Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The original along with several days of all other content here having apparently evaporated into the Aether due to a server crash / reboot from old backup.. I'll try this again.. Perhaps even better! Time will tell..
- More -In a seminal talk before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) in May 1891 at Columbia College in New York City, Tesla spoke these telling words: “Of all the forms of nature’s immeasurable, all-pervading energy, which ever and ever change and move, like a soul animates an innate universe, electricity and magnetism are perhaps the most fascinating. . .We know that electricity acts like an incompressible fluid; that there must be a constant quantity of it in nature; that it can neither be produced or destroyed. . .and that electricity and ether phenomena are identical.” – Nikola Tesla
Reading that "- More -" provides one a nice, appropriately snarky introduction to this topic, bringing all up to date. And Tesla, perhaps somewhat unwittingly, supplies an excellent Aether "model of everything" summary there. One hundred thirty some years ago and still way ahead of practically everyone.
Turns out "electricity and magnetism", or rather true "electricity" manifested through the ubiquitous dielectric / magnetic coupling of nature, is not only the most fascinating form of energy, but the only form ultimately driving the whole kit and caboodle.
Electricity, magnetism, light,.. Such terms likely mean something very different from what you and I were originally taught. We'll get to that.. hopefully.. this time..
Thanks for the interesting input. Dunno what you mean by "Nyquist energy", but the speed of light is limited by density of The Aether (the medium). T.E.M. light travels fastest (at c) "in a vacuum" i.e. through The Aether, slower in water, slower still in glass. The speed limit of longitudinal energy transfer through the Aether, on the other hand, remains unknown. Safe to say somewhere between much faster than c to instantaneous.
With that size geometry information, the speed of light can be converted into a frequency or energy value.
I think it's easy to get tripped up by the common association of "higher energy" with higher frequencies. Cosmic rays, for example, are routinely depicted as high energy yet they can't even traverse our atmosphere, whereas much slower radio waves easily can. In general, it seems to take a lot more work (energy) for us to produce and detect low frequency signals than high ones. So I think this conventional misnomer may be misleading you.a limit of existence, beyond which every event reflects and mirrors back to lower energies and slower frequencies
An active galactic nucleus (AGN) is a compact region at the center of a galaxy that has a much higher than normal luminosity over at least some portion of the electromagnetic spectrum with characteristics indicating that the luminosity is not produced by stars. Such excess non-stellar emission has been observed in the radio, microwave, infrared, optical, ultra-violet, X-ray and gamma ray wavebands. A galaxy hosting an AGN is called an "active galaxy". The radiation from an AGN is believed to result from the accretion of matter by a supermassive black hole at the center of its host galaxy.
With that size geometry information, the speed of light can be converted into a frequency or energy value.I think it's easy to get tripped up by the common association of "higher energy" with higher frequencies. Cosmic rays, for example, are routinely depicted as high energy yet they can't even traverse our atmosphere, whereas much slower radio waves easily can. In general, it seems to take a lot more work (energy) for us to produce and detect low frequency signals than high ones. So I think this conventional misnomer may be misleading you.a limit of existence, beyond which every event reflects and mirrors back to lower energies and slower frequencies
While searching around I happened upon this Wikipedia page which immediately reminds me of Ken Wheeler's images and illustrations of the very small to very large. He's a real nut which he readily admits, but clearly a genius as well. While browsing his book (that I just linked to) there are few if any page numbers. However, when I hover over the scroll bar toward the top or bottom right in Chrome, a [page # / total pages] indication appears. See the galactic scale images from page 201 through page 207. Now compare them to those in the Wikipedia link.
An active galactic nucleus (AGN) is a compact region at the center of a galaxy that has a much higher than normal luminosity over at least some portion of the electromagnetic spectrum with characteristics indicating that the luminosity is not produced by stars. Such excess non-stellar emission has been observed in the radio, microwave, infrared, optical, ultra-violet, X-ray and gamma ray wavebands. A galaxy hosting an AGN is called an "active galaxy". The radiation from an AGN is believed to result from the accretion of matter by a supermassive black hole at the center of its host galaxy.
Electron orbits? You know, the topic title alone should clue you in somewhat. As previously noted, for lack of anything else to use, we're unfortunately stuck with the terms "electrons" and "photons" for now, but "orbits" is on you. Why use "orbit" to describe something we've known, going back to Schrödinger at least, does no such thing? Are you trying to convince yourself, others, or both by dragging in and parroting this tired, old QM gibberish here? If it weren't nailed to the perch, it'd be pushin' up the daisies, as Monty Python would say. The prime directive here is to make sense. Energy and frequency are NOT SIMPLY interchangeable quantities through the Planck constant.Energy and frequency are interchangeable quantities through the Planck constant. High energy radiation doesn't get through the atmosphere, because the molecular electron orbits of nitrogen and ozone don't allow it. Low energy radiation does get through because by quantum mechanical principles, interaction is not possible if the kinetic energy of the radiation is not equal to any of the available potential energies of the molecules.With that size geometry information, the speed of light can be converted into a frequency or energy value.I think it's easy to get tripped up by the common association of "higher energy" with higher frequencies. Cosmic rays, for example, are routinely depicted as high energy yet they can't even traverse our atmosphere, whereas much slower radio waves easily can. In general, it seems to take a lot more work (energy) for us to produce and detect low frequency signals than high ones. So I think this conventional misnomer may be misleading you.a limit of existence, beyond which every event reflects and mirrors back to lower energies and slower frequencies
Tube of force
Maxwell changed Faraday's phrase lines of force to tubes of force, when expressing his fluidic assumptions involved in his mathematization of Faraday's theories.[6] A tube of force, also called a tube of electrostatic induction or field tube, are the lines of electric force which moves so that its beginning traces a closed curve on a positive surface, its end will trace a corresponding closed curve on the negative surface, and the line of force itself will generate an inductive tubular surface. Such a tube is called a "Solenoid". There is a pressure at right angles to a tube of force of one half the product of the dielectric and magnetic density. If through the growth of a field the tubes of force are spread sideways or in width there is a magnetic reaction to that growth in intensity of electric current. However, if a tube of force is caused to move endwise there is little or no drag to limit velocity. Tubes of force are absorbed by bodies imparting momentum and gravitational mass. Tubes of force are a group of electric lines of force.
Magnetic curves
Early on in his research (circa 1831), Faraday calls the patterns of apparently continuous curves traced out in metallic filings near a magnet magnetic curves. Later on he refers to them as just an instance of magnetic lines of force or simply lines of force.[9] Eventually Faraday would also begin to use the phrase "magnetic field".[
Electrical engineering has four primary dimensions;
Metrical,
(1) time, t, second
(2) space, l, centimeter
Substantial,
(3) magnetism, Phi, Weber
(4) dielectricity, Psi, Coulomb
There are no other electrical dimensions, that is it! The electric-dimensional RELATIONS are derived from these primary dimensions, but the relations are not new dimensions. There are no others than “the four.”
Intensity was just one thing left notably absent. How about amplitude? Sort of important when considering energy, no? You appear to be parroting vapid institutionally derived opinions as though fact here. If so, kindly stop. This is the internet. Unsubstantiated opinions are a dime a dozen and a waste of time here. However, if you must, two conditions please: a) provide an authoritative source apparently backing your claim(s) (as I have done for the most part) and b) provide some idea of why this thing makes sense to you. Making sense is the primary objective here.The electron orbits are the solutions of the Schrodinger's equation.
The Planck constant is universal.
Intensity is related to energy density, not the energy directly. The energy itself is a consequence of frequency and vice versa.
Fine. Understood. I would never want nor expect you to challenge your professors on the basis of anything you might find here. By all means, get your "A"s by parroting back exactly the nonsense you find in those textbooks. I did the same 40 years or so ago. You're there to get a degree by paying the tuition and stroking the establishment's ego as best you possibly can. You must run that gauntlet so as to earn your rite of passage. To ascend. Get your degree. Be officially deemed some sort of authority. Be "in the club" where you desire to be. Higher status. Increased power. Higher pay. Better benefits.. than your average rat stuck in the same rat race.I don't do Google, because I have my university textbooks with this knowledge, which I am required to know and use in regular university work assignments and exams.
Nonsense. First off,But to further answer your questions in your previous 2 posts, the electron orbits are given by the eigenvectors of the Schroedinger equation, and the total energies that can be measured are its eigenvalues.
QM is a pretend alternative explanation in constant search of demonstrable solutions it can lay claim to in retrospect. There's "no consensus" because all hate one another along with themselves as they well should for simply stealing everything while fucking it all up. I notice you too don't provide much of anything carefully. From Orbit (disambiguation) only one possibility is suggested from your usage: "Orbit (dynamics), in dynamical systems" further explained here. But right away "dynamic" actually means in action, not static. See, I think you really meant to say "Orbital" but, then again, don't really give a shit and have no actual clue. And why should you. No grades being passed out here. Make sense? Why? Who cares about making sense!The framework of quantum mechanics requires a careful definition of measurement. The issue of measurement lies at the heart of the problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, for which there is currently no consensus.
Sure, I can write E = mc^(2), so all energy is proportional to mass since c^(2) is just a constant, right? We can simply presume "E" and "m" to be "universal" or this equation suitable in any context. Getting hit by a lightning bolt, for example, is absolutely equivalent to ("interchangeable" with) having any mass (say The Moon) fall on you times the speed of light squared. Ain't math fun!Amplitude and intensity are interchangeable as they are proportional quantities, like frequency and kinetic energy are.
So an "electron" or "photon" is really just a field, right? Say it. No, you can't because, like spacetime, QM exists to deny The Aether. It's deliberately dumb.You don't need mass to get kinetic energy, you only need impulse. A photon for example has zero mass, but nonzero impulse.
What you really mean is that the intensity and amplitude were held or presumed fixed. Obviously, increasing either would make the wheel spin faster. One can't just forget about them, vary them, or do away with them altogether. There would be no spinny without some measure of intensity or amplitude. This is your error over and over again. The light's frequency was experimentally demonstrated to be a controlling factor, one that proportionately increased a form of energy (light wheel spin speed).Also, all of these things are facts, because these have been physically measured as early as in the 19th century. For example they made a very light wheel turn at different speeds depending on the color of the incidental light, and this speed didn't depend on the intensity of the light. So kinetic energy relates to frequency, not amplitude. Just an example.
What you really mean is that the intensity and amplitude were held or presumed fixed. Obviously, increasing either would make the wheel spin faster. One can't just forget about them, vary them, or do away with them altogether. There would be no spinny without some measure of intensity or amplitude. This is your error over and over again. The light's frequency was experimentally demonstrated to be a controlling factor, one that proportionately increased a form of energy (light wheel spin speed).Also, all of these things are facts, because these have been physically measured as early as in the 19th century. For example they made a very light wheel turn at different speeds depending on the color of the incidental light, and this speed didn't depend on the intensity of the light. So kinetic energy relates to frequency, not amplitude. Just an example.
Point being, the energy depends on more than the frequency and vice-versa. One could as easily write equations proportionately relating energy with intensity or with amplitude alone while presuming the frequency fixed. Doesn't make frequency irrelevant.
