/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11409385
Where is the evidence for the particulate nature of light?
How do you know that,
All I am saying is that light, is always a wave.
Never a massless particle.
A "photon" is just a wave-packet, it is quantised, but not in to matter.
It is simply a wave propagating in the background EMF left over from the big bang, that permeates the observable universe. Electrons induce this wave by moving between valence shells of atoms.
Electrons are negatively charged and that's why there movement induces a field change in the surrounding EMF

>>11401775
It's frequency is in terrahertz,
Sound frequency is in just regular hertz lol.
So it's like 37 octaves above the limit of human hearing (octave is a doubling of frequency.)

What you are perceiving as vision is your brains interpretation of light frequency.
What you hear is your brains interpretation of soundthey recently discovered dogs and cats have retina chemicals that are sensitive to electromagnetic frequencies (megahertz kilohertz etc.)

So when you look at light you are "hearing it"
Humans seem to be calibrated for about 8 octaves per input.
ABCDEFG (7natural notes per octave, 12 if you include sharps and flats, natural are white keys, sharps and flats are black, so 12 notes per octave, 7 octaves, 88 or so keys on a standard keyboard.

Light works exactly the same.
ROYGBIV, 7 colours,

Now this is where it gets cool.

A chord is made of three mathematically compatible notes, (explanation takes pages and pages so I won't expand, it's called "music theory")

Like typically the first, third and fifth interval of these notes.
Like C E G is C major. C Eflat and G is C minor, as it has a "flatted third"

Anyway white light is Red Green and Blue.
So it's a chord. Just like in music.
These sciences work exactly the same.

Music theory is brutally difficult and complex. And way harder than quantum physics, but it's the most powerful science.
I use it in organic chemical engineering.
It's used in analytical chemistry if you are NMRing some unknown samples, it just used sympathetic resonance.

And if you interpret the wrong input, like "tasting sound" or " "hearing colour" that's synthesis.

>>11394497
The foundational and elementary theoretical maths was done in 1900, 67 years before the discovery of cosmic radiation. Which acts as an EMF field that is the medium for electromagnetic radiation (light) to travel.
Einstein and his peers had to do all the equations without one of the variables.

This is exactly the same as the designs Leonardo da Vinci did of helicopters and planes.
It was genius, it was pioneering. It's awesome.
But it will never work.
Just like quantum mechanics.
They are looking for theoretical (imaginary) particles, but the maths is wrong. The equations are wrong.

>>11344410
I am making the statement there are no photons or particles smaller than an electron. The entire electromagnetic spectrum from the lowest frequency we can measure to the smallest wavelength we can measure, are all just electromagnetic waves.
There is no evidence that light (an arbitrary classification we make based of the frequency human retinas absorb) is a particle, or any other frequency of electromagnetic radiation.

>>11273755
>I don't know what the EM Spectrum is

well now you do.

>>11040118
"I don't know what the electromagnetic spectrum delineates"


>>11040110
>>11040114

Welcome to the math and science board. Where almost nobody knows what math or science actually is or is supposed to be used for.

>>11040118
You don't even know what the electromagnetic spectrum delineates. I could care less about your uneducated opinion.

>>11040114
>>11040110
>>11040105
Welcome to the math and science board. Where almost nobody knows what math or science actually is or is supposed to be used for.

>>10715108
>Would they have to be as large as Earth-based telescopes due to lack of atmosphere?
Radio doesn't get blocked by the atmosphere, but it does pick up local noise, which is why big arrays are in the middle of fucking nowhere.
Also, the bigger your collector, the bigger the radio waves it can receive. You can also daisy chain multiple telescopes into an array for an effective area of the widest points of the array.
If I had infinity money I'd build multiple linked arrays of multi spectrum telescopes. Radio and multiple visual bandwidths.

>>10380558

Not sure what your overall point is but:

>What does it mean that you can describe light as a wave or a particle?

It means there's a relationship between particles and waves, this is important when trying to understand how everything is connected by basic forces. Eienstien's theory of photons helped combine two previously disparate forces (electricity and magnetism) into one electro-magnetic force united by e=mc2. Photos are very small, plausibly massless particles that move energy in both wave-like and particle-like patterns based upon the amount of energy within them.

To be clear: While photons are not electrons, they operate by similar principles. Also to be clear: the relationship between electricity and magnetism was well known and proven before, but there was no theoretical basis for it. Einstein changed that. It was this observation that gave the theoretical proof demonstrating how magnetism and electricity were united as one single force, and in the context of the 20th century it paved the way for nuclear power (wherein particles are shot at an atom to release more particles, aka the photoelectric effect) and later String Theory which is attempting to do the same thing using Gravitons.

>Is there light that is a wave and other light somewhere else that isn't?

X-rays and neutrons shot at uranium inside bombs are forms of "light" that behave as particles, and are hazardous to your health as a result. On the other end of the EM spectrum, radio waves are a form of "light" that behave as waves. The "light" we can see acts like a wave at low frequencies (red, yellow colors) and violent at high frequencies - this is why ultraviolet light can give you a sunburn and can kill bacteria because it destroys cells' abilities to reproduce.

tldr see pic

>>9823024
0/10 bait, but serious question in reply: Why do you think there's even a slight chance that the universe makes intuitive sense to your human mind? Why do you have that expectation? Do you also believe that what you see with your eyes is reality?

>>9743997
EM

is the electromagnetic spectrum a natural resource?

>>7381208
I get the feeling that the answer is supposed to be radio waves, which I know to be an electromagnetic wave, but a quick search proved me wrong...
Anyway regardless of the radio example guys, I've always been fond of this scientific topics like basic principles applied to everyday life, I want to learn more about them, thinking about which college field to apply to but I don't know where to start. I suppose it will be an engineering field of some sort am I right?