Why do you get sideband frequencies for amplitude modulation (AM)?

[the_emi_guy]

@davenn

I reposted spreadsheet as .zip.

 

[sophiecentaur]

An explanation can be mathematically correct, yet concentrate on conveying an intuition rather than regurgitating some math that may be opaque to the audience. There's nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong, in principle, but just how far do you expect to take it? Even the 'explanation' that involves minimal maths will still be opaque to some of the audience (do you assume they know what a sine wave is?). My problem with this approach is that it implies that the Subject has to be subservient to the Learner. Whether you're beginning to walk, read or to understand communication theory, there are certain new things that you have to take on board and just learn. It's a giving process, just as much as a taking process. The tail does not wag the dog here.
TV Science presenters would give us all the impression that Science is nothing but Fun and Animations. It isn't; anyone who wants to get there needs do have done some graft.

 

[olivermsun]

Nothing wrong, in principle, but just how far do you expect to take it? Even the 'explanation' that involves minimal maths will still be opaque to some of the audience (do you assume they know what a sine wave is?).

I'm willing to make that assumption given that the OP was asking about "sidebands" and "frequencies" and "amplitude." If it turns out the audience is confused, then we can always back up.

My problem with this approach is that it implies that the Subject has to be subservient to the Learner.

Trying to connect a Subject to concepts a Learner might grasp isn't some kind of some kind of subordination. It's an attempt to communicate.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I'm willing to make that assumption given that the OP was asking about "sidebands" and "frequencies" and "amplitude." If it turns out the audience is confused, then we can always back up.


The Subject doesn't care what we think about it, but sometimes teaching the Subject does require some concessions to the Learner.


Gets where?

So they have already started down the Maths road. But they have drawn a line and said "no further" but they still want an answer? Isn't that asking a bit much? Shouldn't they realize that?

And some concessions from the learner in the form of preparedness to use a common language of description. I am sure you are not rejecting the Maths but are you saying its only an 'option'?

Gets to an improved (valid) understanding.

 

[meBigGuy]

talk about arm waving ---- LOL ---- ironic

 

[sophiecentaur]

Is there some 'agreed subset' of Maths that is allowed and anything harder has to be explained in those limited terms?
Using Maths-based terms like sine wave and frequency is, apparently, OK but we must exclude aspects of Calculus or exponentials? Sounds pretty arbitrary to me and it's bound to limit the depth of understanding. Fair enough, as long as people realize that limit and don't try to make valid predictions beyond it.