undetectable in the real world, his
premise is just so much bullshit. As photons in the real world don't
exist from there to here, he is full of crap. As it has been pointed out
countless times that he is full of crap, why feed the troll?????
Well all will feed the troll because this is usenet and trolls are
always fed.
So, if anyone keeps posting to this thread without a genuine question
about the topic, it is just more feeding the troll.....
But as Radium is so successful at casting the line, I am very sure he
will get feed for a long time coming.
Such as usenet...............
Androcles
"Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:Uk1ii.11342$ya1....@news02.roc.ny...
:
: So, to put this to rest. The bit rate for information is one 'photon'
: per. But as photons 'per' are undetectable in the real world,
Per what? Second? Hour? Day?
And what is your definition of a photon?
Are their gamma photons? X-ray photons?
How about microwave photons?
What's the defining frequency for a photon, the Bloomquist frequency?
Dan Bloomquist
> "Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:Uk1ii.11342$ya1....@news02.roc.ny...
>
> :
> : So, to put this to rest. The bit rate for information is one 'photon'
> : per. But as photons 'per' are undetectable in the real world,
>
>
> Per what?
"The result of measurements shows that, in ambient space, the light is
propagated with a speed V0, independent of the overall movement of the
source of light O and optical system."
Androcles
What "measurements"? This one?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
I thought you were ranting about photons, not optical light.
Having trouble staying on topic, ignorant troll Bloomquist?
Dan Bloomquist
>
> What "measurements"? This one?
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
That doesn't make any sense. First you hypothesize that the speed of
light is relative to the source. You say that the waves take exactly the
same time to travel around the device back to the source. Yet you say
that one wave is of a different frequency than the other, not sure why
you say this. Then you drag a 'stationary' observer into the picture.
Again, I'm not sure why as the observation is done on the device.
So, you have two identical waves travailing at the same speed relative
to the source but they are not the same frequency relative to the source
for no apparent reason. If they are identical and arrive at the source
at the same time there should be no beat.
It seems your hypothesis doesn't hold water.......
> I thought you were ranting about photons, not optical light.
Actually, I was ranting about Radium.
Androcles
: Androcles wrote:
: >
: > What "measurements"? This one?
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
:
: That doesn't make any sense.
Maybe not to you, but too bad, it works.
: First you hypothesize that the speed of
: light is relative to the source.
The Principle of Relativity is an axiom, not an hypothesis.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm
I do not need to hypothesize the PoR.
: You say that the waves take exactly the
: same time to travel around the device back to the source.
Correct. Same distance, same speed implies same time.
: Yet you say
: that one wave is of a different frequency than the other, not sure why
: you say this.
Not as seen by the source they aren't. Only as seen by the detector are the
different, as they must by according to Doppler. Perhaps you've not heard
of Doppler.
: Then you drag a 'stationary' observer into the picture.
Essential part of the apparatus. It needs a detector.
The detector is moving relative to the source.
Maybe you don't understand the Principle of Relativity.
See, the sun doesn't really cross the sky, the Earth turns and it
only appears to move. You didn't know that, huh?
So it's the Sun that is the "stationary observer" while YOU are
the source. So if you send planes East and West from where you are
and they take off at the same time to go around the Earth and come
back to you, taking off at noon and landing at midnight, then as far
as the as the Sun is concerned one plane went half way around the
globe and the other went 1.5 times around.
: Again, I'm not sure why as the observation is done on the device.
The observation is done OFF the device. Sagnac didn't built a seat
on his turntable and this guy isn't allowed to ride, its not a fairground
or carnival ride to have fun with:
http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/graphics/zerodorblock1.jpg
:
: So, you have two identical waves travailing at the same speed relative
: to the source
In opposite directions, I have two beams of light.
: but they are not the same frequency relative to the source
: for no apparent reason.
Yes they are, relative to the source. I never said they were not
of the same frequency relative to the source, you are making that up.
Look, you can do this with two small children walking around a carousel,
starting from beside grandpa who doesn't ride, one walking clockwise
and one walking counterclockwise.
When they meet again each has taken exactly the same number of steps,
but they don't meet beside grandpa because the carousel has turned.
If the carousel had not turned they would meet again beside grandpa.
: If they are identical and arrive at the source
: at the same time there should be no beat.
The beat is when they arrive at grandpa, the detector. One child
has to make 13 steps, the other only 11 to get back to grandpa.
Stop the carousel and they have to make 12 steps each.
: It seems your hypothesis doesn't hold water.......
It seems your brain doesn't function, the PoR is not an hypothesis.
"the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of
reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good" -- Albert
Einstein.
That's about the only thing the crackpot did get right so we engineers build
optical gyroscopes to install in aircraft instead of time machines for
lunatic "scientists".
: > I thought you were ranting about photons, not optical light.
:
: Actually, I was ranting about Radium.
Aside from you admitted ranting, you still haven't answered my question.
You wrote:
So, to put this to rest. The bit rate for information is one 'photon'
per. But as photons 'per' are undetectable in the real world,
I asked : Per what?
You replied:
Dan Bloomquist
> "Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:kubii.11433$B25....@news01.roc.ny...
>
> : Then you drag a 'stationary' observer into the picture.
>
> Essential part of the apparatus. It needs a detector.
> The detector is moving relative to the source.
http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~bauer/habil_online/node11.html
Too bad it ain't so.....
> : Actually, I was ranting about Radium.
>
> Aside from you admitted ranting, you still haven't answered my question.
> You wrote:
>
> So, to put this to rest. The bit rate for information is one 'photon'
> per. But as photons 'per' are undetectable in the real world,
>
> I asked : Per what?
What ever you want. What difference does it make?
Androcles
: Androcles wrote:
:
: > "Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
: > news:kubii.11433$B25....@news01.roc.ny...
: >
: > : Then you drag a 'stationary' observer into the picture.
: >
: > Essential part of the apparatus. It needs a detector.
: > The detector is moving relative to the source.
:
: http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~bauer/habil_online/node11.html
:
: Too bad it ain't so.....
Ok, so say it doesn't work when it does, snipping fuckheaded troll.
:
: > : Actually, I was ranting about Radium.
: >
: > Aside from you admitted ranting, you still haven't answered my question.
: > You wrote:
: >
: > So, to put this to rest. The bit rate for information is one 'photon'
: > per. But as photons 'per' are undetectable in the real world,
: >
: > I asked : Per what?
:
: What ever you want. What difference does it make?
Your bullshit, you support it, ignorant snipping imbecile.
I answered all you questions, you snip, you bastard.
You said "So, to put this to rest" running your big mouth.
I asked : Per what?
You replied:
"The result of measurements shows that, in ambient space, the light is
propagated with a speed V0, independent of the overall movement of the
source of light O and optical system."
What "measurements", ignorant LYING RANTING SNIPPING CUNT?
Dan Bloomquist
> "Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:_Vdii.11385$ya1...@news02.roc.ny...
> : Androcles wrote:
> :
> : > "Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> : > news:kubii.11433$B25....@news01.roc.ny...
> : >
> : > : Then you drag a 'stationary' observer into the picture.
> : >
> : > Essential part of the apparatus. It needs a detector.
> : > The detector is moving relative to the source.
> :
> : http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~bauer/habil_online/node11.html
> :
> : Too bad it ain't so.....
>
Why would I want to say that?
>, snipping fuckheaded troll.
But Androcles, I'm not here for you. I don't want some poor sap on
sci.energy to think you are anything but a very cranky kook.
> : > : Actually, I was ranting about Radium.
> : >
> : > Aside from you admitted ranting, you still haven't answered my question.
> : > You wrote:
> : >
> : > So, to put this to rest. The bit rate for information is one 'photon'
> : > per. But as photons 'per' are undetectable in the real world,
> : >
> : > I asked : Per what?
> :
> : What ever you want. What difference does it make?
>
> Your bullshit, you support it, ignorant snipping imbecile.
> I answered all you questions, you snip, you bastard.
No you didn't. What difference does it make?
> What "measurements", ignorant LYING RANTING SNIPPING CUNT?
You need a 'My Therapy Buddy'.
http://www.mytherapybuddy.com/
Androcles
: Androcles wrote:
: > "Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
: > news:_Vdii.11385$ya1...@news02.roc.ny...
: > : Androcles wrote:
: > :
: > : > "Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
: > : > news:kubii.11433$B25....@news01.roc.ny...
: > : >
: > : > : Then you drag a 'stationary' observer into the picture.
: > : >
: > : > Essential part of the apparatus. It needs a detector.
: > : > The detector is moving relative to the source.
: > :
: > : http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~bauer/habil_online/node11.html
: > :
: > : Too bad it ain't so.....
: >
: > Ok, so say it doesn't work when it does.
:
: Why would I want to say that?
How should I know why you say stupid things?
One does't need all that crap about Faraday effect, Kerr effect and Bessel
functions to understand the PoR.
:
: >, snipping fuckheaded troll.
:
: But Androcles, I'm not here for you. I don't want some poor sap on
: sci.energy to think you are anything but a very cranky kook.
The crank is the poor sap who admits he rants, doesn't understand the PoR
and snips explanations to hide his embarrassment. That would be Bloomquist.
: > : > : Actually, I was ranting about Radium.
: > : >
: > : > Aside from you admitted ranting, you still haven't answered my
question.
: > : > You wrote:
: > : >
: > : > So, to put this to rest. The bit rate for information is one
'photon'
: > : > per. But as photons 'per' are undetectable in the real world,
: > : >
: > : > I asked : Per what?
: > :
: > : What ever you want. What difference does it make?
: >
: > Your bullshit, you support it, ignorant snipping imbecile.
: > I answered all you questions, you snip, you bastard.
:
: No you didn't.
Yes I did, you snipped it to hide your arrogant ignorance and bigotry.
You are a liar as well as a cranky troll.
: What difference does it make?
None to me, it's your ranting and meaningless "per".
:
: > What "measurements", ignorant LYING RANTING SNIPPING CUNT?
:
: You need a 'My Therapy Buddy'.
: http://www.mytherapybuddy.com/
You need locking up.
Radium
> For standard broadcast AM, the amplitude of the modulating signal is
> expressed as a percentage of the amplitude of the carrier. 100% is defined
> as the point where the carrier becomes cut off on the negative modulating
> signal excursion. The percentage could be expressed as decibels as well: dB
> = 20*log(Vm/Vc), where 0 dB equals 100%.
In this case, how many dB is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000)%? How many volts is is this extremely small
percent?
NOTE: 10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
Radium
> For standard broadcast AM, the amplitude of the modulating signal is
> expressed as a percentage of the amplitude of the carrier.
What is the amplitude of the carrier signal measured in?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Normally one of watts, ERP, or field strength depending on what you
are trying to accomplish.
Radium
> Normally one of watts, ERP, or field strength depending on what you
> are trying to accomplish.
Watts. That's watt I thought.
To confirm, the wattage of a carrier signal is determined by the
number of the photons[of a same specific radio-frequency]-per-second.
Right?
Also, by field strength, you mean the strength of the magnetic fields
[measured in amperes-per-meter] and electric fields [measured in volts-
per-meter]] that make up the radio carrier wave. Right?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > Normally one of watts, ERP, or field strength depending on what you
> > are trying to accomplish.
> Watts. That's watt I thought.
> To confirm, the wattage of a carrier signal is determined by the
> number of the photons[of a same specific radio-frequency]-per-second.
> Right?
No, the total power out, which includes the modulation.
> Also, by field strength, you mean the strength of the magnetic fields
> [measured in amperes-per-meter] and electric fields [measured in volts-
> per-meter]] that make up the radio carrier wave. Right?
No, the total field strength, which includes the modulation, generally
measured in W/m^2.
Radium
> depending on what you
> are trying to accomplish.
Listening to distant magnetic signals from outer space, generated by
magnetars.
Laidback
: On Jul 4, 5:45 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
:
: To confirm, the wattage of a carrier signal is determined by the
: number of the photons[of a same specific radio-frequency]-per-second.
: Right?
Err~ what the!?~?!
Hi Radium,
Just a quick question...
What in the Universe are you referring to Photons for, when you are messing
around with the electromagnetic spectrum?
I would have thought one being educated in electronics one would disband the
extremely basic particle theories in favour of Field and wave theory?
Pete.
--
________________________________________
May the Universe return
100 Fold of your output.
Radium
> Hi Radium,
> Just a quick question...
> What in the Universe are you referring to Photons for, when you are messing
> around with the electromagnetic spectrum?
>
> I would have thought one being educated in electronics one would disband the
> extremely basic particle theories in favour of Field and wave theory?
Radio waves are photons. All forms of electromagnetic radiation have
the photon as their quantum unit.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
And are totally useless in understanding things like modulation at
RF frequencies.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Characterizing transmitters has little to nothing to do with receiving
signals from anything.
Karl Uppiano
I couldn't tell you, because you didn't state the carrier level. But once
you do, you have enough information, you do the math.
Karl Uppiano
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:n8cul4-...@mail.specsol.com...
While I agree that counting photons is not the preferred method, it is
possible. It is just that wave theory and spectral analysis are more
compatible with the electronics that we normally use to produce the radio
waves.
If I were taking a course in quantum mechanics, it would not surprise me to
find a question as an exercise or on an exam asking me to express radio
waves in terms of photons.
Radium
> Characterizing transmitters has little to nothing to do with receiving
> signals from anything.
I wasn't talking about transmitters.
Magnetars are object way out in the vast cosmos that generate magnetic
signals. Sometimes these magnetic signals are amplitude-modulated and
in the radio-frequency range.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> Hi:
>
> Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question as I decreased the
> modulation frequency to where it would be more realistic.
>
> I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
> carriers, and modulators.
>
> Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal [in this
> case, a pure-sine-wave-tone] with a frequency of 20 KHz and an
> amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
> nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
> eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
> power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
> power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?
>
> If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.
In modulation theory, anything and everthing is mathematically
possible.
Which is really why we invented digital modulation for the
superfically dense like scientists.
Since it accomplishes two critical things.
It never even mentions idiot and irrelevent issues like photons,
and it never mentions idiot and irrelevent things like spinors.
> I am assuming it is mathematically-possible because Paul Cardinale
> said that there is no higher limit to the frequency a carrier wave can
> transport -- regardless of the carrier wave's frequency. In addition,
> Karl Uppiano said 2.89e6-photons-per-second is the minimum wattage
> required to carry an audio signal.
>
> 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) second is an
> extremely short amount of time. 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
> power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond is even shorter because a
> nanosecond is shorter than a second.
>
> Giga-eon = a billion eons
>
> Eon = a billion years
>
> *nanocycle = billionth of a cycle
>
> Gigaphoton = a billion photons
>
> 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 -- now that is one
> large large number.
>
> 10^1,000,000,000 = 10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000
>
> So you get:
>
> (10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
> power-1,000,000,000)
>
> 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) = 10^-(10-to-the-
> power-1,000,000,000)-to-the-power-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000)
>
> 10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
> power-1,000,000,000) is an extremely small number at it equals 10-to-
> the-power-NEGATIVE-[(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-
> to-the-power-1,000,000,000)]
>
> No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
> jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
> really interested in this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Like what, how many photons at a given frequency equals a watt?
Modulation is analog. Looking at it at a quantum level is essentially
meaningless.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > Characterizing transmitters has little to nothing to do with receiving
> > signals from anything.
> I wasn't talking about transmitters.
Yes, you were.
You are so ignorant you don't know what you're talking about.
<snip idiocy>
zzbu...@netscape.net
> In sci.physics.electromag Karl Uppiano <karl.uppi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <j...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> >news:n8cul4-...@mail.specsol.com...
> > > In sci.physics.electromag Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jul 4, 9:02 pm, "Laidback" <laidb...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>
> > >> > Hi Radium,
> > >> > Just a quick question...
> > >> > What in the Universe are you referring to Photons for, when you are
> > >> > messing
> > >> > around with the electromagnetic spectrum?
>
> > >> > I would have thought one being educated in electronics one would
> > >> > disband the
> > >> > extremely basic particle theories in favour of Field and wave theory?
>
> > >> Radio waves are photons. All forms of electromagnetic radiation have
> > >> the photon as their quantum unit.
>
> > > And are totally useless in understanding things like modulation at
> > > RF frequencies.
> > While I agree that counting photons is not the preferred method, it is
> > possible. It is just that wave theory and spectral analysis are more
> > compatible with the electronics that we normally use to produce the radio
> > waves.
> > If I were taking a course in quantum mechanics, it would not surprise me to
> > find a question as an exercise or on an exam asking me to express radio
> > waves in terms of photons.
>
> Like what, how many photons at a given frequency equals a watt?
>
> Modulation is analog. Looking at it at a quantum level is essentially
> meaningless.
Well, that is wrong.
Since Modulation is not only essentially, it is quintessentially
about modulators, not idiot analog or digital,
Since analog is nothing but idiots with slide rules,
and digital is nothing but idiots with rule slides.
Which is where group theory enters the big picture.
Since quantum groups are nothing but Higg's Bozons,
and relatvistic groups are nothing but idiots
with post-docs in Poincare groups evolving at
the incredible speed of the null set.
Which has a speed of EXACTLY -c.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Karl Uppiano
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:iidvl4-...@mail.specsol.com...
As I said, it is not the preferred way of looking at it, but it is of
academing interest to show the wave/particle duality.
> Modulation is analog. Looking at it at a quantum level is essentially
> meaningless.
The etymology of the word "analog" means "proportional to" or "equivalent".
I can certainly produce a stream of photons proportional to some arbitrary
carrier level, and I can further inject more or less photons in an amount
that is proportional to a modulating signal. It might not be practical, but
it is hardly meaningless. Sound is analog, but it is not meaningless to chop
it into samples, quantize the samples, store and process them in the digital
domain, and finally, play them back as analog audio.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> <j...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>
> news:iidvl4-...@mail.specsol.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In sci.physics.electromag Karl Uppiano <karl.uppi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> <j...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> >>news:n8cul4-...@mail.specsol.com...
Sound is nothing but noise.
It's not meaningful to do anything with it, other than
play reject with morons doing Sgt Pepper's songs.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
And what would you ask after that that is somehow relevant to modulation
with sine waves?
> > Modulation is analog. Looking at it at a quantum level is essentially
> > meaningless.
> The etymology of the word "analog" means "proportional to" or "equivalent".
> I can certainly produce a stream of photons proportional to some arbitrary
> carrier level, and I can further inject more or less photons in an amount
> that is proportional to a modulating signal. It might not be practical, but
> it is hardly meaningless. Sound is analog, but it is not meaningless to chop
> it into samples, quantize the samples, store and process them in the digital
> domain, and finally, play them back as analog audio.
Changing the number of photons changes amplitude. There are better
and more practical ways to keep track of amplitude like volts and watts.
OK, so a 100%, single tone, AM signal has 25% of the photons in the
lower sideband, 25% of the photons in the upper sideband, and 50% of
the photons in the carrier; now what?
That's just about everything you can say at the photon level.
Write me a expression for the modulated signal in the time domain in
terms of photons.
EM radiation can be viewed as both quanta and waves.
Using wave theory produces understandable equations for modulation.
Using photons produces childish, babbling nonsense.
It is possible to dig a swimming pool using an ice cream scoop. That
doesn't mean it is a particularly good idea to do so.
Both the quanta view and the wave view are tools to solve problems.
The intelligent person uses the appropriate tool for the problem.
Laidback
"Radium" <gluc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183610642.9...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
And there is the key where one must be aware the photon is merely a
theoretical quanta..
In reality, pHotons are not real, and heres some further data to consider as
to why most advanced electronic physicists don't refer to photons as do most
students fresh out of uni..
When one considers electron flow and how it is utilized in the creation of
electromagnetic waves we should consider what occurs at the onset of the
energy that is propagated from a solid medium to a gaseous and or near
vacuum medium..
That's the (solid) transmitting antenna and the implied quanta of electron
charge propagating the charge in a gas as in our atmosphere and or we could
even be transmitting in a near vacuum where mass is even further
decompressed if we are designing a satellites communications.
It should be noted the gas and or near vacuum are also mass only they are
with differing ratios of Potential Kinetic Energy determined via the amount
of meeting velocities to the given area, and therefore the energy is still
being propagated from mass to mass..
Pete.
--
:
Laidback
"Karl Uppiano" <karl.u...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8c0ji.13007$bh5.3705@trndny01...
:
: <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
:
Yes <LOL> I can see the difficulty one would have with having to go back to
some thing so grossly inadequate.
Cheers,
Laidback
:
: <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
:
Heres a consideration..
where does the pHotons structure end and the rest of the universe begin.
consider this carefully and you should come to the conclusion that particles
simply are not a possible reality, it is for this reason in advanced physics
one needs to come to grips with field theory, special and general relativity
where one is reintroduced to Newtons Laws, but more to the details as to the
velocities that imply force.
Cheers,
Karl Uppiano
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:3qqvl4-...@mail.specsol.com...
Perhaps you got the mistaken idea that I am promoting that as the preferred
way of doing things. I am not. I said so in my earlier post. I am an
electronics engineer, and I use the standard formulae for calculating
sidebands, modulation index and wattage, just like everybody else.
> OK, so a 100%, single tone, AM signal has 25% of the photons in the
> lower sideband, 25% of the photons in the upper sideband, and 50% of
> the photons in the carrier; now what?
>
> That's just about everything you can say at the photon level.
When you want to know the absolute minimum theoretical power necessary to
transmit intelligence, photon quanta are the ultimate limiting factor (noise
and interference are probably larger problems in most practical situations).
But in the field of information theory, they do pay attention to this stuff.
> Write me a expression for the modulated signal in the time domain in
> terms of photons.
As I said, I don't wish to do that. But if I did, it would be similar to the
continuous equations but with different units. The reason being that such
large numbers of photons are usually involved that you can ignore the
quantization. The photonic version *would* be the more general case.
I really think that the frequency domain equations would be more
interesting.
> EM radiation can be viewed as both quanta and waves.
>
> Using wave theory produces understandable equations for modulation.
>
> Using photons produces childish, babbling nonsense.
Again, perhaps you got the mistaken idea that I am promoting that as the
preferred way of doing things. But I am interested in looking at things in
alternative ways at times, if for no other reason than the pure fun of it.
And who knows, I might just see something useful. Quantum mechanics is used
in many areas today that were firmly in the continuous domain just a few
years ago. For example, hard disk read/write heads now use electron
tunneling instead of magnetic coils to interact with the magnetic
information on the disk. I'm sure someone thought that was childish babbling
nonsense until we really needed 250 GB HDDs.
> It is possible to dig a swimming pool using an ice cream scoop. That
> doesn't mean it is a particularly good idea to do so.
No argument there.
> Both the quanta view and the wave view are tools to solve problems.
>
> The intelligent person uses the appropriate tool for the problem.
Which is why I do not count photons in my everyday work.
Karl Uppiano
"Laidback" <laid...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:f6kctg$ko6$1...@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
Where does it need to?
> consider this carefully and you should come to the conclusion that
> particles
> simply are not a possible reality, it is for this reason in advanced
> physics
> one needs to come to grips with field theory, special and general
> relativity
> where one is reintroduced to Newtons Laws, but more to the details as to
> the
> velocities that imply force.
I don't think I am going to argue that point with you. Richard Feynman won
the Nobel prize for his work in Quantum Electrodynamics, where photons come
in quite handy, thank you very much. They fill a need, bridge a gap in
explaining how the universe works. For our needs, they are as real as
electrons. Real or not doesn't matter. The mere idea of photons helps us
solve problems.
Karl Uppiano
Frankly, I have no problem thinking in either domain, and I see nothing that
distinguishes it as adequate or not. I use the commonly accepted models and
units for my everyday calculations. But if our senses happened to be more
attuned to the atomic scale, we might have more difficulty modeling waves
and other continuous phenomena.
Laidback
:
: "Laidback" <laid...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
Thats great!..
But if we go back and consider it via the awkward photons, what medium is
assigned to the area where one photons particle like structure ends and or
the area to the next photons particles structure and or inference to its
form?
Cheers,
Pete..