[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 1.41 MB, 1194x722, rad kid.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:10:23 2010 No.1820398 [Reply] [Original]

Hey you closet cases.

I never come here but had a question, probably based on a fundamental misunderstanding of basic physics.

If light moves in waves, and light is photons, do those photons move in waves?

If e just measures the speed of light from Here to There (I know it's the other way around), and since light is traveling up and down its wave as it goes from Here to There... is light traveling faster than the speed of light? Is the wavelength short enough to make a difference?

In return, I will educate you on what Rad looks like

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:12:23 2010 No.1820405

>If light moves in waves, and light is photons, do those photons move in waves?

Yes.

>If e just measures the speed of light from Here to There (I know it's the other way around), and since light is traveling up and down its wave as it goes from Here to There... is light traveling faster than the speed of light? Is the wavelength short enough to make a difference?

No, light is traveling precisely at the speed of light.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:12:23 2010 No.1820404 the waves dont move up and down, they fluctuate between concentrated and less concentrated

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:12:23 2010 No.1820406 File: 71 KB, 369x563, Jeff Divine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Part 2 - does this make any difference anyhow? I'm contemplating the whole speed of light barrier thingamajig... Splain me

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:13:23 2010 No.1820409 Waves are just how photons look when you use classical physics.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:14:23 2010 No.1820410

>>1820405

So the amplitude of the waves makes no difference? The fact that the photons are taking a long windy road instead of a freeway doesn't change anything? That doesn't make sense, unless the amplitude is part of the calculation to get the speed of light. Maybe it is

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:15:23 2010 No.1820413 >>1820410 see >>1820404

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:16:23 2010 No.1820417 File: 75 KB, 500x732, RAD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm starting to think I don't understand what a wave is then. Poppycock

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:18:23 2010 No.1820426 >>1820417 just imagine waves on the beach, moments of calm with rhythmic pulses of increased water flow hitting the beach

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:19:23 2010 No.1820430 >>1820410 read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave#Sinusoidal_waves

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:25:23 2010 No.1820445 photons are virtual particles meaning they ain't really particles, they just appear like it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:33:23 2010 No.1820456 >>1820445 >photons are virtual particles No, not all photons are virtual There are "virtual photons" and regular photons.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:34:23 2010 No.1820460 >>1820456 this is why i love physics, you can always get a little more technical about it

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:37:23 2010 No.1820466

>>1820456
>>1820445
heads up,
wikipedia - virtual particle >For example, the energy carried from one winding of a transformer to another, in quantum terms is carried by virtual photons, not real photons.
^this is bullshit and fundamental materialist propoganda

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:40:23 2010 No.1820472

>>1820410
Photons don't follow a wave pattern when they travel. The wave is a condition of the environment the photon is travelling trough.

Also, photons aren't real particles as in the common perception of particles. Photons are both the wave AND the particle.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:42:23 2010 No.1820480

>>1820460
fuck the technical semantics crap, there are no particles in reality. There is just sections of space within sections of space and the only points are on mathematical models. Sure they want to find gravitons and higgs bosons but only so they can say "ok guys, this time, for reals, we finally broke down teh matter into indivisible units and btw there is no God"

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:48:23 2010 No.1820490 >>1820466 The statement is correct, the energy is carried by virtual particles. What fundemenalist progaganda? WTF are you talking about? Troll?

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:50:23 2010 No.1820497

>>1820480
We're past finding the smallest particle, we just tell that to the common folk that still believe there is a smallest particle.
We all left that principle when we found out particles <--> waves and the smaller you go the thinner the boundaries.

Enjoy your backwards view of the world.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:51:23 2010 No.1820506
File: 27 KB, 466x300, 1267739874466.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1820480
>only so they can say "ok guys, this time, for reals, we finally broke down teh matter into indivisible units

Are you fucking retarded? They want to find the graviton and Higg so one day we can manipluate gravity as easy as we maniuplate electricity? Do you not understand that? WTF are you 12?

Also, of course there is no god......LMAO

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:53:23 2010 No.1820511 File: 20 KB, 200x201, 1282766780484.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1820490 virtual troll.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:54:23 2010 No.1820516 File: 416 KB, 634x478, gtfo_stewart.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1820480 Just GTFO, you ignorant Son of a Bitch

>>	The Oracle Wed Sep 29 05:55:23 2010 No.1820517 >>1820497 You should be able to answer my riddle. What is infinitely small looking from the outside in, but infinitely large from this inside out?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:56:23 2010 No.1820522 >>1820517 my cock

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 05:58:23 2010 No.1820530 File: 66 KB, 395x400, 1267582691958.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1820517 I got a riddle for you.... Whats green and black....JUST GTFO!

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 06:01:23 2010 No.1820540

>>1820497
nah, nothing is backwards to me. Actually your statement is backwards because it works off of other people's explanations rather than your own original insight and experimentation (not citation). To me there is only energy, space and a strange geometry which binds the 2.

>>1820516
another basic display of dogma... I can only encourage more, etc.

>>1820506
dohoho, its sooo simple, of course.. just like particles (which aren't solid).

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 06:02:23 2010 No.1820541 File: 75 KB, 516x292, Wave-particle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 06:07:23 2010 No.1820549 File: 30 KB, 600x514, 1272939253923.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1820540 Im glad you finally understand the importance of finding the higgs and/or graviton. It is nice to see someone learning somthing on /sci/! Good luck little guy!

sage sage Wed Sep 29 06:13:23 2010 No.1820565
File: 9 KB, 278x266, 002.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1820540
>original insight and experimentation (not citation)

So you expect everyone to work at the supercollider? Now I know you are fukcing retarded.

Your logic is shit teir. If you dont build a knowledge base off others work shit never gets done. No one can be that stupid, try harder troll!

0/10

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 06:15:23 2010 No.1820570

>>1820549
>It is nice to see someone learning somthing on /sci/!
classic example of snake-oil salesman tactics. What is there to learn about something that doesn't exist? Also people from Lockheed martin have already found a way to negate gravity but its far from being practical. I figure you could relate to that considering how much money is spent looking for something to just "manipluate gravity". The only gravity being manipulated by groups like CERN is the financial black-hole they actively pander to the public.

Anonymous Wed Sep 29 06:18:23 2010 No.1820579

>>1820565
holy crap, brace yourself son, I don't think you can reverse the brain washing but consider this...
maybe you/we don't need a super collider.

Oh and in case I'm being too pretentious, care to enlighten me with epistemology behind "the" supercollider?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 06:20:23 2010 No.1820584 File: 47 KB, 498x414, 004a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1820579 >>1820570

>>	sage sage Wed Sep 29 06:22:23 2010 No.1820587 File: 110 KB, 500x338, obvious_troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1820570

>>	sage sage Wed Sep 29 06:23:23 2010 No.1820590 File: 14 KB, 800x716, 1278531816790.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1820579 cute little troll

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 06:27:23 2010 No.1820596 >>1820584 >I have no argument therefore you are a troll its like being served on a golden platter with you in a cute french maid's uniform and me brutally sexually harassmenting dat ass.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 06:30:23 2010 No.1820599 >>1820590 >>1820587 more spellbound servants. Every image you post lets me better understand your confusion.

>>	sage sage Wed Sep 29 06:32:23 2010 No.1820605 File: 4 KB, 205x176, 1278347275433.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1820599

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 06:38:23 2010 No.1820616 File: 18 KB, 173x171, 1261304308766.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1820605

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 06:47:23 2010 No.1820632 >>1820506 >>1820565 >>1820584 >>1820587 >>1820590 >>1820605 >peckerheads feeding their young >regurgitation

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 07:10:23 2010 No.1820700 bump for truth

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 29 07:19:23 2010 No.1820732 >Hey you closet cases.

The ThunderBird !!m4ANrdZXfVL Wed Sep 29 07:34:23 2010 No.1820762

What you're looking for is called the Wave-Particle Duality. In very layman's terms bordering on the incorrect, light is photons when you're looking, and waves when you're not.

The photons travel in a straight line, however they travel not as individual particles, but as disembodied waves. Therefore, the amplitude of the wave (not wavelength) doesn't come into play, since there are practically no photons to follow that sine wave. Instead, the photons 'materialize' or convert back to particles from waves when you do a measurement on the light in question (eg. you see it or measure the wavelength to determine the color).

Once again, this borders on the incorrect, but this is the easiest way to grasp the concept. Photons always travel as both wave and particle, but if you try to measure them, you can only record the properties of the particle, while the wave component is measured indirectly, for example by having it interfere with itself (two-slit experiment), and measuring the resulting changes in the particle properties.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]