Waves and Dimensions

[bojan]

Alex,
One wavelength does not present anything.
The spectrum is the graphical (mathematical) representation of radiation intensity (power measured with suitable sensor) as a function of frequency (or wavelength) of that radiation.

The physical manifestation of this is what we can see as colours, produced by prism or optical grating.

Colours are NOT present in the spectrum. They are just the response of the retina of our eye to the impact of photons of certain energy (or wavelength, or frequency, whatever you like more), and how our brain interprets that response (which is an input to brain via optical nerve, in a physical form of electrical impulses which propagate along the nerve as the disturbance of ions balance.. or something similar)

Originally Posted by xelasnave

One wave length may represent a section of the visual spectrum ( say we are looking a visual spectrum) which may contain many colours for example... so I ask ...will the colours in the spectrum be represented by one particle each...
I find the complexity that must be associated with light to be contained in one particle hard to imagine and understand ....anyways even if each wave length of all the EME spectrums in the Universe there will be certainly a lot of particles set aside for the job of moving EME around the Universe.

I expect if worked with as a particle it is seen that each particle has no mass... I am sure that is the way it is...or is it???

AND if we treat light as a particle what do we call the particle? A photon I expect but is there a term to in effect say "at this point we deal with a particle (which has the quality of duality) so we call it...???? "

Sorry if my questions are all over the place but light is not easy for me to understand.

alex

alex

[xelasnave]

Thank you Bojan... I have been socialising and learning why I prefer to live alone..

also Ron and some other friends built me (now us four) a net site to talk about you know what. (look at the addition in my signature).. I try and get away from it but something drags me back to the gravity thing.

I accept and understand what you say however my programing seems to lean to "I must know all the detail"...and so questions such as above preoccupy my approach to all things that present to me...also most human things are not available to me anymore...too old etc... so without worrying about human stuff I want to try it my way.

So I try to imagine the make up of light, for example, I feel the complexity dictates a simplification but never the less the complexity must be even greater than my visualisations can entertain.

BUT as I dont have to meet deadlines or produce meaningful and usable results my musings run wild.

When you think about it a visualisation is no more than a complex picture our minds generate and in that generation simple math comes into play...I can build most things for example with no ruler as I hold relationships most easily in my mind....size relationships can be understood with little need to quantify any numbers... imagine an atom in relation to Jupiter.. math can quantify it with accuracy however I still have a decent grip on the fact the difference is "very big" and so any visualisation of atoms and Jupiter has that as a general precondition.

AND on that other matter I get interested in...gravity..It is my intention... when I get over the lastest heart break and on the positive assumption she will not talk me into having her back... to address all the matters you and others have raised re the push gravity thing...

I have a hard copy of the thread we were into here and there are many things I need to cover... and I must do this to help you and others understand I am no doubt right...sorry just joking.. but in the interest of discussion , considerations and keeping my mind active...and off girls... is to have a go.

Do you think the EM spectrum is made up of many particles or just one (per wave lenght)... I suspect we deal with it in a singular fashion as the reality would see such a complexity that we would get no where.

There was a math guy on the radio dealing with this sort of thing..he basically said math made things "simple" and he used the example of a computer image of a smile...although extremely complex in reality he said a smile can be dealt with from a math view point as a relationship of only seven points... and so if one manipulates either of these seven points you can recreate practically all smiles... and so on that point I think that when we work with light (or most things in math or physics) we are taking the seven points of a smile approach... and so I bet there are many many particles in a single wave lenght although to determine matters pertaining to light we do not need to break it down into the many parts I suspect will be found present.

alex

[xelasnave]

Sorry I missed your last post before posting my last post but I take the opportunity now to thank you for such an informative presentation.

alex