|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: General Relativity. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
RoyLennigan Inactive Member |
quote:do you know nothing of chemistry or physics? intensity of light produced by any reaction has a direct relation to the amount of energy given off.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RoyLennigan Inactive Member |
quote: therefore the intensity of light has a direct correlation to the energy of a photon.
quote: the energy, or wavelength, of a photon determines the frequency of the light. the frequency of light determines the intensity of how we see that light. but the higher or lower the frequency doesnt always mean a more or less visible intense light. it entrails a more or less actual intensity. there are other aspects to light than what we see with our own eyes. photons all move at the speed of light. but depending on the wavelength of the photon, we see it differently. there is a small spectrum of light that we can view, everything else is invisible to us. that is why an x-ray would appear to be weaker, but is in fact very intense. File:Atmospheric electromagnetic transmittance or opacity.jpg - Wikipedia
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RoyLennigan Inactive Member |
quote: i know that, thats what i was saying in my post. it seemed to me that madeofstarstuff was talking about how we see light. i was trying to say that how we see light is not how all light actally is. so basically you and i are in agreement. please re-read my post with how it pertains to the two subjects:"the energy, or wavelength, of a photon determines the frequency of the light (physics). the frequency of light determines the intensity of how we see that light (psychophysics). but the higher or lower the frequency doesnt always mean a more or less visible intense light (psychophysics). it entails a more or less actual intensity (physics). there are other aspects to light than what we see with our own eyes(ppsychophysics). photons all move at the speed of light(physics). but depending on the wavelength of the photon, we see it differently(psycophysics). there is a small spectrum of light that we can view, everything else is invisible to us(anatomy . that is why an x-ray would appear to be weaker, but is in fact very intense."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RoyLennigan Inactive Member |
quote: i think you're pretty much right. but brightness is a part of psychophysics. there is photon intensity, which relates to the frequency, but it can only be viewed as brightness in the visible spectrum. a gamma ray has the most intensity, but we cannot see it because the wavelengths are too small.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RoyLennigan Inactive Member |
just to clear some things up, i think none of us really completely understand photons, including me.
from wikipedia:"In physics, the photon is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, for instance light... The photon is one of the elementary particles. Its interactions with electrons and atomic nuclei account for a great many of the features of matter, such as the existence and stability of atoms, molecules, and solids. These interactions are studied in quantum electrodynamics (QED), which is the oldest part of the Standard Model of particle physics. In some respects a photon acts as a particle, for instance when registered by the light sensitive device in a camera. In other respects, a photon acts like a wave, as when passing through the optics in a camera. According to the so-called wave-particle duality in quantum physics, it is natural for the photon to display either aspect of its nature, according to the circumstances. Normally, light is formed from a large number of photons, with the intensity or brightness related to the number of them. At low intensity, it requires very sensitive instruments, used in astronomy or spectroscopy, for instance, to detect the individual photons..." Photon - Wikipedia as for ben's question, after reading this article i think i can shed some light on the subject (no pun intended)
quote: The frequency of light is a "measurement of the number of times that a repeated event occurs per unit time,"(1) or the measurement of oscillations per second, in the usual case. the frequency of a photon is inversely proportional to the wavelength; the higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength. The wavelength is the length between a crest and the next crest of a wave, or the "distance between repeating units of a wave pattern."(2) The amplitude of a wave is the "magnitude of the maximum disturbance in the medium during one wave cycle," (3) or the 'height' of a wave on a graph. a diagram depicting the wavelength, frequency and amplitude:
1) Frequency - Wikipedia2) Wavelength - Wikipedia 3) Amplitude - Wikipedia
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RoyLennigan Inactive Member |
i think i see what you are saying. i dont really know much about photons, but in my work with sound waves, the amplitude does correspond to the energy, or the volume of a sound. i would assume the same goes for light. also, it takes more energy to create a higher amplitude.
none of these terms correspond to how many photons there are in a light wave, though. the frequency, amplitude, and wavelength can all be applied to a single photon or many photons. say a single photon is travelling through space. we observe the photon and see that its oscillations repeat every one second, therefore it has a frequecy of 1Hz. Its wavelength can be determined by dividing the speed of the wave type (here, the speed of light) by the frequency of the wave (here, 1Hz). The amplitude is a bit more difficult, but it basically measures the energy of the wave. Intensity of a wave is the average fluctuation of energy through time. It is the energy per unit volume divided by the velocity of that energy. Intensity - Wikipedia This message has been edited by RoyLennigan, 09-28-2005 11:55 AM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RoyLennigan Inactive Member |
quote:analogous to sound, the 'volume' of a photon would be the amplitude, or the energy of the wave/particle. a single photon does have amplitude, just as many photons have amplitude. intensity and amplitude (in physics) are entirely different things. amplitude relates to how much energy the wave has, while intensity relates to the overall fluctuation of that energy per unit of time. i don't really know how the amplitude of one frequency differs from another. from what i've read it would seem that two different frequencies could have the same amplitude, yet have different intensities. the energy of a photon is definately not independant of its amplitude, seeing as amplitude is just a unit for measurement of energy. quote:amplitude and intensity are not synonymous, especially in my usage here. in my previous posts i was ignorant to the definition of intensity in physics, but i have since read into it. "In physics, the word "intensity" is not synonymous with "strength", "amplitude", or "level", as it sometimes is in colloquial speech. "intensity is a measure of the time-averaged energy flux. To find the intensity, take the energy density (that is, the energy per unit volume) and multiply it by the velocity at which the energy is moving. The resulting vector has the units of power divided by area (i.e. watt/m)." Intensity - Wikipedia
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RoyLennigan Inactive Member |
would this diagram refer to what you are talking about, 1.61803?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RoyLennigan Inactive Member |
but you've got to understand that all these terms do not 'determine' an aspect of the wave. they are all measurements of certain aspects of the wave. the energy of a photon is not dependant upon its frequency, but rather the other way around. the amplitude, and frequency both depend on the energy of a single photon of the wave. the intensity depends on the energy of the entire wave, or source.
about the site specifying that energy of a wave is dependant upon frequency only; well like i said. the energy is not dependant, but the other way around. and for the other part; amplitude is a measure of an aspect of the wave that corresponds to the amount of energy it has. when you turn up the volume on your speakers, you are increasing the amplitude of the sound wave they are producing, but you aren't changing the frequency of the notes being played. it works the same way with light. the last picture is sort of misleading because it is not in 3D. refer to the link in 1.61803's post after mine, message 42. electric fields and magnetic fields are at perpendicular angles. photons are grouped together that have the same frequency, amplitude, and wavelength; they all come from the same source, and have the same properties. the measurement that differentiates is intensity. intensity measures the energy per unit volume (volume=space) multiplied by the velocity. so it measures the overall energy of the entire wave, which varies depending on the number of photons. intesity is measured in watts, perhaps you can relate that to something familiar This message has been edited by RoyLennigan, 09-29-2005 02:08 AM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RoyLennigan Inactive Member |
quote: yes, much better.
quote: amplitude is determined by the energy leaving the source as an interaction between the electric field and magnetic field. this energy then travels with individual photons. altogether, that energy would be the intensity (energy/unit volume * velocity). i think the only way the amplitude of a photon ever changes is when energy is lost in collisions. but if you added more photons then it would have a greater intensity, but they have to come from somewhere. i dont know if adding more photons affects the amplitude of the wave at all, because amplitude is a scalar, it measures the distance that the wave displaces. i would think, therefore, that amplitude only relates to the energy of each photon, not the overall energy. i know that you can measure the amplitude of one single photon, and you can also measure the amplitude of a group of photons from the same source, acting as a continuous wave.
quote: yes, of course, thats why i said it applies to a group of photons from the same source. white light is only white because we cannot differentiate all the different frequencies it consists of.
quote: frequency is related to the amount of energy in that, in a period of time, a higher frequency will carry more energy than a lower frequency. but the actual amount of energy carried by a photon is measured by amplitude. think of microwaves. the frequency of a microwave is less than that of visible light. but then how does it cook your food so fast? well, the particles have a greater amplitude. the same frequency can have different amplitudes, it depends on the source it is coming from. In fact, frequency, amplitude, wavelength, and intensity all depend on the source of the light. the same source produces the same frequency, amplitude, wavelength, and intensity, unless that source itself changes (chemically). all waves in nature are analagous, and the information i have been giving is information directly on photons. the only info about sound i have given is from my own experience. try looking at a wider variety of sites, specifically ones that are more professional.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RoyLennigan Inactive Member |
quote:frequency is measured by oscillations per unit of time. how is that not mentioning time? the way i see it, a higher frequency has more oscillations, that means the 'waves' of the electric field and the magnetic field are closer together. this means that the packets of energy are closer together. therefore more energy would be transfered in one second of a 2Hz wave than in one second of a 1Hz wave. am i right? can you break down that equation for me? E is energy i presume, f for frequency, but what is h? btw, madeofstarstuff, sorry if i come off as condescending at all, its just my way of getting people to think more. believe me, this debate has made me learn a lot more about light than i previously did. This message has been edited by RoyLennigan, 09-30-2005 12:55 AM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RoyLennigan Inactive Member |
yeah i've read a little bit about planck's constant. its just hard to remember so much, especially when i've learned most of it in the last few days. the two slits experiments is a pretty easy way to show wave-particle duality, but it seemed more and more clear to me as i studied this how wave-particle duality worked. i don't know if thats from naivete of the subject or what. early in my investigations i saw how frequency was the amount of oscillations, or number of crests in the wave, per second. then what 1.61803 said made me realize that these oscillations are the movement of a photon and some other particle (what would be the particle for the magnetic field?) later i saw a diagram (A) that made me think of particles along a wave path. it seems to me like the two types of particles are revolving around each other at 90 degree angles to their direction of movement.
your second paragraph seems to further my premise that amplitude is the energy carried by individual photons, or packets as you put it, and not the entire group. This message has been edited by RoyLennigan, 09-30-2005 11:46 AM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RoyLennigan Inactive Member |
JustinC, can you look back at message 37 posted by 1.61803 and how that corresponds to your post about how the properties of light cannot be described as both wave and particle?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024