On Thursday, August 21, 2025 at 4:22:06 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Thursday, August 21, 2025 at 10:35:32 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 11:50 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *>> The wavelength of light (electromagnetic waves) produced by a microwave oven is defined as twice the distance between two melted points of a chocolate bar that had been heated in a microwave oven that was on a non-rotating plate. It works because the microwaves are in a box so they form a standing wave pattern inside the oven, and the waves interfere constructively every half wavelength and produce more heating at that point. **If you actually perform that experiment you'll find that the wavelength is 12.2 cm. * *> How do you get a definite wave length using the ends of a chocolate bar if you don't know its length? AG * *Huh? You don't use the ends of a chocolate bar, you use a tape measure to determine the length between two melted spots in the chocolate bar and then multiply that number by two.* *>> If you find that definition is still "at best very imprecise" perhaps you could give me a better definition of "at best very imprecise" so I could give you a definition that was a bit better than at best less very imprecise.* *Incidentally you can use that same experiment to measure the speed of light, if you happen to know that all household microwave ovens operate at a frequency of 2.45 GHz, by using the simple formula c = fλ (where c is the speed of light, f is frequency, and λ is wavelength).* *> The issue I have been discussing applies to quantum light particles called photons. I don't have a problem with classical waves. AG * *We have been discussing the cosmological redshift and your claim that we have "at best a very imprecise definition" of the wavelength of light. But that is simply not true, we have an extremely precise definition of the wavelength of light. and the cosmological red shift was discovered using optical telescopes that's operation can be completely understood by treating light as if it was composed of classical waves. So if space is expanding then why is it silly to say the LENGTH of the wave is expanding with it? If it is not then what does "expanding space" even mean? * It could mean that the average distance between galaxies, with the exception of those in the local group, is increasing. In any event you don't seem to understand my issue here. I am not doubting the existence of the red shift; rather the standard interpretation of it for photons. You have a story you've fallen in love with, which makes zero sense when you think about it. Other than as a quantum number, see if you can define the wave length of a photon. AG Two related questions; if photons lose energy as the universe expands, where does the lost energy go? And second; why don't the wave lengths of material particles, such as electrons, also decrease in energy as well, under the same circumtance? AG, *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* zvb -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c9d60549-f64e-4c89-bda7-7ba703fb0831n%40googlegroups.com.
