The wave-like appearance of light is caused by self-sync behavior of a dynamic force on the static medium of space-time. It's like water going downhill that twists and turns (around pi) or lots of people walking over a poorly stabilized bridge, except it has more dimensions involved and travels in vortexes. What we measure as energy frequencies doesn't change unless the gravitic temperature of the space-time medium changes. The vortex in which energy radiates when polarized (like lasers) demonstrates that the space-time medium it travels through can also be warped by energy. This is confirmed by laser cooling experiments that cause the atom to decay as its suspension medium changes, like carbonated bubbles escaping an open soft-drink.
The speed of light itself will depend on the state of space-time. I predict that future interferometer measurements will detect anomolous energy that seems to come from outside the edge of the Universe. What we'll see is a quasar pulsing through dark-matter (slush-like) space-time between universal mud-holes.
Topic: How fast is the speed of light? (Read 1670 times)
?? frequency determines colour in the visible spectrum
?? frequency determines colour in the visible spectrum
wavelength
Frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional: c=f*λ
So they can both be used to determine the color/electromagnetic wave type.
I'm sorry to correct this but no, it's the wavelength that gives that property to the light.
Also in this case c=f*λ, c is not a constant because of different density materials.
here's an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
When light goes through a material, the apparent speed may be less than the speed of light in a vacuum, but the actual speed of the photons is still at 299,792,458 meters/second, they are simply bouncing off, being absorbed, and reemitted by atoms in the material, not going in a completely straight line.
It's true that each photon travels at constant "c". But you still missing something, the atomic interaction with the photon.
I thought I defined atomic interaction pretty clearly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
?? frequency determines colour in the visible spectrum
?? frequency determines colour in the visible spectrum
wavelength
Frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional: c=f*λ
So they can both be used to determine the color/electromagnetic wave type.
I'm sorry to correct this but no, it's the wavelength that gives that property to the light.
Also in this case c=f*λ, c is not a constant because of different density materials.
here's an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
When light goes through a material, the apparent speed may be less than the speed of light in a vacuum, but the actual speed of the photons is still at 299,792,458 meters/second, they are simply bouncing off, being absorbed, and reemitted by atoms in the material, not going in a completely straight line.
It's true that each photon travels at constant "c". But you still missing something, the atomic interaction with the photon.
I thought I defined atomic interaction pretty clearly.
?? frequency determines colour in the visible spectrum
?? frequency determines colour in the visible spectrum
wavelength
Frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional: c=f*λ
So they can both be used to determine the color/electromagnetic wave type.
I'm sorry to correct this but no, it's the wavelength that gives that property to the light.
Also in this case c=f*λ, c is not a constant because of different density materials.
here's an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
When light goes through a material, the apparent speed may be less than the speed of light in a vacuum, but the actual speed of the photons is still at 299,792,458 meters/second, they are simply bouncing off, being absorbed, and reemitted by atoms in the material, not going in a completely straight line.
It's true that each photon travels at constant "c". But you still missing something, the atomic interaction with the photon.
?? frequency determines colour in the visible spectrum
?? frequency determines colour in the visible spectrum
wavelength
Frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional: c=f*λ
So they can both be used to determine the color/electromagnetic wave type.
I'm sorry to correct this but no, it's the wavelength that gives that property to the light.
Also in this case c=f*λ, c is not a constant because of different density materials.
here's an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
When light goes through a material, the apparent speed may be less than the speed of light in a vacuum, but the actual speed of the photons is still at 299,792,458 meters/second, they are simply bouncing off, being absorbed, and reemitted by atoms in the material, not going in a completely straight line.
?? frequency determines colour in the visible spectrum
?? frequency determines colour in the visible spectrum
wavelength
Frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional: c=f*λ
So they can both be used to determine the color/electromagnetic wave type.
I'm sorry to correct this but no, it's the wavelength that gives that property to the light.
Also in this case c=f*λ, c is not a constant because of different density materials.
here's an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
?? frequency determines colour in the visible spectrum
?? frequency determines colour in the visible spectrum
wavelength
Frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional: c=f*λ
So they can both be used to determine the color/electromagnetic wave type.
?? frequency determines colour in the visible spectrum
wavelength
?? frequency determines colour in the visible spectrum
No, I was talking about single photons and they have been experimenting with singles for decades.
The "well defined" frequency and wavelength is directly related (inverse) adjusted for density of the medium unless I've really forgotten all of my physics.
The "well defined" frequency and wavelength is directly related (inverse) adjusted for density of the medium unless I've really forgotten all of my physics.
frequency is invariable, depends only from the emitting point. Wavelength yes.
No, I was talking about single photons and they have been experimenting with singles for decades.
The "well defined" frequency and wavelength is directly related (inverse) adjusted for density of the medium unless I've really forgotten all of my physics.
The "well defined" frequency and wavelength is directly related (inverse) adjusted for density of the medium unless I've really forgotten all of my physics.
I don't especially care about the wavelength, if it's x-ray or visible spectrum. Unless the amplitude is linked to wavelength which is something I wasn't considering.
As for energy quanta having no diameter, photons are mainly energy, like electrons or protons, and are built on a nice assembly of quarks (I suppose) so there would be a size associated with that.
How big is a photon? I haven't checked recently.
As for energy quanta having no diameter, photons are mainly energy, like electrons or protons, and are built on a nice assembly of quarks (I suppose) so there would be a size associated with that.
How big is a photon? I haven't checked recently.
Well for a wave like a photon with a good defined wavelength and frequency, you cannot spot it in space ( it occupies all of it).
When talking about a dense electromagnetic field we need to talk about a "package of photons", "many electromagnetic waves". In that case the efective wavelength of the package of photons gives us the size.
... hits light switch.... finds out the speed of light.......
2fast4you
I don't especially care about the wavelength, if it's x-ray or visible spectrum. Unless the amplitude is linked to wavelength which is something I wasn't considering.
As for energy quanta having no diameter, photons are mainly energy, like electrons or protons, and are built on a nice assembly of quarks (I suppose) so there would be a size associated with that.
How big is a photon? I haven't checked recently.
As for energy quanta having no diameter, photons are mainly energy, like electrons or protons, and are built on a nice assembly of quarks (I suppose) so there would be a size associated with that.
How big is a photon? I haven't checked recently.
I don't know about all of that; but I do like the idea that from the point of view of the light, it only travels in straight lines, it's just that the space time we see is bent. Even better, from the light's point of view it's everywhere along its path at once, at infinite speed. I wonder what black holes are like from the point of view of light -- the infinite curvature of the black hole meets the infinite speed of the light.
In the physics before Maxwell (to simplify this a bit) light is a transverse wave. It doesn't travel strictly in straight lines. That's why some materials are transparent and we can see through them. See this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens%E2%80%93Fresnel_principle
What is the height of the wave for the photon? If it is less than the diameter of the energy quanta, is it actually travelling 3.41 times further or just wobbling around an interior point? Also, what about particle spin, are you measuring a point on the surface as it s[ins on the wave trajectory?
(BTW - I have someone in my office who can answer these questions, but thought it would be better to see the results here.)
(BTW - I have someone in my office who can answer these questions, but thought it would be better to see the results here.)
height of the wave?
I'm assuming you mean wavelength, it's not a constant value the wavelength of the photon as it depends on how "energetic" that photon is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
I think he's asking what double the amplitude of a light ray is.
What is the height of the wave for the photon? If it is less than the diameter of the energy quanta, is it actually travelling 3.41 times further or just wobbling around an interior point? Also, what about particle spin, are you measuring a point on the surface as it s[ins on the wave trajectory?
(BTW - I have someone in my office who can answer these questions, but thought it would be better to see the results here.)
(BTW - I have someone in my office who can answer these questions, but thought it would be better to see the results here.)
height of the wave?
I'm assuming you mean wavelength, it's not a constant value the wavelength of the photon as it depends on how "energetic" that photon is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
Energy quanta is a measure of energy. It has no diameter.
Also while talking about a particle spin you suppose that it's not a wave. Particles are not waves.
We separate both concepts particle and wave to understand better the physics phenomenons.
What is the height of the wave for the photon? If it is less than the diameter of the energy quanta, is it actually travelling 3.41 times further or just wobbling around an interior point? Also, what about particle spin, are you measuring a point on the surface as it s[ins on the wave trajectory?
(BTW - I have someone in my office who can answer these questions, but thought it would be better to see the results here.)
(BTW - I have someone in my office who can answer these questions, but thought it would be better to see the results here.)
I don't know about all of that; but I do like the idea that from the point of view of the light, it only travels in straight lines, it's just that the space time we see is bent. Even better, from the light's point of view it's everywhere along its path at once, at infinite speed. I wonder what black holes are like from the point of view of light -- the infinite curvature of the black hole meets the infinite speed of the light.
Jump to: