http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_frequency "The intermediate frequency is created by mixing the carrier signal with a local oscillator signal in a process called heterodyning" "For example, in satellite dishs, the microwave downlink signal received by the dish is converted to a much lower IF at the dish, to allow a relatively inexpensive coaxial cable to carry the signal to the receiver inside the building. Bringing the signal in at the original microwave frequency would require an expensive waveguide." "Heterodyning is a radio signal processing technique invented in 1901 by Canadian inventor-engineer Reginald Fessenden, in which new frequencies are created by combining or mixing two frequencies" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodyning They fail to mention that the IF is the frequency of an electronic signal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_frequency "RF usually refers to electrical rather than mechanical oscillations, although mechanical RF systems do exist"
Oh this is a really good one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_waves "Radio waves are a type of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum longer than infrared light." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation "Electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) is a form of energy emitted and absorbed by charged particles, which exhibits wave-like behavior as it travels through space" "When any wire (or other conducting object such as an antenna) conducts alternating current, electromagnetic radiation is propagated at the same frequency as the electric current. In many such situations it is possible to identify an electrical dipole moment that arises from separation of charges due to the exciting electrical potential, and this dipole moment oscillates in time, as the charges move back and forth. This oscillation at a given frequency gives rise to changing electric and magnetic fields, which then set the electromagnetic radiation in motion." - its all lies, if this was true it would have an effect on every circuit in the device from every other circuit in the device. So basically it is saying that an antenna is a magic wand that transfers EMR from electrons to photons then back again to photons to electrons without even having to consider the changes in frequencies from these transfers. Electrons are more massive than photons, this simply cannot happen. No where is it shown that electrons and photons can transfer the same exact frequency from one to another.
Good god I hope you are just a troll and not really that confused. Here is how electornics, like the microwave oven in your house, produce photons.
"Einstein began by postulating simple proportionality relations for the different reaction rates involved. In his model, the rate for a system to absorb a photon of frequency and transition from a lower energy to a higher energy is proportional to the number of atoms with energy and to the energy density of ambient photons with that frequency," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon So then we have Einsteins theory that describes the frequency of emission of photons, and it did not say that the frequency is just equal. No special type of antenna has to be used for a IF device, you can use a hanger or a paper clip or anything you can find around the house and it will still function perfectly if adjusted correctly.
The genius Einstein didn't think that the frequency of EMR would just be the same for any wire. As shown in post #85. So then why should I think the frequency for any wire should be the same as in the wiki in post #82? They cannot both be true.
Have you ever heard of a crystal radio? I built one in the cub scouts. They work with no power supply. It is like magic (to you). However, basic electrical theory tells us that radio waves which are electomagnetic radiation will induce a very small current in the radio's antenna and that will supply the power to run the radio.
I still do not know if this trolling or ignoance. Any conductor can be used as an antenna - we are talking about virtually free electrons not bound elelctons, so this is not what Einstein was talking about.
The point is that EMR used in wireless electronics is photons is an urban myth, and it is supported by wiki. Electromagnetic Waves are described as being a part of electron behaivor in electronics. That is described as the Right-hand rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-hand_rule This version of the rule is used in two complementary applications of Ampère's circuital law: 1.An electric current passes through a solenoid, resulting in a magnetic field. When you wrap your right hand around the solenoid with your fingers in the direction of the conventional current, your thumb points in the direction of the magnetic north pole. 2.An electric current passes through a straight wire. Here, the thumb points in the direction of the conventional current (from positive to negative), and the fingers point in the direction of the magnetic lines of flux. (No wonder the whole internet is wrong about the direction of current when the right hand rule says electrons flow from positive to negative.) Electrons have electic and magnetic properties, hence the term electromagnetic. (electrons magnetic) I think we discovered this before discovering that photons are electromagnetic, and that is why it is called this from the root words. Since the frequency of any wire could not create EMR in the form of photons at the exact same frequency, then it has to be electrons that are sent from the antenna.
Prof.Layman: When electrons are accelerated, they produce radio waves. Similarly, when radio waves impinge on an electronic device, they cause electrons to accelerate. Wireless electronic devices are an application of these effects. Electrons are not part of the electromagnetic spectrum, but they do interact with it. Hope this clears up your confusion! Keep up the insults and you'll find yourself banned regularly, until you are permanently banned. Clearly, you're very confused. I suggest you try to learn some physics rather than making silly statements. If you ask nicely, I can probably answer some of your questions.
No, not every layperson book says that. How do I know? Because I've read plenty of them. Furthermore non-layperson books, ie those aimed at people doing physics at university and research levels don't say that either. How do I know? Because I have read plenty of them. But if you want an explicit example let's look at the first sentence on the Wikipedia page for the Planck scale, "In particle physics and physical cosmology, the Planck scale is an energy scale around 1.22 × 1019 GeV (which corresponds by the mass–energy equivalence to the Planck mass 2.17645 × 10−8 kg) at which quantum effects of gravity become strong". Become strong, not infinite, precisely as I explained to you. 'Strong' means non-perturbative, ie we cannot just modify our particle dynamics models by using a small perturbation to the space-time metric which appears in the particle propagators. How do I know this? Because I did theoretical physics research! Once again you are demonstrably wrong. The problem is you cannot do those calculations and thus have never done them. If you had ever bothered to find out what the Planck units mean then you'd know you're mistaken. Have you ever done any quantum field theory? No, of course not, given you cannot even do special relativity to the level of a freshman. When are you going to realise that it is ridiculous for you to lie about theoretical physics to someone who has the better part of a decade hands on experience with it? You know you haven't read any proper books on it. You know you cannot do any of the models. So why do you persist in lying about it, trying to come off as knowledgeable? At every turn your lies or delusions are exposed plainly, for all to see, and yet you continue. Because they don't, that was the whole point of at piece of work he did. Rather than saying the universe expanded from a singularity he considered what could be possible if a collapsing universe almost went into a singular state and then re-expanded. In that case he was deliberately enforcing dynamics which avoided infinities. That's somewhat separate from the meaning of the Planck scale though. His work on Hawking radiation has issues with the Planck scale because in the last few moments of a black hole's evaporation dynamics it becomes so small that the event horizon is of order of a Planck length. This means that non-perturbative gravitational effects must be considered, which is at odds with the initial derivation of Hawking radiation which works by perturbatively coupling the black hole's gravitational field with a quantum field which manifests particles. The perturbation method assumes things about the relative sizes of particle wavelengths and Ricci curvature of space-time, in a manner similar to how the black hole thermodynamics results are obtained (also by Hawking). This is why even after he'd derived the notion of Hawking radiation for typical black hole masses there was considerable debate about what happened right at the end of the evaporation procedure. Does the black hole continue evaporating as the perturbative method says? Or perhaps it ends up in some new state, a 'nugget' of residual matter which cannot evaporate further due to quantum gravity dynamics preventing it. There is work in the literature of people trying to extend Hawking's methods so that we have a 'trans-Planckian' result. There is even a Wikipedia page on it. So your assertion the models go to infinite energy at the Planck scale is false. What the Planck scale represents is a clear boundary at which our non-quantum gravity models fail, not because of infinite energies but because the quantum gravity effects become comparable in magnitude to the effects due to the other forces. The Standard Model doesn't need to include gravity to model LHC physics because gravity is so weak at 100GeV. But obviously we cannot ignore the strong force, it is comparable (if not dominant) to the electroweak force(s). The Planck length is likewise but for gravity. As I proved, it was published in one book 5 years before you claimed to have 'invented' the term. And there's likely other physics layperson books which use it before that. Even if the universe is infinite that doesn't necessarily mean every possible thing would could occur does occur. Such an assertion is common in people who are not familiar with combinatorics and cardinalities. Except it isn't 'scientific fact'. I said it isn't the case because I have working experience with models which work around the Planck scale. The string scale in string theory is generally in the range 0.1 to 100 Planck lengths. M theory's reduction to Type IIA string theory via compactification involves rolling an M2 brane into a cylinder whose radius is much smaller than the Planck scale. Other compact dimension models work at similar scales to the string scale, which is what my PhD was in. This isn't something I've never considered before or have no information on, this is stuff I have had to do day to day as part of research. I know your method is to just assume you know what books say or to just lie but some of us have had to put in real effort to learn how to do physics properly. It says a lot about you that when you see contradictions in your understanding of what you think science says then rather than saying "This seems contradictory, maybe I didn't understand what the science said. I'll go have another look" you instead immediately go to "This is contradictory. Therefore this area of science is wrong and all of the people who spend decades of their lives working on this, using detailed mathematical models and considerable experience with relevant phenomena are just wrong and I've seen something none of them have, even though I haven't looked at the details of their work and even if I did I couldn't understand it since I cannot do even basic mathematical methods". Okay, you don't think the second half of that but you do assume everyone else is just wrong and you're right. I find it funny when hacks call me arrogant for being confident in my demonstrable knowledge (which I readily admit isn't very extensive on the grand scale of things) yet hacks like you make such laughable assertions about science and your own understanding. The fact you didn't even go to check what 'Planck scale' means shows how intellectually bankrupt you are. If you really liked science you'd read around, you'd expose yourself to new information, read things you initially don't understand or don't agree with in order to see how people approach things. But you don't and that is the saddest thing of all. There are few things which really annoy me but intellectual dishonest and wilful ignorance are two. Hacks come to forums like this and claim they are interested in science but you aren't, not really. If you were you'd be more honest and less ignorant. Thus far almost, if not all, of your claims have been shown to be false. Your claims about being the originator of 'multi-verse', of deriving a new result in special relativity, what Planck scale means, how radar works, understanding special relativity at all (never mind claiming more so than Einstein), basic electromagnetism and more besides. At every turn you have been shown to be ignorant, dishonest and delusional. As such there is nothing for me to get defensive about in regards to whether or not a layperson showed me wrong. Personally I don't care who the person if, if I'm mistaken about something and I'm corrected then thanks to the person who did it because I'll have learnt something. Anyone who is a half way decent scientist will have had experiences where they have had a mistake or misunderstanding of theirs explained to them. It might be unpleasant at the time but it is also the times when you learn the most. Hacks almost universally don't listen to any criticism, which makes their accusations that I think I know everything all the more laughable. Your general approach to discussions about science, your general view of yourself and science, is something you should be ashamed of. Seriously, you should be ashamed and embarrassed. There is nothing to be ashamed of if you don't know something, we were all in the same boat at some point. However, the best course of action is to ask questions and discuss things, not to just make shit up and lie to others and yourself. You're only hindering yourself. There are hacks here who have been doing that for years, decades even, and they have wasted that time. If they'd engaged in honest and open discourse they might have managed to learn and do some science. Instead they remain on forums proclaiming they are better than Einstein or Hawking or Jesus Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If you want to spend the next decade whining on forums about how you're better than Einstein but you can barely understand high school physics then fine, but when you look back over those years and realise what an idiot you were and how much more productive you could have been I want you to know I called it. You are demonstrably wrong. Hold a magnet to any transmitting device and the signal will not be affected at all. We can detect when electrons move around as they carry charge and they are influenced by electromagnetic fields, while photons are neutral and don't interact with one another so are 'blind' to EM fields. This is stuff children know. Go find a magnet and hold it next to your wireless hub for your broadband, it won't affect the signal. Or hold it next to your head when you're using a mobile phone, the signal won't be affected. Yes, sticking your fingers in your ears is the best way to bend reality to your desires. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless Opens with the statement it is electromagnetic. Electrons are not used. This constant "Go read a book!" you have is so hypocritical because it is obvious you haven't read any book on the subject. Like I said, you should be ashamed and embarrassed for this sort of wilful ignorance.
Soooo... If I can venture to do the impossible, simply to ask. What in theory can happen if I took an arbitrary region of space, and since mass and energy share a relationship via E=mc^2, heat it up above 10^32 Kelvin? :EDIT: Wow that sounds dumb. But it is a temperature before inflation.
\(10^{32} \, \textrm{K} \approx 0.86 \times 10^{16} \, \textrm{TeV} / k_B\) First of all, this means that empty space is not empty but filled with every known ( and perhaps many unknown ) particle fields have all of their degrees of freedom averaging very energetic. Space is filled with every species of matter and antimatter and a "light" made of a unified electromagnetism and weak force and color force. Nothing as weakly bound as a proton exists. Hopefully edge effects will constrain this region to cool with the same vacuum expectation value as the surrounding universe. A Grand Unified Theory is required to discuss what types of particles there are and a theory of quantum gravity is needed to discuss some effects, but I lack particulars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipartition_theorem#Extreme_relativistic_ideal_gases
from a laymans POV: assumption, the "space" is perfect. answer, you can't heat it at all. reasoning: increased atomic movement is an indicator of heat, without this movement heat cannot be measured. this brings up the question of "what exactly IS the temp. of a perfect vacuum?"
EMR doesn't care whether you are talking about "wireless electronics" or the kitchen sink. it is what it is, two fields, electric and magnetic, interacting with one another. in radio they are assume to be shifted from one another by 90 degrees, when one is at its maximum the other is at a minimum. wires do not "create frequency". antennas do not "send out" electrons. * the antenna creates the EM field that is intercepted by receiving antennas. when this happens a voltage is generated in the receiving antenna. the resulting voltage is processed so humans can understand it. * edit: i believe this can be easily proved by setting up an experiment consisting of 2 inductors and a strong magnetic field such as deflection coils. the 2nd inductor will easily pick up the signal. further proof is the beam type antenna design. if the EM field indeed consist of electrons then a beam type antenna wouldn't produce any gain because the reflectors are directly behind the director (the first antenna element).
My question was along the lines of creating another Big Bang within our own universe. It was most definitely not a practical one, but I asked anyway cause I wanted to. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, the crackpot got a time-out. Here's hoping he doesn't come back because the average intelligence of this place jumped at least 20 points with his absence. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
