Clashing Electromagnetic Waves

User avatar
The Dagda
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:24 pm
About me: I am mighty!
Contact:

Re: Clashing Electromagnetic Waves

Post by The Dagda » Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:48 am

FBM wrote:
The speed of light (usually denoted c) is a physical constant. It is the fastest speed at which energy or information can travel, and is only attained by massless particles and waves such as electromagnetic radiation (e.g. radio waves, visible light, or gamma rays) in vacuum, where there are no atoms, molecules or other types of matter that can slow it down. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second,[1][2] often approximated as 300,000 kilometres per second or 186,000 miles per second (see the table on the right for values in other units)...The actual speed at which light propagates through transparent materials, such as glass or air, is less than c. The ratio between c and the speed v at which light travels in a material is called the refractive index n of the material (n = c / v). For example, for visible light the refractive index of glass is typically around 1.5, meaning that light in glass travels at c / 1.5 ≈ 200,000 km/s; the refractive index of air for visible light is about 1.0003, so the speed of light in air is very close to c.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
the Wiki is wrong as usual.
Do Photons Move Slower in a Solid Medium?

Contributed by ZapperZ. Edited and corrected by Gokul43201 and inha

This question appears often because it has been shown that in a normal, dispersive solid such as glass, the speed of light is slower than it is in vacuum. This FAQ will strictly deal with that scenario only and will not address light transport in anomolous medium, atomic vapor, metals, etc., and will only consider light within the visible range.

The process of describing light transport via the quantum mechanical description isn't trivial. The use of photons to explain such process involves the understanding of not just the properties of photons, but also the quantum mechanical properties of the material itself (something one learns in Solid State Physics). So this explanation will attempt to only provide a very general and rough idea of the process.

A common explanation that has been provided is that a photon moving through the material still moves at the speed of c, but when it encounters the atom of the material, it is absorbed by the atom via an atomic transition. After a very slight delay, a photon is then re-emitted. This explanation is incorrect and inconsistent with empirical observations. If this is what actually occurs, then the absorption spectrum will be discrete because atoms have only discrete energy states. Yet, in glass for example, we see almost the whole visible spectrum being transmitted with no discrete disruption in the measured speed. In fact, the index of refraction (which reflects the speed of light through that medium) varies continuously, rather than abruptly, with the frequency of light.

Secondly, if that assertion is true, then the index of refraction would ONLY depend on the type of atom in the material, and nothing else, since the atom is responsible for the absorption of the photon. Again, if this is true, then we see a problem when we apply this to carbon, let's say. The index of refraction of graphite and diamond are different from each other. Yet, both are made up of carbon atoms. In fact, if we look at graphite alone, the index of refraction is different along different crystal directions. Obviously, materials with identical atoms can have different index of refraction. So it points to the evidence that it may have nothing to do with an "atomic transition".

When atoms and molecules form a solid, they start to lose most of their individual identity and form a "collective behavior" with other atoms. It is as the result of this collective behavior that one obtains a metal, insulator, semiconductor, etc. Almost all of the properties of solids that we are familiar with are the results of the collective properties of the solid as a whole, not the properties of the individual atoms. The same applies to how a photon moves through a solid.

A solid has a network of ions and electrons fixed in a "lattice". Think of this as a network of balls connected to each other by springs. Because of this, they have what is known as "collective vibrational modes", often called phonons. These are quanta of lattice vibrations, similar to photons being the quanta of EM radiation. It is these vibrational modes that can absorb a photon. So when a photon encounters a solid, and it can interact with an available phonon mode (i.e. something similar to a resonance condition), this photon can be absorbed by the solid and then converted to heat (it is the energy of these vibrations or phonons that we commonly refer to as heat). The solid is then opaque to this particular photon (i.e. at that frequency). Now, unlike the atomic orbitals, the phonon spectrum can be broad and continuous over a large frequency range. That is why all materials have a "bandwidth" of transmission or absorption. The width here depends on how wide the phonon spectrum is.

On the other hand, if a photon has an energy beyond the phonon spectrum, then while it can still cause a disturbance of the lattice ions, the solid cannot sustain this vibration, because the phonon mode isn't available. This is similar to trying to oscillate something at a different frequency than the resonance frequency. So the lattice does not absorb this photon and it is re-emitted but with a very slight delay. This, naively, is the origin of the apparent slowdown of the light speed in the material. The emitted photon may encounter other lattice ions as it makes its way through the material and this accumulate the delay.

Moral of the story: the properties of a solid that we are familiar with have more to do with the "collective" behavior of a large number of atoms interacting with each other. In most cases, these do not reflect the properties of the individual, isolated atoms.
The person who wrote this is an experimental physicists and far more qualified than the chump who wrote the wiki. speed=distance over time, but propagation doesn't follow from that without a deviation caused by the constants refractive index.
The wiki isn't wrong per se, it just is misleading.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104715

In a caesium gas at close to absolute 0, light may appear to be slowed to almost a stand still, but it isn't at no point is the photon propagating at less than c, the time/distance concerns may be different, but the motion of a photon is a speed c when propagating always. What you have to understand is what propagating actually means, it does not mean travelling through x=1 to point y=10 the same as s=d/t might.

To put it as simply as I can phase velocity and group velocity are not the same thing.
The speed at which a resultant wave packet from a narrow range of frequencies will travel is called the group velocity and is determined from the gradient of the dispersion relation:

Image

In almost all cases, a wave is mainly a movement of energy through a medium. Most often, the group velocity is the velocity at which the energy moves through this medium.
Last edited by Anonymous on Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Religion and science are like oil and water, you can't expect to mix them and come up with a solution."

Me in one of my more lucid moments. 2004

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Clashing Electromagnetic Waves

Post by Feck » Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:57 am

Great now Lenses go quantum too :lay: and my head hurts !
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
The Dagda
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:24 pm
About me: I am mighty!
Contact:

Re: Clashing Electromagnetic Waves

Post by The Dagda » Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:04 am

Feck wrote:Great now Lenses go quantum too :lay: and my head hurts !
Everything is quantum, its just we don't notice it usually because its perceivable effects occur regularly only at the level of the very, very small or nanoscale. What we see is a classical ensemble of a probabilistic Universe. Like temperature is an average of the energy in all molecules in a medium x, it does not represent the temperature at which every atom is at, but it does show what we can expect the temperatures mean to be and a standard deviation around a probable phonon range. Physics perceived by the human eye is a classical representation of brain function, and hence the dichotomies of quantum mechanics. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, what colour is it?* Does God play dice with the Universe? Where do pens go when I'm not looking at them? Etc.

Niels Bohr struggled with his concepts, and eventually had to conclude that even the mathematical language of physics could be unable to describe the wave function accurately. After all the Schrödinger equation is a guess, not derived from first principles in generally accepted circles. It is inductive not deductive. It could be even language is ill defined to describe how strange the Universe is at the scale of an electron or photon.

The Copenhagen interpretation was born and instrumental realism was brought to physics. The experiment now could not be divorced from the result, and the observer was part of the experimental set up, with all the inherent prejudices of the human consciousness there in.

Copenhagen (more generally) = wave function not real (not represented directly pictorially by the maths), non local (a+b≠c, a+b=Px or the relationship between an interaction is not derived from local interactions and is a variable where causality is indeterminate, non deterministic (cannot know the result from the set up only a range of likely results given a+b that will be within a stochastic range)), no hidden variables (another way of saying probabilistic, or truly random, not quite the same as saying determined or causal or not).

*Just joking it's does it make a sound. :P
"Religion and science are like oil and water, you can't expect to mix them and come up with a solution."

Me in one of my more lucid moments. 2004

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Clashing Electromagnetic Waves

Post by FBM » Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:29 am

Wiki said it, I believe it, that settles it. :levi:
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
GrahamH
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:29 pm
Location: South coast, UK
Contact:

Re: Clashing Electromagnetic Waves

Post by GrahamH » Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:41 am

jamest wrote:
Feck wrote:the particles in wave do not travel .. when a wave goes across an ocean the water does not, it just goes up and down....
Are you saying that 'light' just bobs up and down? Clearly not. This discussion was supposed to clear my confusion, not add to it. :fp:
Water waves do not stop each other they act independently what we see is the addition of 2 effects (if you use 2 wave generators)
I'm not thinking that there shouldn't be any definite radio signals. I'm just thinking that they should all be garbled - mixed, like white light. But clearly, they are not. Hence my desire for a clear explanation.
Actual White light is a combination of waves at all frequencies, and those waves can be separated out from the mix. A prism will do that, because different wavelengths are refracted by different angles at an interface between materials with different refractive index (glass/air - prism, or water/air - rainbow, are two commonly encountered examples)

Narrow bands of frequencies can be separated out with filters, which absorb some frequencies and allow other frequencies to pass. This is the principle behind anaglyph stereo 3D images. Red and blue images are combined in the image medium, and separated by colour filters over your eyes to recover the two separate signals.

The same is true of pressure waves in a fluid (a.k.a. sound). Note that because pressure waves in fluid involve a cascade of particle collisions the wave energy dissipates as heat (particle motion not in the wave propagation direction). Electromagnetic waves are not propagated as particle collisions(but don't ask what they really-truly are), so they don't dissipate, although they can be absorbed in collisions with particles.

Water waves are as separable as any other waves, given suitable filters or splitters (prisms).

If you look at a waveform of music it looks chaotic, but pass it through the equivalent of a prism and the component wavelengths are revealed. Spectrum analysers are used to examine the frequencies present in an audio or radio waveform. Musical synthesisers can construct the sounds of a wide range of instruments by combining many single-frequency waves.

Your radio uses a tunable filter to let through a narrow band of wavelengths which are modulated with the station you want to listen to. The radio signal is a combination of a high frequency carrier wave and a low frequency band of audio waves. Your radio extracts the carrier wave band, translates the radio frequencies that get through down to the audio range, and sends them to the speaker so you hear them.

In principle we could do the same with water waves to make a water radio, but the high attenuation (dissipation) of high frequencies in water doesn't make it practical.

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Clashing Electromagnetic Waves

Post by Feck » Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:43 am

It's all rubbish Everything is made of tiny noodles :fsmglee: .
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
GrahamH
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:29 pm
Location: South coast, UK
Contact:

Re: Clashing Electromagnetic Waves

Post by GrahamH » Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:52 am

Feck wrote:It's all rubbish Everything is made of tiny noodles :fsmglee: .
Yep, formed into tiny vibrating loops - spaghetti-string theory.
Or, flexible membranes of energy - Lasagne-brane theory
There may be compact rolled-up higher dimensions - Penne-worlds theory
Pasta Theory Of Everything - PTOE

User avatar
ficklefiend
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Aberdeen
Contact:

Re: Clashing Electromagnetic Waves

Post by ficklefiend » Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:19 am

Great posts Ninjasocks and Graham H both!
Set phasers tae malky!
www.ficklefiend.deviantart.com

User avatar
newolder
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Clashing Electromagnetic Waves

Post by newolder » Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:45 pm

“This data is not Monte Carlo.”, …, “This collision is not a simulation.” - LHC-b guy, 30th March 2010.

User avatar
GrahamH
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:29 pm
Location: South coast, UK
Contact:

Re: Clashing Electromagnetic Waves

Post by GrahamH » Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:41 pm

newolder wrote:Photon-photon scattering.
Interesting.

How do 3 orthgonal laser beams produce a fourth merged beam in a vacuum?
These three beams will merge to produce a fourth stream with a wavelength shorter than any of the input beams.
It sounds like...
Image

User avatar
colubridae
Custom Rank: Rank
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
Location: Birmingham art gallery
Contact:

Re: Clashing Electromagnetic Waves

Post by colubridae » Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:45 pm

ficklefiend wrote:These are the times I wish I understood physics better.

Although definitely radio waves are subject to interference... can you make head or tail of this wiki article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_superposition

I'm trying.



I don't even understand how they always travel at the same speed, surely the electromagnetic fields are not constant through space? Why is the speed constant then? Argh.

:tantrum: :tantrum: :tantrum: :tantrum:


There is another thread which ended up on the speed of light.

The question was

What is the answer to:-

Why is the speed of light constant from any fram of reference?


The answer is cruical to the beginings of understanding light and SR...
Last edited by colubridae on Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders

User avatar
newolder
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Clashing Electromagnetic Waves

Post by newolder » Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:45 pm

GrahamH wrote:
newolder wrote:Photon-photon scattering.
Interesting.

How do 3 orthgonal laser beams produce a fourth merged beam in a vacuum?
These three beams will merge to produce a fourth stream with a wavelength shorter than any of the input beams.
It sounds like...
Image
Reading http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0510/0510076v2.pdf today...
FIG. 1: Configuration of the incoming laser beams and the direction
of the scattered wave for the suggested three-dimensional configuration
of wave vectors, which satisfies the matching conditions.
FIG. 1
“This data is not Monte Carlo.”, …, “This collision is not a simulation.” - LHC-b guy, 30th March 2010.

User avatar
colubridae
Custom Rank: Rank
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
Location: Birmingham art gallery
Contact:

Re: Clashing Electromagnetic Waves

Post by colubridae » Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:16 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Feck wrote:It's all rubbish Everything is made of tiny noodles :fsmglee: .
Yep, formed into tiny vibrating loops - spaghetti-string theory.
Or, flexible membranes of energy - Lasagne-brane theory
There may be compact rolled-up higher dimensions - Penne-worlds theory
Pasta Theory Of Everything - PTOE

You may be confusing this with Hitchhikers' bistro-mechanics....
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders

User avatar
GrahamH
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:29 pm
Location: South coast, UK
Contact:

Re: Clashing Electromagnetic Waves

Post by GrahamH » Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:27 pm

newolder wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
newolder wrote:Photon-photon scattering.
Interesting.

How do 3 orthgonal laser beams produce a fourth merged beam in a vacuum?
These three beams will merge to produce a fourth stream with a wavelength shorter than any of the input beams.
It sounds like...
Image
Reading http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0510/0510076v2.pdf today...
FIG. 1: Configuration of the incoming laser beams and the direction
of the scattered wave for the suggested three-dimensional configuration
of wave vectors, which satisfies the matching conditions.
FIG. 1
Hmm
N3d =0.07 photons per shot. Not a Death Star beam then.

User avatar
GrahamH
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:29 pm
Location: South coast, UK
Contact:

Re: Clashing Electromagnetic Waves

Post by GrahamH » Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:32 pm

colubridae wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Feck wrote:It's all rubbish Everything is made of tiny noodles :fsmglee: .
Yep, formed into tiny vibrating loops - spaghetti-string theory.
Or, flexible membranes of energy - Lasagne-brane theory
There may be compact rolled-up higher dimensions - Penne-worlds theory
Pasta Theory Of Everything - PTOE

You may be confusing this with Hitchhikers' bistro-mechanics....
You know how these things work. Same god, different prophet. The details get a bit mixed up, but it's basically the same thing. BIstro-math is a method of modelling pasta states.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests