Goldilocks Frequencies And Photon Packet Frequencies

[Mattzy]

A photon (or packet/ parcel etc) may have a wavelength that will not penetrate (say) a microwave oven door screen (but visible light will pass through the 1mm hole - microwave photon wavelength is around 60mm).

Radio techs talk about goldilocks frequencies that penetrate building materials (good for radio comms etc). Each pulse transmitted from an antenna is a transmission wave of zillions of photons. The transmission waves may be many metres apart. So it seems to me that the transmission frequency has nothing to do with the capacity of the photon to penetrate a substance as each photon had its own wavelength. Maybe it's the power in each wave that imparts the photon wavelength? I don't know - but it still doesn't explain these goldilocks frequencies. Is there a relationship between transmission frequency and photon frequency?

[exchemist]

A photon (or packet/ parcel etc) may have a wavelength that will not penetrate (say) a microwave oven door screen (but visible light will pass through the 1mm hole - microwave photon wavelength is around 60mm).

Radio techs talk about goldilocks frequencies that penetrate building materials (good for radio comms etc). Each pulse transmitted from an antenna is a transmission wave of zillions of photons. The transmission waves may be many metres apart. So it seems to me that the transmission frequency has nothing to do with the capacity of the photon to penetrate a substance as each photon had its own wavelength. Maybe it's the power in each wave that imparts the photon wavelength? I don't know - but it still doesn't explain these goldilocks frequencies. Is there a relationship between transmission frequency and photon frequency?

Yes. They are one and the same. 

 

The issue is diffraction. Long wavelengths can diffract round obstructions, whereas short ones have a more line-of-sight behaviour. Essentially, obstructions that are smaller in size than the wavelength do not significantly interrupt the wave.  Conversely apertures in a blocking obstruction do not significantly pass waves that have a wavelength much larger than the aperture. If you look up diffraction you will be able to read more about this (I am just going from memory and may not have expressed it exactly right :)  ).

[Mattzy]

Yes. They are one and the same. 

 

The issue is diffraction. Long wavelengths can diffract round obstructions, whereas short ones have a more line-of-sight behaviour. Essentially, obstructions that are smaller in size than the wavelength do not significantly interrupt the wave.  Conversely apertures in a blocking obstruction do not significantly pass waves that have a wavelength much larger than the aperture. If you look up diffraction you will be able to read more about this (I am just going from memory and may not have expressed it exactly right :)  ).

I'll check out refraction. Thanks for that exchemist. I still don't get the mismatch between spacing of pulses (transmission wavelength) and photon wavelength. Hopefully refraction will answer that.

[exchemist]

I'll check out refraction. Thanks for that exchemist. I still don't get the mismatch between spacing of pulses (transmission wavelength) and photon wavelength. Hopefully refraction will answer that.

NO! Not refraction: DIFFRACTION. The two are quite different.  Refraction will tell you nothing about this at all. 

 

But I see where I could have misled you with part of my earlier reply. The photon wavelength will be that of the carrier wave. When you talk about the "spacing of pulses" you must I think mean the modulation that carries the signal. That I presume will be irregular and therefore will not have a wavelength as such at all.

 

Rhertz will be your man for that: he seems to be a radio engineer.

Edited June 5, 2019 by exchemist

[Mattzy]

NO! Not refraction: DIFFRACTION. The two are quite different.  Refraction will tell you nothing about this at all. 

 

But I see where I could have misled you with part of my earlier reply. The photon wavelength will be that of the carrier wave. When you talk about the "spacing of pulses" you must I think mean the modulation that carries the signal. That I presume will be irregular and therefore will not have a wavelength as such at all.

 

Rhertz will be your man for that: he seems to be a radio engineer.

I'll check out diffraction as advised. I know about modulation of carrier waves ie amplitude modulation or frequency modulation - but that's not what I'm asking.

The carrier wave is the regular pulse of emf coming from an antenna. These pulses may be very far apart (say 100 metres) in each wave of emf there are zillions of photons. Each photon has its own frequency. A microwave oven photon has its own frequency that will not allow it to pass through quite large holes in oven door screens. So how do the radio engineers produce / change photon frequency? What are these goldilocks frequencies? Are they talking about transmission frequencies or photon frequencies? Are these frequencies related? I hazard a guess that the power in each wave will energize each photon - irrespective of carrier wave frequency.

[exchemist]

I'll check out diffraction as advised. I know about modulation of carrier waves ie amplitude modulation or frequency modulation - but that's not what I'm asking.

The carrier wave is the regular pulse of emf coming from an antenna. These pulses may be very far apart (say 100 metres) in each wave of emf there are zillions of photons. Each photon has its own frequency. A microwave oven photon has its own frequency that will not allow it to pass through quite large holes in oven door screens. So how do the radio engineers produce / change photon frequency? What are these goldilocks frequencies? Are they talking about transmission frequencies or photon frequencies? Are these frequencies related? I hazard a guess that the power in each wave will energize each photon - irrespective of carrier wave frequency.

This seems a bit confused. Each crest of a wave does not constitute a "pulse". A pulse implies something that is present and then absent, something discontinuous. A wave is continuous, though its amplitude oscillates.

 

I repeat, the photons are the wave coming from the antenna. You do not have two different things with different frequencies. The distinction you are making between transmission frequency and photon frequency is false. There is no distinction. If you have a radio wave with a wavelength of 100m, it has a frequency of c/100 = 3 MHz.  That is the frequency of the photons that make it up, to which you can apply E=hν and calculate the energy of each photon making up the beam. There is a table showing this relation for radiation at different frequencies in this Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

Edited June 6, 2019 by exchemist

[Mattzy]

Aha! So that's where I'm going wrong and confused. I probably am. But exchemist, you don't offer me the explanation I seek.

You say "the photons are the wave coming off the antenna" . That needs explanation if I am to be corrected. I assume amplitude is the measure of energy in the wave. I am conceiving both amplitude of the carrier wave and the photon. You are saying this is false. I ask you: what is the wave made of? I believe it is photons. No?

A visible light photon will oscillate in way that allows it to go through a 1mm hole in the mesh. But even if its amplitude is greater than the 1mm hole it may well pass through if it has a long wavelength and passes at a near perpendicular to the screen - or any angle that will allow it to pass through the hole. If the wavelength is has higher amplitude "and" short enough frequency that it will always be absorbed by the screen then you have the explanation to how the screen works. Imagine a tightly concertinaed rattle snake that can't straighten out - that is how I conceive each photon (or packet or lump of energy). I think you are saying that is a misconception.

In your analogy there are still zillions of photons all doing what? If your wave is made of photons then how do you describe their movement within a wavelength of 100m? Any of them that arrive at the hole will pass through at a carrier wave frequency of 100m.

I don't think it matters about my description of a carrier wave as a pulse. The antenna is charged and discharged at carrier wave frequency, giving off waves of emf  spaced at that frequency. If you plot the emf of the wave you can rightly say it is continuous as it rises from low to high energy level. What is wrong with conceiving this as a pulse of energy just because its change is not instantaneous. That wave form that you see on an oscilloscope or a graph is just the power of zillions of photons rising and falling in number and individual energy level - yes? If not then what? What do you think the wave is made of? It must be photons - yes?

So inside the rising wave (I still like pulse) of emf there are photons - yes? Zillions of photons represented at the peak of the plotted wave and very few (in my analogy zero) half way between the peaks. Have I got this completely wrong? Where?

exchemist, what is meant by "goldilocks frequency"? Can you explain how it penetrates where other frequencies fail? Are we still talking diffraction?

[exchemist]

Aha! So that's where I'm going wrong and confused. I probably am. But exchemist, you don't offer me the explanation I seek.

You say "the photons are the wave coming off the antenna" . That needs explanation if I am to be corrected. I assume amplitude is the measure of energy in the wave. I am conceiving both amplitude of the carrier wave and the photon. You are saying this is false. I ask you: what is the wave made of? I believe it is photons. No?

A visible light photon will oscillate in way that allows it to go through a 1mm hole in the mesh. But even if its amplitude is greater than the 1mm hole it may well pass through if it has a long wavelength and passes at a near perpendicular to the screen - or any angle that will allow it to pass through the hole. If the wavelength is has higher amplitude "and" short enough frequency that it will always be absorbed by the screen then you have the explanation to how the screen works. Imagine a tightly concertinaed rattle snake that can't straighten out - that is how I conceive each photon (or packet or lump of energy). I think you are saying that is a misconception.

In your analogy there are still zillions of photons all doing what? If your wave is made of photons then how do you describe their movement within a wavelength of 100m? Any of them that arrive at the hole will pass through at a carrier wave frequency of 100m.

I don't think it matters about my description of a carrier wave as a pulse. The antenna is charged and discharged at carrier wave frequency, giving off waves of emf  spaced at that frequency. If you plot the emf of the wave you can rightly say it is continuous as it rises from low to high energy level. What is wrong with conceiving this as a pulse of energy just because its change is not instantaneous. That wave form that you see on an oscilloscope or a graph is just the power of zillions of photons rising and falling in number and individual energy level - yes? If not then what? What do you think the wave is made of? It must be photons - yes?

So inside the rising wave (I still like pulse) of emf there are photons - yes? Zillions of photons represented at the peak of the plotted wave and very few (in my analogy zero) half way between the peaks. Have I got this completely wrong? Where?

exchemist, what is meant by "goldilocks frequency"? Can you explain how it penetrates where other frequencies fail? Are we still talking diffraction?

The energy intensity is the square of the amplitude. 

 

You do not have photons "inside" the wave. Each photon is itself a wave. You can add waves together. If you add the waves constituting each photon to one another you get the total radiation.

 

Re "goldilocks frequency" I looked this up and found no references to it. Can you provide me with a reference?   

[Mattzy]

Very many thanks rhertz! I'm very grateful for putting me straight on what was clearly my total misconception. I will thank exchemist for roping you in too - on my behalf.

He was right.

I will have to read all that you've sent a number of times to re-perceive a radio wave without photons. I doubt that I will ever understand quantum mechanics but maybe I'll learn enough to be dangerous! Thanks again rhertz.

[Mattzy]

The energy intensity is the square of the amplitude. 

 

You do not have photons "inside" the wave. Each photon is itself a wave. You can add waves together. If you add the waves constituting each photon to one another you get the total radiation.

 

Re "goldilocks frequency" I looked this up and found no references to it. Can you provide me with a reference?   

exchemist, you were right. I will have to read rhertz's reply a number of times to re-learn the theory on radio waves. I'm not going to study quantum mechanics - it's too late for that - but at least I'll have some better chance of not making a fool of myself in future! Thanks for bringing in rhertz on my behalf. I think this is what these sites should be about. Good result - for me.

[exchemist]

exchemist, you were right. I will have to read rhertz's reply a number of times to re-learn the theory on radio waves. I'm not going to study quantum mechanics - it's too late for that - but at least I'll have some better chance of not making a fool of myself in future! Thanks for bringing in rhertz on my behalf. I think this is what these sites should be about. Good result - for me.

Be a bit careful with rhertz. He may know his radio engineering, but he has some crank ideas when it comes to physics. All this guff about extra E and H dimensions forms no part of the model physics uses. His ideas of what a photon is are his own homespun notion and not what modern physics says. Rhertz des not believe in modern physics, basically, and wants to take us all back to the end of the c.19th.  

 

I suggest if you are in any doubt, you consult the various Wikipaedia articles. They are not always clear or accurate, but in general they are not a bad place to start. I think you will find that what people such as Oceanbreeze and I have to say is broadly in line with what you will find there. 

[exchemist]

LOL, exchemist. I'm starting to like our argumentative discussions. I say something and you find "holes" in what I say. Then I'll try to find "holes" into your "holes", and this keep happening ad infinitum. No problem, because you make me work aditional time to refute your refutations!

 

Here are some depictions (graphs) that I've found, where the E and H space exists, plus something else that I'll find next.

 

 

Do you see the E and H dimensions at this graph? No xyz dimensions, only E,H plus time. An EM wave is a point-like entity

at any arbitrary instant t. Do you see it?

 

See? No oscillations at the xyz subspace. This 3D subspace would be used to represent the trajectory of the point-like entity

(call it "photon", if you want, but it's a simplification which captures the imagination of people. Remember the "Photon Torpedo" from Star Trek?

 

 

And I don't have any problem with modern physics, like Solid State Physics (which originated in the '40s) and is the key

for the semiconductor's industry, or Optic Physics (laser, etc.), or Particle's Physics. I'm against physics that is not based

in the scientific method (like relativity, the big bang theory, the string theory, the black holes theory, the cosmological

Lambda-CDM model, the falsification of the origin of the Cosmic Background Radiation (it's impossible to be

measured properly), the photonic Einstein-Bose condensate, the Schrodinger equation (even HE regretted inventing it),

E=mc², many outcomes of the QFT, etc.).

You are welcome to your ideas. Occasionally, when I am feeling energetic, or bored, I look at them and see if I feel like taking you up on a point. (I've given  you up on CMBR, for now)

 

However I don't think it is fair to Mattzy to start putting these ideas of your forward to him or her, without making clear where standard physics ends and your own ideas begin. That is why I suggested Wiki as a check on what he or she reads on this forum. 

 

But OK, let me put 50p in your slot and see what I get:

 

Regarding E and H vs. x, y, z, when a dipole antenna radiates radio waves, the electrons move up and down the antenna, do they not? Along a spatial axis perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the radiation. So if we designate z as the propagation direction we have an oscillating electric field, in space, along the x or y axis, do we not? 

[Mattzy]

Be a bit careful with rhertz. He may know his radio engineering, but he has some crank ideas when it comes to physics. All this guff about extra E and H dimensions forms no part of the model physics uses. His ideas of what a photon is are his own homespun notion and not what modern physics says. Rhertz des not believe in modern physics, basically, and wants to take us all back to the end of the c.19th.  

 

I suggest if you are in any doubt, you consult the various Wikipaedia articles. They are not always clear or accurate, but in general they are not a bad place to start. I think you will find that what people such as Oceanbreeze and I have to say is broadly in line with what you will find there. 

Roger that exchemist. Yes I should use wiki pedia more often. I forgot to answer your request. You can see a mention of goldilocks frequencies in relation to 5G networks. A friend of mine mentioned them a few months ago - he works in telecoms but he is an organiser and no more technically knowledgeable than I am. I have seen it mentioned on a site called "between towers" its the range 1 to 7GHz and said to be 'just right' hence the goldilocks term.

[Mattzy]

I should also add that I would hate to cause any argument between old buddies. The attraction with this site compared to Wikipedia is that it finds people that can go to a misunderstanding and then help with a particular detail right away. The discussions can be stimulating too (even a little addictive) - rather than dry research. Nevertheless I will make better use of Wikipedia in future before spouting ideas.

[Mattzy]

I think the root cause of my ignorance is that I had the belief that when an electron loses energy it moves inwards in its orbit (shell) and gives off said energy as a photon. So I start thinking of packets or photons. Visible light is detected at the back of the eye which detects photons. There seems to be a gulf between visible light theory and radio wave theory even though they are said to be both electromagnetic radiation. Many years ago I was surprised to hear that visible light was electromagnetic - I will go to Wikipedia to find that proof - which I don't dispute. 

So I had this perception that in charging and discharging a metal rod, we emit photons and that these photons are the electromagnetic field itself. I had also thought that is what happens when we switch on a light bulb filament and see it glow - because our eyes detect those particular photons. This is my confusion from the past. I still have to conceive what a wave or field is made of if not photons.

[exchemist]

Roger that exchemist. Yes I should use wiki pedia more often. I forgot to answer your request. You can see a mention of goldilocks frequencies in relation to 5G networks. A friend of mine mentioned them a few months ago - he works in telecoms but he is an organiser and no more technically knowledgeable than I am. I have seen it mentioned on a site called "between towers" its the range 1 to 7GHz and said to be 'just right' hence the goldilocks term.

Ah, OK. I would imagine this relates to some happy medium, balancing the snags of the more line-of-sight behaviour of high frequencies (need more towers to cope with blocking by buildings etc) against whatever the advantage is of higher frequency (rhertz can probably fill you n on that side of things - I am not a radio engineer).

[exchemist]

I think the root cause of my ignorance is that I had the belief that when an electron loses energy it moves inwards in its orbit (shell) and gives off said energy as a photon. So I start thinking of packets or photons. Visible light is detected at the back of the eye which detects photons. There seems to be a gulf between visible light theory and radio wave theory even though they are said to be both electromagnetic radiation. Many years ago I was surprised to hear that visible light was electromagnetic - I will go to Wikipedia to find that proof - which I don't dispute. 

So I had this perception that in charging and discharging a metal rod, we emit photons and that these photons are the electromagnetic field itself. I had also thought that is what happens when we switch on a light bulb filament and see it glow - because our eyes detect those particular photons. This is my confusion from the past. I still have to conceive what a wave or field is made of if not photons.

Yes it IS all photons. When a dipole antenna radiates, there are moving charges. When an electron drops to a lower level in the atom, it is a moving charge. In fact if you do quantum theory, you learn about something called the "transition dipole", which describes the process by which the electron emits a photon. It is just a question of scale, really.  

 

I really recommend this Wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum. I suggest reading this and then maybe asking questions, if you have any. 

Edited June 8, 2019 by exchemist