/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14544218]

If all electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light, why can radio waves travel further distances than waves with higher frequencies? Why are radio waves used for long distance communication?

[Anonymous No.14544230]

>>14544218
Because the amount of electromagnetic radiation a material absorbs is dependent on its frequency. The atmosphere is fairly transparent to the radio wavelengths used for communication.

[Anonymous No.14544237]

>>14544230
So we could theoretically use gamma waves in empty space for communication and it would go just as fast as radio waves?

[Anonymous No.14544325]

>>14544237

Correct they all go the same speed. Light is the speed of causality. It's the universe's calculation speed.

You will get a few people rambling about time dilation and all kinds of bullshit. Seriously you are best not to listen to them. Information has a propagation speed, c the speed of light, that's all you need to know. Everything else is crackpottery and yeah, that crackpottery has reached the highest levels.

[Anonymous No.14544375]

>>14544218
read Maxwells equations. All the answers are there.

[Anonymous No.14544947]

>>14544325
>Correct they all go the same speed.
Correct

>crackpottery has reached the highest levels
Correct

>Light is the speed of causality. It's the universe's calculation speed
>Information has a propagation speed, c the speed of light, that's all you need to know
Here it is

[Anonymous No.14545421]

>>14544325
>Light is the speed of causality. It's the universe's calculation speed.
>Information has a propagation speed, c the speed of light
Pop sci / philosophy drivel. The expansion of the universe is faster than c, and quantum entanglement contradicts the limitation of information propagation by c. Causality isn't even a well-defined concept anymore in relativity.

[Anonymous No.14545443]

>>14545421
>The expansion of the universe is faster than c

Here's the crackpottery. You don't know this, that's fine: few do.

The Big Bang is not real. It's a popular theory because it was proposed by a Catholic Priest and endorsed by the Pope as a proof of God's creation, and guess what religion funds a disproportionate amount of schools? You guessed it: The Catholics.

Yes, distant galaxies are redshifted. Guess what has proven to cause redshift? Gravity. Why? Because gravity pulls and stretches emitted photons. Guess what has gravity? Galaxies and stars.

Hubble himself called Big Bang theory Dubious and for good reason.

[Anonymous No.14545457]

>>14544325
>>14544947
>>14545421
>>14545443
SCHIZO FIGHT

[Anonymous No.14545464]

>>14545457
>Pop sci / philosophy drivel. The expansion of the universe is faster than c, and quantum entanglement contradicts the limitation of information propagation by c. Causality isn't even a well-defined concept anymore in relativity.
>>14545457

>SCHIZO FIGHT

Nah, not interested. Read that horseshit above back. It does a fine job all on its own of wrecking itself.

[Anonymous No.14545678]

>>14545464
SCHIZO DOWN, WE HAVE A WINNER

[Anonymous No.14545781]

>>14545464
>The expansion of the universe is faster than c
Expansion is not anything traveling.

>quantum entanglement contradicts the limitation of information propagation by c
Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

>Causality isn't even a well-defined concept anymore in relativity.
Wrong. It just means a cause of an effect is in the past light cone of the effect, and an effect is in the future light cone of its cause.

[Anonymous No.14545788]

>>14545678
fugg. i had my money on the other schizo

[Anonymous No.14545791]

>>14545464
Dumb schizo

[Anonymous No.14545805]

>>14544237
Theoretically, yes. And since you could get higher bandwidths with gamma rays, you could theoretically send the information at a faster rate (Shannon Hartley theorem).

Of course, this would be practically impossible since a) it is very difficult to modulate gamma rays and b) the gamma rays would fry whatever receiver you are using

[Anonymous No.14545810]

>>14544218
They don't even know what colour is exactly. They can say what belongs to it, but not what it IS.

[Anonymous No.14545832]

>>14545810
It's the perception of different wavelengths of light.

[Anonymous No.14545855]

>>14545832
Not quite. There is no well defined wavelength for the color pink. Human color perception is a combination of red, green, and blue.

[Anonymous No.14545870]

>>14545855
>Not quite. There is no well defined wavelength for the color pink.
It's a spectrum, so why would there be a defined wavelength for pink?

>Human color perception is a combination of red, green, and blue.
And?

[Anonymous No.14545914]

No one has mentioned radio waves bouncing off the ionosphere yet. Certain layers of the upper atmosphere are reflective to certain radio frequencies, letting one bounce signals off of it to allow those further away to receive them. This is why you can listen to AM radio from stations hundreds of miles away, while with FM you are limited to like 40, 50 miles, depending on how high the radio tower is and local geography.

[Anonymous No.14545915]

>>14545781
Entanglement has never been shown to be distinct from hidden information due to the expense of running quantum experiments at absolute zero.

Standard candles are necessary links for distant astronomical phenomena that lack parallax. Assumptions of composition of celestial objects due to small sample sizes are shaky, so distances of objects out of parallax range and off the stellar orbital plane are guesswork. Differential red shift could come from differential mass content of galaxies.

Relativity doesn't work for the quantum scale, and causality is necessary to the study of physics in general.

∆
∆∆

[Anonymous No.14545944]

>>14545855
Anon the majority of perceived colors are invented in your perception of various combinations of the destruction of molecules sensitive to 3 bands of real light™. Pink is not located at one of the 3 Cardinal hues and is therefore not a color of light, but a combination of primary lights.

[Anonymous No.14545960]

>>14545781
>Expansion is not anything traveling.
You didn't say traveling. You said calculation speed of the universe. Expansion is something the universe does, and hence calculates, if you apparently adhere to this primitive computational model of the universe, dumbass.
>quantum entanglement contradicts the limitation of information propagation by c
>Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
Midwit playing with words. You redefine information to mean communication. Doesn't change the fact though that "spooky action at a distance" is happening faster than c. Wave functions pre collapse don't have to obey the speed limit.
>It just means a cause of an effect is in the past light cone of the effect, and an effect is in the future light cone of its cause.
And things outside the light cone don't exist or what? Great job misinterpreting relativity as solipsism, retard.

[Anonymous No.14545966]

>>14545914
Ionospheric layers are stronger in daytime than nighttime as the ions are produced in interactions with solar wind. As the density and reactivity of various gaseous ions are different, different frequencies bounce differently, corresponding to the ions that they bounce off of. All light travels in straight lines, and so the range is increased by having mirrors for the flashlights that are radio transmitters. WiFi falls off because even non ionized gas molecules absorb them. The apparent range is a combination of intensity of background parts of the spectrum, absorption, and reflection. With radio telescopes you can bounce certain signals off the moon, using it like satellite radio repeaters.

[Anonymous No.14545988]

>>14545960
>"Spooky action at a distance"
Sauce on this?
From what I understand the spooky action at a distance was Einstein balking at confirmation of particle-wave duality by independent observers summing individual particle reports over geographically separate locations. He was misunderstanding the duality as communication of information between experiments to form the interference patterns, rather than the electrons traveling as waves and interfering with themselves.

[Anonymous No.14546008]

>>14545966
Entanglement is what lasers are made of, it's not effective for communication due to the uncertainty principle.

[Anonymous No.14546069]

>>14545915
>Entanglement has never been shown to be distinct from hidden information due to the expense of running quantum experiments at absolute zero.
Bell's theorem shows hidden variable theorems don't work.

>Standard candles are necessary links for distant astronomical phenomena that lack parallax.
Non sequitur. How does questioning standard candles show that anything travels faster than c?

>Relativity doesn't work for the quantum scale, and causality is necessary to the study of physics in general.
Non sequitur. You were supposed to show how causality is not well defined in relativity.

Dumb schizo.

[Anonymous No.14546312]

>>14545960
>You didn't say traveling.
>Expansion is not anything traveling.

>You said calculation speed of the universe.
Nope.

>Midwit playing with words. You redefine information to mean communication.
Communication is information propagation, dumb schizo.

>Doesn't change the fact though that "spooky action at a distance" is happening faster than c.
No force, work, or information is transferred, so why would c even apply in the first place? I'm sure you can find many examples of things faster than c, like the "movement" of a shadow. So what?

>Wave functions pre collapse don't have to obey the speed limit.
What is the speed of a wavefunction? That doesn't even make sense.

>And things outside the light cone don't exist or what?
??? No, they just don't have a casual effect on the event. Can you not read simple English? You just seem to be posting random bullshit, which gets refuted, and then you post more random bullshit as a response that doesn't even support the first round of bullshit.

To summarize, every claim you made in >>14545421 is dead wrong, and you didn't even try to defend them. Why are you still posting? Dumb schizo.

[Anonymous No.14546321]

>>14545421
>quantum
Opinion invalidated

[Anonymous No.14547611]

Schizo thread