 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Magnetism is a field of photons at a frequency you just can't see.
>
> ???
I'm not sure what your question is.
What do you think carries the magnetism from the magnet to the item
influenced by that magnet?
I'll give you a hint: It isn't electrons, and it isn't gravity, and it's
not the strong or weak nuclear force. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:41:46 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom>
> did spake, saying:
>
>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>> On a more serious note can anyone explain refraction in terms of
>>> particles.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/0691125759/ref=pd_bbs_1
>>
> Thanks, though I note one commentator said "The problem is that we never
> get an explanation for why the vectors point the way the do, are rotated
> just so, etc.
That's the wrong book for *that* question. You asked "can anyone explain
refraction in terms of particles". That's what the book answers.
That person is complaining that we don't know why the laws of physics
are the way they are. Well, yes. But I don't think you'll ever solve
that for the most current theories.
The book for that is this:
http://www.amazon.com/Character-Physical-Law-Modern-Library/dp/0679601279/ref=pd_bbs_10/105-9307687-6115653
I also recommend "six easy pieces" and "six not so easy pieces".
> Without that it's simply voodoo, and nothing has been
> explained."
He gives you a handful of rules (simplified to ignore polarization) to
tell you how to figure out what's going to happen. This is stuff you
determine by making measurements. He doesn't explain why the universe
picked those rules, no.
never mind. Amazon UK stocks it, but I'll check out my local
> store first.
It's cool. Check out the two "six pieces" parts too.
The lectures on computation are from a very physical POV, fwiw. Stuff
like explaining the quantum tensors that would let you build a truly
quantum computer. I got very little out of it except for one or two
insights that aren't really very useful unless you're arguing about
turing machines or perfect randomness or some such.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Magnetism is a field of photons at a frequency you just can't see.
>>
>> ???
>
> I'm not sure what your question is.
>
> What do you think carries the magnetism from the magnet to the item
> influenced by that magnet?
>
> I'll give you a hint: It isn't electrons, and it isn't gravity, and it's
> not the strong or weak nuclear force. :-)
Fair enough. I incorrectly thought the term photon was used only for
electromagnetic phenomena.
--
First Rule of Intelligent Tinkering - Save all parts.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> (I still can't figure out why you can use an oscilator to make radio
>>> waves, but not light rays...)
>>
>> Lasers?
>
> I don't actually know how those work. I was under the impression that it
> works by exciting atoms so that they emit photons - much the same way a
> lump of iron glows if you put it in a hot fire. (But with some mirrors in
> there to ensure the light only travels in one direction...)
Photons from a glowing lump of iron (or even an LED) have all different
wavelengths and all different polarisations. Photons from a laser all have
virtually the same wavelength and polarisation, it's very different.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:00:37 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> A stopwatch and an astronaut with really quick reflexes.
>
> You're not joking. The first evidence that light had a speed was someone
> (galileo?) noticing that the shadows cast by jupiter's moons on
> jupiter's clouds were not where they should have been.
I seem to recall something about a moon being eclipsed when it shouldn't
have been.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:19:35 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:41:46 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrco
m>
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>>> On a more serious note can anyone explain refraction in terms of
>>>> particles.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/06911
25759/ref=pd_bbs_1
>> Thanks, though I note one commentator said "The problem is that we
>> never get an explanation for why the vectors point the way the do, ar
e
>> rotated just so, etc.
>
> That's the wrong book for *that* question. You asked "can anyone expla
in
> refraction in terms of particles". That's what the book answers.
>
> That person is complaining that we don't know why the laws of physics
> are the way they are. Well, yes. But I don't think you'll ever solve
> that for the most current theories.
so he's *describing* refraction in terms of particles not *explaining* i
t
:-)
> The book for that is this:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Character-Physical-Law-Modern-Library/dp/0679601
279/ref=pd_bbs_10/105-9307687-6115653
>
> I also recommend "six easy pieces" and "six not so easy pieces".
>
> > Without that it's simply voodoo, and nothing has been
>> explained."
>
> He gives you a handful of rules (simplified to ignore polarization) to
> tell you how to figure out what's going to happen. This is stuff you
> determine by making measurements. He doesn't explain why the universe
> picked those rules, no.
>
> never mind. Amazon UK stocks it, but I'll check out my local
>> store first.
>
> It's cool. Check out the two "six pieces" parts too.
>
> The lectures on computation are from a very physical POV, fwiw. Stuff
> like explaining the quantum tensors that would let you build a truly
> quantum computer. I got very little out of it except for one or two
> insights that aren't really very useful unless you're arguing about
> turing machines or perfect randomness or some such.
Nada at various stores looks like I'm Amazon bound.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>>> (I still can't figure out why you can use an oscilator to make radio
>>>> waves, but not light rays...)
>>>
>>> Lasers?
>>
>> I don't actually know how those work. I was under the impression that
>> it works by exciting atoms so that they emit photons - much the same
>> way a lump of iron glows if you put it in a hot fire. (But with some
>> mirrors in there to ensure the light only travels in one direction...)
>
> Photons from a glowing lump of iron (or even an LED) have all different
> wavelengths and all different polarisations. Photons from a laser all
> have virtually the same wavelength and polarisation, it's very different.
True. But - at least according to Wikipedia - it's still due to making
electrons jump between different energy levels in atoms (rather than
building an electronic oscilator). It's just a lot more controlled than
a whitehot lump of iron...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:4734c9d3$1@news.povray.org...
>> Gail... You're a DBA. Why do you know about Chernkov radiation?
>
> That's an odd question. Why would my experience with databases preclude
> knowledge of science? I could as well say you're a system admin, why do you
> know about Fourier Transformations?
Hey, I was being playful, not spiteful. ;-) (Just wanted to get that
part straight...)
> I have a B.Sc in Physics. Wanted to go into physics as a career, but there's
> no jobs other than teaching in this country.
> I still read articles on astrophysics, quantum physics and relativity for
> fun (when I can get the time)
I generally read about abstract mathematical constructs and computer
algorithms, especially to do with 3D graphics, sound synthesis,
cryptology, data compression... wait. OK, basically about *anything*!
> I actually saw Cherenkov radiation once. Was during a trip to a nuclear
> research institute, as part of a prize for coming in the top 50 in the
> country's science olympiad.
> It's eery to see.
o_O
I thought the whole "glowing bars of radioactive stuff" was a myth...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47381d18$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Hey, I was being playful, not spiteful. ;-) (Just wanted to get that
> part straight...)
I didn't think you were been spiteful. Just struck me as a strange question.
But them a lot of people wonder anout some of the things I know. Wide
interestes
> > I actually saw Cherenkov radiation once. Was during a trip to a nuclear
> > research institute, as part of a prize for coming in the top 50 in the
> > country's science olympiad.
> > It's eery to see.
>
> o_O
>
> I thought the whole "glowing bars of radioactive stuff" was a myth...
It is, generally. The blue glow comes from electons emitted at very, very
high speeds passing into the surrounding water. If the water hadn't been
there, there would have been no glow.
Some radioactive stuff does glow, most doesn't
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> Some radioactive stuff does glow, most doesn't
So... is it really true that the Earth's core is so hot due to neuclear
reactions?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
