What is a wave with no frequency?

[pinestone]

Wait...what?

No...

Here we go again...

 

[Manchot]

Yes. Very well, indeed.

And you have a working prototype?

 

[DaveC426913]

Hey guys. Pinestone hasn't opened himself up for judgement here. His question was merely for information.

I know it's tempting to jump on someone if they walk like a crazy inventor and talk like a crazy inventor, but let's let him commit a crime first, before we start accusing him of one.

 

[gulsen]

I'm not quite sure if this thread belongs here, but what would you call one wave that has no frequency. Zero Hz? A mobius ?

AFAIK, you can't have a wave that has 0 frequency, uncertainy principle just doesn't let you.

 

[pallidin]

From http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/mmedia/waves/swf.html

In conclusion, standing wave patterns are produced as the result of the repeated interference of two waves of identical frequency while moving in opposite directions along the same medium. All standing wave patterns consist of nodes and anti-nodes. The nodes are points of no displacement caused by the destructive interference of the two waves. The anti-nodes result from the constructive interference of the two waves and thus undergo maximum dispacement from the rest position.

 

[pallidin]

From http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/waves/standingWaves/standingWaves.html

Standing waves are non-traveling vibrations of certain wavelength and frequency which occur on a medium of certain size. The size of the medium controls the wavelengths of the standing waves. Also, the way that the medium is held at its ends, either fixed or open, controls the wavelengths of the standing waves.

 

[pallidin]

Therefore, as stated by gulsen, it is not possible to have a wave with zero frequency, rather, only a wave that does not propagate.

 

[franznietzsche]

A stationary wave would be traveling at the speed of light.

Therefore, as stated by gulsen, it is not possible to have a wave with zero frequency, rather, only a wave that does not propagate.

Yes, such a wave is not traveling at the speed of light.

The wave function for a bound electron is a standing wave, and it is also not traveling at the speed of light.

 

[DaveC426913]

Zero Hz directly implies "no frequency" of polarity change. This is called DC, or "direct current"

THis is what I would have thought too.

While AC oscillates from 110V to -110V 60 times per second, if it just stopped oscillating, it would simply be 110V DC (though I suppose it could just as likely be 0V).

But you couldn't have light with a freq of 0Hz.

 

[pinestone]

And you have a working prototype?

Yes, I have many prototypes with different qualities of resolution. I'm still trying different combinations of xxxxxxxx while I'm waiting for my lawyers to finish the app. I was hoping to gain some insight into some of the things that are happening inside this "apparatus" of mine by asking all of you some simple questions concerning my observations. I've been into experimental physics for over 35 years but lack a formal education. However, I can prototype just about anything micro-mechanical or electronic. Please be patient, and I'll post a link here soon to my website for all to interact with. I truly appreciate any comments or information any of you may have. Together we will find the truth.

 

[pinestone]

Yes, such a wave is not traveling at the speed of light.

The wave function for a bound electron is a standing wave, and it is also not traveling at the speed of light.

I gave this theory a lot of thought. You must understand that I'm not generating anything. If you look at the .jpg I posted on page one of this topic, you will see a light, a magnet (covered with black shrink tubing to cut down on reflections) and a wave. No electronic anything. I have thousands of images-not computer generated. Many 35mm film images, too.

 

[pinestone]

Here's a question for you, Pinestone. Does your invention actually work?

I'm not sure what you mean by "work". It does, however, reveal another facet of magnetism. Look at the .jpg I posted on page one of this thread. What do you see?

 

[pinestone]

THis is what I would have thought too.

While AC oscillates from 110V to -110V 60 times per second, if it just stopped oscillating, it would simply be 110V DC (though I suppose it could just as likely be 0V).

But you couldn't have light with a freq of 0Hz.

A DC wave wouldn't be sine- it would be square.

 

[pinestone]

Hey guys. Pinestone hasn't opened himself up for judgement here. His question was merely for information.

I know it's tempting to jump on someone if they walk like a crazy inventor and talk like a crazy inventor, but let's let him commit a crime first, before we start accusing him of one.

Thank you. I'm trying to follow the rules. This is difficult for me, too. Maybe we should end this link until I can tell you guys everything. I'll leave it to the "Masters" of this site- continue or quit?

 

[pinestone]

Therefore, as stated by gulsen, it is not possible to have a wave with zero frequency, rather, only a wave that does not propagate.

Yes, a very good explanation.

 

[pinestone]

As a wave approaches the speed of light, doesn't it slow down? When it is traveling at the same speed as light, doesn't it appear to stand still? re:Einstein?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Look at the .jpg I posted on page one of this thread. What do you see?

That you're not sure how to use the focus on your camera?

As a wave approaches the speed of light, doesn't it slow down? When it is traveling at the same speed as light, doesn't it appear to stand still? re:Einstein?

A wave of what? A 'particle' or a disturbance within some medium?

Neither of those types of waves can both travel slower than light and at light. The speed of a disturbance through a medium depends on the properties of the medium. Sound is a disturbance in air, and goes at about 330m/s. In steel it's more like 2km/s! There isn't a medium in which it could go as fast as light through.

Yes, as a disturbance passes through more and more rigid media (or you're accelerating a particle) time will pass slower for it, and you'd need to bring in relativistic equations. It will not actually reach the speed of light though. Particles can't do it, they have mass (if they didn't, they'd only move at the speed of light) and disturbances can't do it because the medium they are in has mass.

 

[franznietzsche]

I gave this theory a lot of thought. You must understand that I'm not generating anything. If you look at the .jpg I posted on page one of this topic, you will see a light, a magnet (covered with black shrink tubing to cut down on reflections) and a wave. No electronic anything. I have thousands of images-not computer generated. Many 35mm film images, too.

Huh? What are you talking about? Did you quote the right post?

I didn't say anything about an electronic device. I was pointing out the the wave function of a bound particle is a standing wave, but that particle does not travel at the speed of light. What are you talking about?

As a wave approaches the speed of light, doesn't it slow down? When it is traveling at the same speed as light, doesn't it appear to stand still? re:Einstein?

You're mixing up reference frames. In a particle's (wave packet) fram of reference it is always holding still. In a removed inertial frame it may be moving.

 

[Mk]

I don't know if anybody has brought this up, but I found this very interesting, and was reminded of this thread.

The basic idea of string theory of course, is that the fundamental constituents of reality are strings of the Planck length (about 10^-35 m) which vibrate at resonant frequencies. The tension of a string (8.9×1042 N) is about 10⁴¹ times the tension of an average piano string (735 Newtons). The graviton is predicted by the theory to have zero amplitude.

Oh yes, the strings were just supposed to be strings, not necessarily waves. I was astounded by this. What about particle-wave duality?? Maybe I should ask this in QP instead.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Though I've only done 26 dimensional bosonic string theory (so the 11d superstring theory might be different on this point), but isn't the graviton the first excited state of the string? Surely if it's in an excited state, it can't have zero amplitude.

Mind you, the non-excited state is a tachyon, so that theory itself needs tweaking (which our lecturers assures is done further down the line).

 

[Mk]

I dunno, I got it off Wikipedia. Change it if you think its wrong.

 

[pinestone]

Neither of those types of waves can both travel slower than light and at light. The speed of a disturbance through a medium depends on the properties of the medium. Sound is a disturbance in air, and goes at about 330m/s. In steel it's more like 2km/s! There isn't a medium in which it could go as fast as light through.

Yes, as a disturbance passes through more and more rigid media (or you're accelerating a particle) time will pass slower for it, and you'd need to bring in relativistic equations. It will not actually reach the speed of light though. Particles can't do it, they have mass (if they didn't, they'd only move at the speed of light) and disturbances can't do it because the medium they are in has mass.

I still don't understand what you are referring to. I never said anything about particles (mass). I'm talking about magnetism and light.

 

[Integral]

This thread is closed due to the lack of any physical content.