/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8397360
You should stop writing books about things you don't understand and consider suicide. It's already nigh impossible to wade through all the trash looking for a good read.

>>8397389
I shall consider it, but in the meantime...

Again, I AM NOT WRITING A GODDAMN PHYSICS BOOK. If you have trouble finding something to read, consider getting a Goodreads account, rather than harassing random people you know nothing about.

My book is mainly history, with a bit of social sciences mixed in. These are topics I understand well, but I also think my argument would be remiss if I don't include that tidbit about how schizophrenic people react negatively to certain elecromagnetic waves, and thus have to include a brief explanation of it. I'd agree with your assessment, if I was pretending to be an expert in physics - I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination. I said so in the OP.

>>>/lit/

Don't write about shit you don't understand. It's a pathetic attempt to be esoteric.

>>8397402
You know literally nothing about me other than the posts I've made. I came here hat in hand, asking for someone's help. Where my knowledge is insufficient, I ask for help and/or I don't touch upon it. I'm repeating myself but I'm concentrating on psychology/evolution/history/economics which are topics I do understand quite well and are science related. Furthermore, my question is about physics, thus it very well deserves to be here.

I'm writing this book mainly for fun. Stop being such a hateful human being. You could well choose to ignore this thread, and we'd both be better off that way.

Are all electromagnetic waves a result of entropy within a system?

Short answer, no, but emission of radiation will change the entropy. I think you should leave this part out of your book

>>8397412
Thanks! That said, it's just a couple of sentences, and by no means the main argument of the book, hence why I'm asking for help.

>>8397417
Really though, the question doesn't make much sense. Entropy is the way that energy is ordered. So its sort of like asking "Are all electromagnetic waves a result of energy within a system".

>>8397428
Haha yes, I fully admit I'm kinda daft when it comes to physics. This is it, in regards to touching that topic in the book. I'm going to be talking about how people supposedly have a "natural instinct"

"People in the financial world often like to boast about having an animal instinct in regards to markets, and their potential developments. George Soros, for example, has claimed that he gets a back pain whenever he needs to make changes in his portfolio, well before he has had time to look at the facts. This statement seems odd, to say the least, from a psychological and evolutionary perspective.

In the first place, it bares a striking resemblance to people throughout history who allegedly received divine signals. The list of prophets receiving signs, to follow a certain life path, is long and often had a profound effect on history. Most of the time, the communication purportedly happened through innocuous telepathy. To explain this, it’s been suggested that some people’s temporal lobes are susceptible to common electromagnetic waves. Some people even go as far as feeling presences in a room, when under the influence of these waves. This is incidentally, a proposed theory as to why people experience ghostly presences in old houses with faulty wiring.

Nevertheless, judging by his career and general demeanour, Soros seems like a rational person without a history of psychotic episodes. As such, it has to be a psychosomatic symptom, his body is essentially willing the back pain into existence. This “mind over body” paradigm is hardly novel, in fact it’s a well known phenomena. The “placebo effect” is the tendency of the body to self correct a health issue when provided by an ineffectual, but seemingly convincing treatment..."

Then I'll go to talk about psychosomatic symptoms, the placebo/nocebo effect, the Baldwin effect, etc. No physics in sight haha

>>8397360
>wavelength that the particles possess
Particles don't have 'wavelength', waves, or more accurately sine waves do.

>>8397432
>wavelength that the particles possess.
Particles don't have wavelength, waves, or more accurately sine waves do.

>>8397432
If anyone's interested in the Schizophrenia/Electromagnetism thing, here's an introduction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

>>8397435
Basically, if you want to mention wavelength, you need to mention wave–particle duality.

>>8397432
That will probably be fine to all except the most pedantic physicists. Good luck with your writing.

>>8397395
>>8397360
NO. Emphatically, utterly, and completely NO.

You have no idea what you are talking about and should not write anything on the subject, as anon suggested.

In fact, you are so completely off-base that we can assume anything you did write would be an absolute horror shit-show that even a 6th grade science fair student could surpass with flying fucking colors.

>>8397438
You can talk about the wavelength of a photon without ever going into wave-particle duality. The guys not writing a physics book.

>>8397446
I was talking about in the proposed footnote:
"Electromagnetic waves are patterns of subatomic particles that are released as a result of processes requiring energy. The frequency at which the particles oscillate determines the type of radiation that they are. Everything from visible light, to x-rays to radio waves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and their prime difference is simply the wavelength that the particles possess."

Noting: "the wavelength that the particles possess."

That being, particles do not possess wavelength, which would mean, should he add that he would also need to explain wave–particle duality.

>>8397439
Thanks, I was just looking to write a brief footnote in regards to what electromagnetic waves were. That's why I started the thread, but it's kinda clear I only have a vague understanding of the topic hahaha

>>8397444
Yep, I agree, which is why I'm not focusing on it, or anything physics related for that matter. I'm barely able to write a footnote on the subject. I'm half tempted to just paraphrase the wikipedia entry, as I only need a couple of sentences at absolute best.

>>8397451
>vague understanding
>particles have wavelength
Sure. :^)

>>8397453
You get what I mean... I'm hardly someone who should be writing on physics. So I'm not. Outside of this ONE point, where I'm asking you guys for help, I'm not touching on physics ever again, and that's only because I'm sort of forced due to circumstances.

>>8397453
But particles do have wavelength. With photons, the wavelength is the most significant property. If you're going to be an asshole to a guy that's just asking for a little help, at least be correct.

>>8397455
I think I know what you're looking for:
When an electron moves a quantum, every quantum lost by an electron releases a photon.

>>8397458
>What is wave-particle duality?
BTFO.

>>8397458
Thanks, kindness is a rare thing to find on 4chan.

>>8397461
I understand wave particle duality. I'm not sure if you do.

>>8397464
In trying to make the point he shouldn't call them particles and if he's going to, he should mention their duality. If you want to 'duelity' with me, step up, son.

So in plain English, could anyone please explain what electromagnetic waves are? As this thread keeps making me doubt myself ever more. I initially wrote particles because I was thinking of photons, but I honestly don't know about any of what I wrote.

>>8397467
Its not incorrect to call photons particles. A photon is an elementary particle. Its also not incorrect to talk about the wavelength of particles. But you still feel the need to write things such as
>>8397453
Lose the trip, you don't know shit.

>>8397472
A photon is a quantum of electromagnetic radiation. They also exhibit duality as both a sine wave and particle, most apparent in things like photoelectric effect. They also act as the gauge boson for the electromagnetic force.

>>8397473
I don't think they should be called particles, I think they should be called what they are: "a quantum of electromagnetic radiation." And if you're going to mention them, you should mention their duality as both wave and particle.

>>8397480
>I think
>I don't think

Fuck off. We're dealing with facts here, not being pedantic.

>>8397485
True, I was just being a jackass, sorry. Anyway, you get the point I was trying to make.

>>8397472
In plain English, electromagnetic waves are photons. These are massless 'groups' of energy which oscillate at a given frequency. While oscillating, they produce electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to each other such as in pic related. An electron can emit a photon by dropping its energy level, or absorb a photon by increasing its energy level.

I'm bored and have an MSc in photonics, so feel free to probe further.

>>8397480
It's also something to consider that if the book isn't on any physics concepts, you have to assume the reader is about as specialized as the book/author and likely doesn't know much about physics either. You can give the most precise definition possible, but you can't guarantee the reader will even understand any of it in the first place, thus rendering the footnote ultimately useless. A brief, and simplified definition, despite sacrificing a small amount of accuracy, leaving the reader with a slightly incomplete understanding, is the most appropriate choice.

>>8397495
I mentioned this:
>>8397477
>>8397461
Although you get a (you) for:
>These are massless 'groups' of energy which oscillate at a given frequency.
Good job, anon.

>>8397497
Fair enough, I truly was being pedantic.

>>8397472
electromagnetic waves are just the change of electric field in space

>>8397508
This holy shit. Why is everyone in this thread a pop-scientist. This is all it is. No need to talk about wave particle duality of massless bundles of energy. Anyone with a real understanding of physics got more triggered from
>Electromagnetic waves are patterns of subatomic particles
than from
>the wavelength that the particles possess.

>>8397536
>>8397508
This literally tells the reader nothing that isn't already implied in the name.

Electromagnetic wave? Why, that's just electric and magnetic waves. Yes, its correct, but its far from informative.

>>8397558
>that's just electric and magnetic waves. Yes, its correct, but its far from informative.
It's more informative than the pop-science shit you're putting in it's place. How about you take the time to learn what magnetic and electric fields are before you claim schizo's can sense them.

>>8397581
I'm not the OP. I'm this guy >>8397495

>It's more informative than the pop-science shit you're putting in it's place

Its really not.

>>8397495
Not OP but how do you define the position wavefunction of a photon? Does it have the same wavelength as its EM field representation?

>>8397446
Photons don't have a wavelength until you use a device that measures a wave-like property any more than electrons have position until you use a device that measures a particle-like property.

>>8397360
Read "The Cosmic Code" by Pagels (RIP). It's an oldie but a goodie and does a decent job of taking about both the weirdness of wave-particle duality as well as some of the stranger implications of quantum mechanics.

>>8397495
Many thanks! I hope you don't mind, but I've taken your definition and included some examples. Would this be correct, or am I off kilter?

"Electromagnetic waves are photons. These are massless 'groups' of energy which oscillate at a given frequency. While oscillating, they produce electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to each other. An electron, the subatomic particle orbiting the atomic nucleus, can emit a photon by dropping its energy level. Everything from visible light, to x-rays to radio waves are stray photons oscillating at different frequencies. In other words, these are all different forms of radiation, which when grouped together form the electromagnetic spectrum."