VLF Transmission Using Soundcard

[sophiecentaur]

Do you have trouble parsing sentences? My comment compared two contradictory notions. How can it be right or wrong?
You have, presumably, come to terms with the idea that low frequency photons are low energy so would not be a way of carrying data individually in the presence of thermal energy as they are undetectable. How would you propose to detect a photon with an energy level corresponding, not to an atomic transition, not to a molecular transition but the energy corresponding to a single free electron in a metal? This whole idea is nonsense and shows that you just know nothing of the real situation.
I ask, once more, do you have a single reference to support you?

 

[sru2]

Do you have trouble parsing sentences? My comment compared two contradictory notions. How can it be right or wrong?

Let's review what you asked...

The energy of a photon is hf (yes?). At low frequency the number of photons per Watt increases, yet is not the bandwidth of low frequency systems (i.e. the information capacity) less?

The first portion of your question asserts a statement that is wrong. The bandwidth of low frequency systems is not less, it is more. The problem is photon creation and detection which leads to low bandwidths. Its an engineering issue, not a physics issue.

You stated that a photon represents one bit of data. This is self contradictory because it implies that low frequency would carry more bits for the same power. Could you resolve this please?

Where is the contradiction? This is accurate. There are more photons, thus more bits can be represented.

You have, presumably, come to terms with the idea that low frequency photons are low energy so would not be a way of carrying data individually in the presence of thermal energy as they are undetectable.

This is a different issue, an engineering issue. We have been able to detect single photons at visible or near-infrared wavelengths for over a decade now.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2000/may/12/quantum-dots-detect-single-photons

It still does not change the theoretical capacity, just the practical detectable capacity. The latter changes with time, the former is an absolute.

How would you propose to detect a photon with an energy level corresponding, not to an atomic transition, not to a molecular transition but the energy corresponding to a single free electron in a metal?

Its an engineering issue that will be solved in time. This question is like asking someone from a hundred years ago to design a 4Ghz processor. Its not that it cannot be done, its just that there are a wide range of discoveries and inventions that need to occur before such a device become practical.

This whole idea is nonsense and shows that you just know nothing of the real situation.

There is nothing outrageous about setting an absolute limit on the total theoretical capacity of a channel at a given hertz and wattage.

I ask, once more, do you have a single reference to support you?

The math is in this thread, what more do you need?

 

[sophiecentaur]

If the sample of your Maths is that you don't know the difference between proportion and inverse proportion then I don't think we can rely on it. I'm afraid I am going to have to invoke the rules of the Forum and say that we can't carry on unless you can furnish us with a reference or some reliable experimental evidence.
You are sure to throw your toys out of the pram about this but there is nothing else that I can do. Some people could read what you have written and run the risk of actually believing that it has some substance. We cannot have that.
No references means the thread is over as far as I'm concerned - and as far as any of the moderators are concerned too, I think.

 

[sru2]

If the sample of your Maths is that you don't know the difference between proportion and inverse proportion then I don't think we can rely on it. I'm afraid I am going to have to invoke the rules of the Forum and say that we can't carry on unless you can furnish us with a reference or some reliable experimental evidence.

If you cannot comprehend the simple math, then a reference would be equally useless to you. Everything you need to confirm it is given in the post above.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3947771&postcount=86

You are sure to throw your toys out of the pram about this but there is nothing else that I can do. Some people could read what you have written and run the risk of actually believing that it has some substance. We cannot have that.

...even though it is accurate?

No references means the thread is over as far as I'm concerned - and as far as any of the moderators are concerned too, I think.

This thread is in relation to VLF comms, not photons. Just because it was shown that you do not really understand quantum mechanics, radio transmission, data transfer, data representation, etc., does not give you the right to sulk.

Lose the ego and just admit when you're wrong.