Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Is it possible for any wave to be in a complex of waves?

  1. Jun 27, 2017 #1
    Also, if you get the gist of what I am asking, I would greatly appreciate correction of my vocabulary.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 27, 2017 #2


    Staff: Mentor

    I don't. Can you give a specific, concrete example instead of just a general question?
  4. Jun 27, 2017 #3
    Two atoms of oxygen bond into a diatomic molecule. Is there similar bonding between EM waves? Like, instead of one guitar string plucked, a chord.
  5. Jun 27, 2017 #4


    Staff: Mentor

    Chemical bonds, like the bond between the oxygen atoms in an O2 molecule, are ultimately due to electromagnetic interactions, since that is the interaction involved in determining the quantum mechanical states of electrons in atoms and molecules. But there are no similar states involved in EM waves (assuming you mean waves traveling in free space, not EM interactions between charged particles)--EM wave states are free states, not bound states.

    I'm not sure how this is supposed to be similar to a chemical bond. Chemical bonds are not two atoms "playing a chord" together.

    How much background do you have in QM? Have you worked through any basic QM textbooks?
  6. Jun 27, 2017 #5
    I have no background in QM and have read no science textbooks since 8th grade in 1967. I am not a learner by reading.

    What you wrote is helpful, it gives me some picture. I did not mean a chemical bond between waves. What I am trying to understand is if waves can in some way combine to create a 'complex' of waves. It seems not so. They are, in the case of 'EM interactions between charged particles' carrying energy between particles. Do they also carry information?

    There are EM waves occurring within an atom, between charged particles, is that accurate?

    My understanding is very elementary, my interest is very specific (as I am headed somewhere with my line of questioning), and I am very appreciative of helpful responses.
  7. Jun 27, 2017 #6


    Staff: Mentor

    Unfortunately, this is going to put you at a huge disadvantage when trying to formulate questions. That's true in any subject, but it's particularly true in QM since so much of it is so highly counterintuitive and understanding it at all requires you to considerably revise your conceptual scheme. All the more so since our knowledge of QM has advanced a lot since 1967 (and your 8th grade science textbook in 1967 probably didn't say much even about what we knew about QM then).

    The term "complex of waves" is too vague for this question to be answered.

    What does "carry information" mean? How is it different from carrying energy?

    Not the way I think you mean, no. The electromagnetic interaction between the electrons and the nucleus in the atom, and between the electrons themselves if there are more than one, is highly significant in determining the behavior of the atom; but there is no useful sense in which that interaction can be described as "EM waves" like those you would use to analyze, say, the operation of a radio antenna.

    It would be helpful if you would describe where you are headed, but I also suspect it would tread close to the line of the PF rules against personal speculations. If that is in fact the case, it should be another sign to you of the limitations of your apparent learning technique. It's really, really, really, really hard to come up with a useful new idea if you don't understand what is currently known and how that knowledge is organized theoretically. I don't know of any way to gain such an understanding without learning by reading--a lot. I'm sorry if that sounds negative, but I have to tell it like I see it.
  8. Jun 28, 2017 #7

    Thank you for taking time to respond.

    Exactly. I am constrained by having had three threads closed and receiving warnings against speculation and philosophy.

    Where I am headed is described in my PF profile, but I don't expect you to read it.

    I appreciate honesty and don't take it as negative. My dad was a professor, a man of science and pragmatism. We never understood each other fully, but always respected and loved each other. Even with freedom to write, I might never convince you that I am not in need of book learning. I just have my own way and it works for me when I can get specific answers as you and others in the PF have generously given me.
  9. Jun 28, 2017 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I looked at your profile. If that's where you are headed, then this should be rightly closed. What you have written is not scientific in the least. You have already stated that you don't have any background in physics, which is fine. But since you don't have a background in physics, you should accept that your ideas in physics are wrong.
  10. Jun 28, 2017 #9


    Staff: Mentor

    I read it, and having done so, I don't think where you are headed is on topic in this forum. The fact that you have received several previous warnings/thread closures indicates that other moderators agree with me. (You are welcome to PM me if you want more details about why I think that; it would not be appropriate to post them here.) Thread closed.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook