Wave particle Duality inspired by a thread in Chemistry

[studiot]

6 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

How?  If E=hf, then how would energy be divided?  I've asked before for help in understanding how co2 can radiate IR in all directions, and if E=hf, then why does it matter that some of the IR goes to space and some to earth if E is purely a function of F.  It seems intuitive to divide a 360 radiation pattern into 90 degree sections and then say one section has 1/4 of the energy, but E is purely a function of F and can't be divided like that.  I've been confused for 2 weeks on this problem and have all but begged for someone to help.

 

You should start by understanding that EM energy is not purely a function of EM frequency.

6 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

On 27/09/2017 at 9:14 AM, Strange said:

The scientific method is evidence based. Therefore to be "scientifically" impossible, you would need evidence. Obviously.

Define evidence.

 

Here is an example of some evidence.

If I take a 50 watt monochromatic sodium lamp and shine it on a photocell to measure the energy and compare this with a 500 watt monochromatic sodium lamp I will find that the light energy is of the same frequency but substantially smaller.

 

[Strange]

33 minutes ago, studiot said:

You should start by understanding that EM energy is not purely a function of EM frequency.

This may be a key point that BB is missing.

You can increase the energy of a classical wave by increasing the amplitude, without changing the frequency. Or you can split the wave into waves of the same frequency but lower amplitude.

You cannot increase the amplitude of a photon. Its energy is solely determined by frequency. 

37 minutes ago, studiot said:

If I take a 50 watt monochromatic sodium lamp and shine it on a photocell to measure the energy and compare this with a 500 watt monochromatic sodium lamp I will find that the light energy is of the same frequency but substantially smaller.

I found this slightly confusing so I'm not sure it will help BB!

[swansont]

6 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

You'll have to elaborate on the distinction because it's not immediately obvious and my mindreading machine is in the shop.

"Not gradual" would be "fast"

"Fast" does not imply instantaneous.

6 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

So you accept that 1+2+3+... = -1/12?

No. As the article said, it's a bit of sleight of hand in how they did the sum.

6 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

Yes, but then he goes on to say "That means there should be an attractive force between the metallic plates, which also seems ludicrous, since classical physics suggests there should be no force."  There should be a force, which is ludicrous because an erroneous method of physics says there should be no force.  Therefore, why is it ludicrous that there should be a force?

Before QM, people didn't know that CM was erroneous at small scales. Things that are apparent now were not apparent before QM was developed. CM is what we're used to on an everyday basis. So it's treated as surprising when we discover something we did not expect.

I didn't think it's a particularly confusing plot line to use in a narrative, but obviously everyone's mileage will vary.

6 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

Can I make a peach tree produce apples?  Yes, it's called grafting and almost all fruit trees you buy will be grafted onto a different kind of tree.  Some folks have one tree producing several different kinds of fruit.

Could I make the apple portion of the tree produce another kind of fruit?  Not me personally, but I'm sure humanity can monkey with the dna and make it happen eventually.

Then you'll say it's the dna that represents nature and a tree will always produce what the dna says it will and now we're on a slippery slope where you'll always have a part of nature that you will call the law until that is broken and then you'll cling to the next more-fundamental law while never conceding how humanity pushes nature around.

What will say is that there will always be someone that pushes an analogy well past the point of usefulness in order to avoid admitting that they were wrong.

6 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

You may say it's a law that information cannot be transmitted faster than light, but what would you say after we read one day that they've done it through quantum entanglement or who-knows-what?  Well, then it's a more-fundamental law governing the process.  And then we break that one and here comes yet another proclamation that it's an even-more-fundamental law.  On and on the slippery slope goes.

Science can only go with the best information available at the time. If new information comes along, we reshape our models. You want to call that a slippery slope, well, I'll just say I disagree with that characterization.

6 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

 In it, they said he published a paper and almost no one cared.  If not for planck recognizing einstein, who knows where we'd be today.  In the video they said if einstein had gone to college, he would not have been very good at kissing-up to a senior professor and therefore we can thank our lucky stars that he was never subjected to university politics.  

Einstein earned a B.A. at the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich and earned a PhD at University of Zurich.

https://www.biography.com/people/albert-einstein-9285408
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Early_life_and_education

6 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

 I don't need evidence that laws change; you need evidence that they don't in order to call them laws.

A "law" in physics is merely a mathematical relationship that has been found to hold true.

 

[BanterinBoson]

On 9/28/2017 at 3:28 AM, Strange said:

You might think you can tell nature what to do, but I suspect you will have less luck with the moderators here.

If that be the case, then I'd love to stay and banter with you guys, but politics.

Swanson, the video should be cued at 3:58:

I'm no einstein, but I can relate to the not kissing up bit.... especially merely to cater to an anally-retentive obsession with topic relevancy of a discussion that will never be viewed by another carbon-based entity once buried among the pages of long-dead topics.  Or perhaps the condition is a Napoleonesque desire to subjugate; either way, I'm not hanging around to find out while in the face of 1000s of dying dime-a-dozen forums who really should be doing what they can to keep folks around rather than barking orders to run people off.  https://trends.builtwith.com/cms/forum-software

On 9/28/2017 at 5:13 AM, Strange said:

This may be a key point that BB is missing.

I just need to spend more time studying and less time posting.

Y'all have fun with your organizational compulsions.