[ 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: 18 KB, 400x400, spintop..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

incredibulitious Anonymous Sat Mar 17 03:37:41 2012 No.4474704 [Reply] [Original]

I have a simple question for you, followed by an incredible revelation.

Do there exist different shaped lightwaves?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 03:41:14 2012 No.4474712 0/10

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 03:45:36 2012 No.4474722 Nobody knows?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 03:49:09 2012 No.4474732 enjoy your ban

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 03:52:25 2012 No.4474737 ban? Don't be ridiculous. I'm about to prove the theory of relativity wrong. Someone answer that question.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 03:56:56 2012 No.4474743 defined "shaped"

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 03:58:04 2012 No.4474745 >>4474737 >I'm about to prove the theory of relativity wrong. I doubt that this will happen on a 4chan board, but I am interested to see where this goes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 04:10:32 2012 No.4474767 Shape. Some waves are longer than other waves, for example.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 04:17:21 2012 No.4474784 Nobody? It's not that hard a question.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 04:30:56 2012 No.4474813 >>4474784 >implying photons can be described in terms of spatial "shape"

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 04:34:20 2012 No.4474817 >>4474767 Not really. Your concept of waves is pretty lacking, so I doubt any argument you give based of it will be worth considering.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 04:35:29 2012 No.4474822 File: 278 KB, 554x539, tripfags.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] em radiation is just that, an oscillation of electric and magnetic fields. what do you mean, 'shape?'

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 04:39:53 2012 No.4474829 File: 4 KB, 462x504, Visible_EM_modes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] well, each colour of light has a different wavelength if that's what you mean.... >I'm about to prove the theory of relativity wrong. explain yourself

Anonymous Sat Mar 17 04:42:17 2012 No.4474835
File: 16 KB, 320x320, laughing cartoon guy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>about to prove relativity wrong

Be aware, OP, that everybody who has ever typed, written, or uttered this phrase has been laughably undereducated in the subject and obviously wrong.

Do go on, though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:02:40 2012 No.4474879 No waves are differ in length? Check your facts. Why do you think they have a use the word "wavelength"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:02:40 2012 No.4474884 they use*

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:03:48 2012 No.4474888 wow what the hell, No waves differ in length? Check your facts. Why do you think they use the word "wavelength"? I mean

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:06:04 2012 No.4474894 "well, each colour of light has a different wavelength if that's what you mean.... >I'm about to prove the theory of relativity wrong. explain yourself" Yes. Now what assumptions are made to come up with the wave equation?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:09:29 2012 No.4474897 The wave equation d²f(x,t)/dx²=(1/v²) d²f(x,t)/dt²

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:14:00 2012 No.4474902 Maybe this will make it easier. When does this function fill the wave equation: f(x,t) = asin(kx-wt) + Asin(Kx-Wt) ? as opposed to just f(x,t)=a*sin(kx-wt), it doesn't always necessarily fill the requirements for the wave equation.

Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:14:09 2012 No.4474904
File: 83 KB, 920x1325, girls-920-13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4474894
equations for light, and indeed the speed of light, can be derived from equations and constants from electricity and magnetism, no relativity needed

also, is this okay stuff to post on a work safe board?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:15:17 2012 No.4474906 So when DOES it fill the requirements? No need to point anything out mathematically, you can just explain it in a few words.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:24:12 2012 No.4474919 Fine. I'll do that. We have a pulse that moves through time, conserving its shape. Just from this assumption it can be derived that: d² f(x,t) / dx² = 1/v² * d² f(x,t) / dt² Does anyone disagree?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:30:01 2012 No.4474928 >>4474904 That will be fine. please and thank you for image

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:30:52 2012 No.4474927 What's a work safe board? :)

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:33:16 2012 No.4474932 >>4474919 >conserving its shape What do you mean by this?

Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:33:25 2012 No.4474933

>>4474927
They are the boards which have blue back grounds like this one and a few others (/sp/, /o/ etc) you cannot post porn/gruesome/ adult content images that are deemed offensive/illegal,

The boards with the orange/brown backgrounds are ok for posting adult content, but still not illegal content. (/b/, /soc/ etc)

They are in the rules if you havent seen them

Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:41:13 2012 No.4474941

"What do you mean by this?"
That the shape of the pulse remains the same.
a simple example: draw a graph of f(x)=a*sin(kx) then draw a graph of f(x) = a*sin(kx-2)
You'll notice that the latter looks the same but the position of the points are slightly different (they've moved two steps forward).

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:42:20 2012 No.4474944 k*2 I mean :)

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:44:37 2012 No.4474949 I'd suggest trying to get a decent understanding of differential equations before trying to think about this anymore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:48:08 2012 No.4474955 Why do you say that? You didn't even point out any errors. Can't do that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:51:24 2012 No.4474957 >>4474955 Your knowledge of the subject is bad enought that anything you say doesn't make any sense at all. Not even wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:55:56 2012 No.4474962 You still didn't point out what. Can you give me an example and maybe I can explain what lacks in your understanding.

Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:56:56 2012 No.4474963

So, I was told that light has mass, small, but it is supposed to have a mass since it's a wavelength and shit, I'm not into Physics or whereever that would fall into.

I called bullshit, but couldn' back up my claim.

PS: I think we were talking about faster than light particles/atoms/tachyons and I said that nothing could go faster than light since light doesn't have any mass?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:57:13 2012 No.4474966 >>4474962 For one thing, you seem to be under the impression that every wave needs to have a specific phase and wavelength.

Anonymous Sat Mar 17 05:59:20 2012 No.4474967

No. The speed of light is constant because it can be derived from Maxwell's equations that light fills the requirements for the wave equation and when certain conditions are met (we are in a vacuum), the speed of that wave is constant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation

Anonymous Sat Mar 17 06:01:37 2012 No.4474970

>>4474963
>I called bullshit, but couldn' back up my claim.

E = mc² is only true in the frame of reference where the particle is at rest. There is no such frame for light. The correct relationship is E² = (mc²)² + (cp)², which means

<div class="math">m^2 = \frac{E^2 - (cp)^2}{c^4}</div>

which is exactly zero for light.

Anonymous Sat Mar 17 06:03:52 2012 No.4474976

"For one thing, you seem to be under the impression that every wave needs to have a specific phase and wavelength."

What makes you think I say that? I merely said that in order to come to the wave equation we need to assume that the shape of the wave remains the same.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 06:04:01 2012 No.4474981 >>4474976 >I merely said that in order to come to the wave equation we need to assume that the shape of the wave remains the same. The word shape is meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 06:04:01 2012 No.4474982 Out of interest are you the same anonymous who claimed no waves differ from each other?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 06:04:52 2012 No.4474980 >>4474970 Many thanks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 06:05:08 2012 No.4474985 Why is it meaningless, silly person?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 06:07:24 2012 No.4474987 >>4474985 Shape is not a mathematical property of a wave. Unless you are able to express your point with equations in a sensible way, anything you say is pointless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 06:11:48 2012 No.4474990 Surely you can't be that silly. Read through my posts again before you say anything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 06:12:57 2012 No.4474992 >>4474990 Your posts make no sense. You are too ignorant to even understand that you are not making sense. You have no knowledge of what it means to deal with solutions of a differential equations. Learn something and then come back.

Anonymous Sat Mar 17 06:34:29 2012 No.4475031

>light has mass

But it has no rest mass because it never rests. You can use the following eqns to ascribe an energy-equivalent mass (m) to a photon with a rest mass (m0) of zero and a momentum of p:

E^2=m^2*c^4=m0^2*c^4+p^2*c^2

p_photon=E_photon/c=h/l=h*f/c

l=wavelength, f=frequency and h=quantum of action (Planck's constant)

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 06:37:45 2012 No.4475038 >>4475031 Oh, /sci/, how can you still get things completely wrong when the correct answer has already been provided?

Anonymous Sat Mar 17 06:52:37 2012 No.4475061

The dimwit aside, everyone probably understands what I'm talking about.
So, if we determine that the shape of the wave must remain the same, it must follow that lightwave shapes should remain the same as a function of time. This is how we come to the wave equation in the first place. It doesn't matter how we determine that shape, the most important part is that it's a function of x-coordinates and time. This is all good and well. Maxwell's equations truly do fill the wave equation perfectly.
However, if we take into account that the space is inflating, following the FRW-metric one can come to the conclusion that lightwaves stretch as a function of time. This would imply that light can not fill all the requirements for wave equations perfectly.

I'll conclude this rather unpleasant conversation by copying a link:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0249

PDF file can be downloaded from the top-right corner.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 06:55:00 2012 No.4475067 >>4475061 >I have no idea what I'm talking about so I'll just string together a bunch of words to make people think I'm smart >here, have this unpublished paper written by a biologist to prove I'm right

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 06:57:16 2012 No.4475074 Boohoo sand in your pussy much? I would hate to be proven wrong, too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 07:11:52 2012 No.4475100 The writers there probably came to a different theory but the emphasis is on "empirical evidence". also it's a pretty trusted source.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 07:36:49 2012 No.4475162 bump

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 08:36:44 2012 No.4475283 No objections?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 09:08:36 2012 No.4475329 hmm that does sound pretty convincing..

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 17 09:54:04 2012 No.4475381 So I take it the theory of relativity is now proven wrong?

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 ]