Recognitions:
Gold Member

## Do one-dimensional signals truly exist?

 Quote by giann_tee ................. The radio receiver is insensitive locally to the orientation and small-scale changes in position. ............
Only because of 2 things....

1) as some one else mentioned .... the signal is being bounced/reflected in every direction ... and
2) when relatively close to the transmitter, the signal strength is so strong

both of these combine to mainly nullify the effects of the receiver antenna orientation

its only when you start getting some distance from the transmitter that the effects become noticable and that the orientation of the antenna in the receiver becomes important

Dave

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by giann_tee ...........Wavelength is equivalent to frequency and that is just one parameter to tune. ...
no its not ! wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency
... As the frequency increases the wavelength decreases

As sophicentaur said ... you need to do some serious reading up and relearning about
E-M generation, propagation and reception

cheers
Dave
 It's reasonable to say wavelength is equivalent to frequency, since they both contain the same information for light.
 sure there's a 1-D signal. its called a "wire".

 Quote by Khashishi I think you are deeply misunderstanding how a radio works. The radio signal drops the farther you go from the radio tower. It's certainly not 1-dimensional. If you go too far away, all you will hear is static. In 3D, signals drop off as 1/r^2 (the inverse square law). Radio might drop off a little less quickly because it bounces off the ionosphere, so it's probably drops off somewhere between 1/r and 1/r^2, so it's probably effectively fractal dimension. In 1-D, the signal doesn't drop off with distance unless it is absorbed.
Very interesting. Although it seems that the receiving antenna does not react to orientation and short changes of distance, larger changes of distance indicate that the emitter is a physical object of certain size and "luminosity" - like a star, but in radio wave frequency range.

The simulation of reflections and the modification of the inverse-square law is a must. Its simply beautiful to consider what would happen with real signals in space (atmosphere). I need to think about how this is done.

Now I realized that a single atomic interaction with a single photon has a binary outcome AND it reminds me more of a 1-D signal, but its just a tiny moment in time. Its just that one "ray" and nothing more.

 Quote by davenn Only because of 2 things.... 1) as some one else mentioned .... the signal is being bounced/reflected in every direction ... and 2) when relatively close to the transmitter, the signal strength is so strong both of these combine to mainly nullify the effects of the receiver antenna orientation its only when you start getting some distance from the transmitter that the effects become noticable and that the orientation of the antenna in the receiver becomes important Dave

This is something new. You say that the orientation of a lousy iron antenna does not matter within some limits, precisely because of the reflections?

 Quote by davenn no its not ! wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency ... As the frequency increases the wavelength decreases As sophicentaur said ... you need to do some serious reading up and relearning about E-M generation, propagation and reception cheers Dave
Yes yes, I know about the frequency. What would you suggest about the EM wave reception, whats the punchline? I am thinking about some electrons in the metal being displaced in different directions as various EM waves pass through the metal. The motion of electrons along a wire as an induced alternating current is then amplified if necessary. When does the selection according to frequency occur?

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by giann_tee Yes yes, I know about the frequency. What would you suggest about the EM wave reception, whats the punchline? I am thinking about some electrons in the metal being displaced in different directions as various EM waves pass through the metal. The motion of electrons along a wire as an induced alternating current is then amplified if necessary. When does the selection according to frequency occur?
Did you think of googling 'simple radio receivers' or something like it?
You appear to want to be told everything about everything at once yet I wonder just how much reading around you are doing? This scattergun approach puts you in danger of learning nothing of significance.

 Quote by chill_factor sure there's a 1-D signal. its called a "wire".
Yes! It reminds me of a network, internet. I have a friend who wrote about the Universal Field, an exploration in philosophy. She talked to the physicists and interviewed them. I had to restrain myself from being overly informative. The universality is accomplished by lifting different notions of field to the mental plane and encompassing them there. So, if we continue to behave like gentlemen, we may say that the universal field is in our minds and accept that it is okay as such.

The wire is interesting again, because the electrons are slowly travelling through the wire. But, they can be pushed out the other end very quickly. The field is transported, communicated to the other end.

For a single signal the shape of the wire does not matter. It leaves the illusion of perfect transport. A high-frequency signal would react to the shape of the wire due to self-induction.

 Quote by sophiecentaur Did you think of googling 'simple radio receivers' or something like it? You appear to want to be told everything about everything at once yet I wonder just how much reading around you are doing? This scattergun approach puts you in danger of learning nothing of significance.
You are correct, there is a danger. I have an organizational problem and I think that I googled and read everything before, so I should probably change the routine this time.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by giann_tee Yes! It reminds me of a network, internet. I have a friend who wrote about the Universal Field, an exploration in philosophy. She talked to the physicists and interviewed them. I had to restrain myself from being overly informative. The universality is accomplished by lifting different notions of field to the mental plane and encompassing them there. So, if we continue to behave like gentlemen, we may say that the universal field is in our minds and accept that it is okay as such. The wire is interesting again, because the electrons are slowly travelling through the wire. But, they can be pushed out the other end very quickly. The field is transported, communicated to the other end. For a single signal the shape of the wire does not matter. It leaves the illusion of perfect transport. A high-frequency signal would react to the shape of the wire due to self-induction.
Nonsense. This speculation and wandering rambling interspersed with technical terms seems to be not appropriate here. This is a forum for science learning. Furthermore, since you claim to already "I googled and read everything before" in your most recent post, why bother pretending to be inquisitive?

 Quote by Bobbywhy Nonsense. This speculation and wandering rambling interspersed with technical terms seems to be not appropriate here. This is a forum for science learning. Furthermore, since you claim to already "I googled and read everything before" in your most recent post, why bother pretending to be inquisitive?

I doubt that anything is appropriate for this forum, including conversation. As you can see, we have some answers in between. Maybe you can fill in where my PhD was incomplete, please?

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by giann_tee I doubt that anything is appropriate for this forum, including conversation. As you can see, we have some answers in between. Maybe you can fill in where my PhD was incomplete, please?
Your "organizational problem" seems to be much more severe than you realize. Everyone in this thread is frustrated by your inability to address one topic at a time and the rambling nature of your responses including some discussions that do not seem to be grounded in science but just a rambling collection of technical terms that don't hang together.

I realize this sounds harsh, and I do not wish to be rude, but you don't seem to "get" why it is that folks here are having difficulty with your "discussions"/"conversations"

See if you can pick a single topic and address it based on known science and perhaps we can go from there.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by giann_tee I doubt that anything is appropriate for this forum, including conversation. As you can see, we have some answers in between. Maybe you can fill in where my PhD was incomplete, please?
Best not go there, I think. I could be an eminent Surgeon but what I might write about Keynsian Economics could be total rubbish. What one writes here is one's only relevant qualification and, on this topic, your output is very fanciful and certainly not Physics as we know it.

 Quote by sophiecentaur Best not go there, I think. I could be an eminent Surgeon but what I might write about Keynsian Economics could be total rubbish. What one writes here is one's only relevant qualification and, on this topic, your output is very fanciful and certainly not Physics as we know it.
I think that it is a generous to be rich in contents, animate people and create something lasting. This is the kind of moderation I would do on my thread. There are many intuitive aspects of the topic, equivalences between abstract ideas, some of which possess material links that can be qualified with further knowledge. Posts often tend to become one-liners. No problem there, but this constant forum-wide bickering about doing homework should stop, unless you want your purpose in life to be AUTOMATION in place of intelligent response.

Recognitions:
Gold Member