Temporal Dilemma

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
We have shown that EM waves are emitted, transmitted, and absorbed in discrete energy packets, or quanta and that an EM wave can not propagate for less then one complete cycle. This leads to the question, how many quanta equal one complete EM wave cycle.
 
Look, Shadow, you don't get it. For some reason you seem to think that I know nothing about this topic. Let me explain it once more (this is getting tedious)...

One of the equations for emission from an atomic source (ie by electrons dropping energy levels) is E=nhv . This doesn't preclude any values of v - n and v are independant variables. n simply gives the number of photons emitted, and has nothing to do with their frequency or wavelength. E=hv is the version of this equation for only 1 electron (n=1) , and is used to calculate the energy of a photon of given v , putting no restrictions on v . There's no reason here to believe that 1 Hz is some sort of magical lower limit on v .

Time~Master, you said (my emphasis):

"We have shown that EM waves are emitted, transmitted, and absorbed in discrete energy packets, or quanta and that **an EM wave can not propagate for less then one complete cycle**."

** You didn't show this, and it's central to everything you've said up to now. My question is, why did you keep saying that 1 Hz is the minimum frequency for a photon? A photon at 1/2 Hz would still propagate for 1 cycle, if given enough time (ie twice as long as a 1 Hz photon), so even by your logic it's not disallowed.

I'm just searching for some reason from either of you to justify your statements that 1 Hz defines some minimum energy for a photon. That's what I've been trying to find for the last couple posts, and have yet to be obliged.
 
Oops. In the 2nd paragraph where I said "for only one electron" I meant "for only 1 photon." My bad. I type these fast, let me know if I trip up like that somewhere else.
 
Frequency is the time variable and is analog in nature, v can hold any value, just as you said. The energy variable 'h' and is DIGITAL in nature, and when you put the two together you get ONE photon with an energy of ONE 'h' delivered over a period of time designated by (the value for) 'v'. So each and every photon has the same energy (6.63*10-34Js)..even a photon of 2 or more seconds duration.

This has a bearing on the time travel subject if you consider that any photon with an energy other than that of the Planck constant is a virtual photon and is either a part of the past or future, while a "Planck Photon" is the qui-son-non of "time-now".

Raz, thanks for your help in the math department, but I think we have shown that fact and interpritation of fact are two different worlds.
 
"Raz, thanks for your help in the math department, but I think we have shown that fact and interpritation of fact are two different worlds."

Good Point Shadow!
It is in "Fact" all a matter of perception. thus there will always remain intersecting points of discussion that some of us will just simply have to:] "agree, to dissagree"
happy.gif
 
Time02112, I am glad you are handling this board. I don't think I'd have the patience for it. Your posts are like a lighthouse beacon for way faring ships, keeping everthing on course, from crashing. Great job!!

------------------
...~The Doctor~...
"There is no time to waste, only time to change"..."The sum of all knowledge is that you and your reality do not exist; only thought and imagination are real, and therefore...I am."~ Magi Systems Forums~
 
Hey Doc!!!! Ditto to what you said!!!
Time02112 has been doing a great job on TTI and Magi Systems Forum, but you have also been doing a great job on both boards. You two make a great team and both boards are better because of it. My hat is off to both of you!!! Teamwork is nothing without a team!!!! Problems don't get solved by everyone agreeing from the start, because without a variety of perspectives and thoughts to convey while taking into consideration a common goal, we would still be living in the stone ages. The Key to the next level is beyond our reach if we don't work together. Once again, HAT'S OFF!!!

Sincerely, Draco
 
Look, Shadow, I'm going to stop explaining this over and over again, because you make no effort to try and understand what you're getting wrong. The simple fact is, h is not an energy. As I said before, energy is measured in J , not J*s , and you cannot give h the label "energy". The equation E=hv obviously (I'm not joking, this is really obvious) shows that the energy of a photon is not constant, and in fact varies with v , defining no limits on this variation. I really feel sorry that you cannot grasp this simple fact. I would suggest, respectfully, that you take some time to learn more physics, to get a more intuitive grasp of how variables work with each other, and how the SI unit system work. You have some interesting ways of looking at things, but I think you need to temper that with some actual hard knowledge, to ensure you're not making flubs on the basic levels.

Sadly shaking my head,
Raz
 
RAZ & Shadow;
instead of arguing, why don't the two of you prove to one another as to where you acquired the source of your information, you base your differnce of perception upon, perhaps this way the both of you can look at each others views objectively, by examining the facts.
 
Thank you for your patience Mr, Matazz. I never like to discount the possability that you are 100% correct and I am barking up the wrong tree here. However, all you've said is that I should have more precision and structure in my thinking. How about adding a little flexability to yours?

I started referring to 'h' as energy because you didn't seem to catch on when I was calling it 'power' (aka watts x time). To me what E=hv says is that the TIME (aka frequency v) is variable, and that 'h' (aka power) is constant. They do call it Plancks CONSTANT don't they? The way you describe it wouldn't 'h' have to be some arbitrary quantity that had no meaning unless it appeared along with a real measured variable? (The same way an 'inch' is just an idea untill something is measured as being an inch long.)

So if I do have my units straightened out, it's still, as I've been trying to say. The energy can vary but the POWER, of a photon remanins the same: one 'h'.
 
Time02112

The sourse of my information?

Truthfully, I made it up as a way to bother Taz..... and its working marvelously, (not that he will ever admit to it). The funny part is that I'm probably right anyway. Any old radar engineers out here who could decide this one?
 
Razmatazz:
The n in the equation E=nhf is the principal quantum number which represents the possible energy level of an atom, not the number of photons emitted.
In an earlier post we talked about Albert Einstein PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT in which he said that EM waves are emitted, transmitted, and absorbed in discrete energy packets, particles of eletromagnetic energy. His work was later confirmed by other scientist. You agreed with this in an earlier post, why do you now disagree?

Now, based on your statement that a 1/2cps wave is a 1cp2s wave we can show that a EM wave has a minimum energy of 6.63*10^-34 j.

Because 1/2 cps is a fractional part of a whole wave, when we use 1/2 cps in the equation E=hf the value of E will be a fractional part of the total energy of the wave. We can find the total energy by dividing the fractional energy by the fractional part of the wave.

We can show this by useing 1/2 cps in the equation E=hf.

E = (6.626*10^-34 js)
mad.gif
1/2/s)
E = 3.313*10^-34 j

This is the energy of 1/2 the total wave. Therefore, by dividing 3.313*10^-34j by 1/2 we get the total energy (6.626*10^-34j) for the complete wave.
It can be shown that for all values of f <= 1 the total energy of a complete wave will always = (6.626*10^-34j).[P>It is clear that a 1Hz wave propagates at the minimum energy for all EM waves.
 
Just throwing in my two cents here again into this topic.
Okay, I've been folowing this argument for a bit now and I have to say so far Razamatazz has been making the most sense.

Shadow:
A constant does not have to be a limiting factor. It is just a number to convert one thing to another. Think of E=mc². c² is the constant of converting mass to energy. Mass is measured in kilograms but that doesn't mean that the lowest amount of mass possible is 1 kilogram, does it? That is effectively what you are saying if you believe that you cannot have an EM wave of less than 1hz.

Time~Master:
What you said in your last post is true but I do not exacly see what the relevance of it is. OK a wave of 1hz has the energy of 6.6 X 10^34j but then there is nothing to stop a wave of 1/2hz having the energy of 3.3 X 10^34j is there. What you were saying about this being the energy of half the wave is pointless. It's like saying that a 2hz EM wave which has the energy of 1.3 X 10^35j is twice the wave. It's all a bit obvious isn't it? If you mean something else please explain fully. All I can make out is that if I said I had 50 cents you would say "Ahhhh but that's half a dollar!"

I hope I've been of some help. Please feel free to make to make a mockery of me if I've made a mistake.
 
James, seems to me that you are trying to pass off a half-a-penny.

I never said a two Hertz wave was impossible. What I did say is that such a wave would have 6.63 X 10]-34 Js of power, the same an any other EM wave (or more properly 'photon') of any frequency.
 
James:
What I have shown is that 6.626*10^-34j is the minimum energy that can be emitted, transmitted, and absorbed. This is the minimum energy of a complete EM wave. We can calculate the energy of half a wave, but we can not emit, transmit, are absorb anything less then a complete wave. It is important to understand that the energy of 1/2Hz is the energy of 1/2 a complete wave, not the energy of the complete wave. This holds true for all values of f less then 1.
 
Okay, Shadow, like I said it's pointless to try to explain to you if you make no effort to grasp the ideas. So I won't. I just want to point out that you didn't start out talking about power - your whole 'mission statement' or whatever it was was about a minimum energy. They're very different, power, work, and energy. If you actually tried to learn something instead of just making stuff up you'd get this.

Time~Master, I still maintain that you haven't proved that 1/2 Hz photons can't exist. You said it, but didn't show that it came from the equations. E=hv puts no limits on v or E . By the math, they're infinitely variable. A 1/2 Hz photon is just one where the energy of one wave (E=3.313*10^-34 J) is spread out over a longer wave. The longer the wave, the less the energy.

If you stop and think about what you're saying, notice that your position would assign a fundamental importance to the length of a second. But the second is just an arbitrary number of cycles of the radiation emitted by an excited cesium atom. It would be folly to think that it had some universal significance.

James, I agree with you completely.
 
Okay right I think I've this worked out now.

Shadow:
I'll start with you. Plancks Constant is a constant. Obviously. It is a number to convert the frequency of the EM wave to find the energy of the wave. It is NOT the power of a proton. Power is the ability of something to do work(energy) over a period of time. You know this, I've read it in an earlier post by you. Your supposition that all protons have this same value of power simply does not hold water. It ONLY works when you have a wave of 1 hz. Think of the wave I described as being 1/2hz. All photons have the energy of 6.6 X 10^-34j. Thus this proton has the power of 3.3 X 10^-34js(2 seconds to oscillate P(js)=E(j)/t(s). Try a photon belonging to a wave of 2hz - 1/2 a second to oscilate therefore two photons transmit energy in 1 second. See where I'm going?

Time~Master/TimeMaster a1:
Yes I now understand what you are saying. I must have been looking at my physics book upside down or something!!! I forgot that yes EM radiation is made up of 'DISCRETE' quantities. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Razmataz:
Hope you understand that last bit of the message to Time Master. It's true you can't have only half a photon transmitting enegy. I still believe you can have a half hertz wave but I just can't find an example to show a half photon in action. Do you know of a site which details the threshold frequencies of metals(looking for actual values).
 
James:
Do you understand why 6.626*10^-34j is the minimum energy of a complete wave and that it does not matter if it is a 1/2Hz(1 cycle per 2 second) or 1/4Hz(1 cycle per 4 second) wave. For any f Hz less then or equal to one the energy will allways equal 6.626*10^-34j.

This answers Razmatazz's question about how 1Hz defines the minimum energy of an EM wave.
 
Back
Top