Fragen zu elektromagnetischer Strahlung?
Hallo,
mich interessiert das Thema aber ich muss mich etwas genauer damit beschäftigen um es zu verstehen. Aber ich möchte es gerne verstehen. Vielleicht kann es jemand für einen einfachen Menschen erklären. Bin nicht gut in erklären.
Ich weiß das sich EM Strahlung (im Titel) mit Lichtgeschwindigkeit ausbreitet , zumindest im Vakuum und kein Medium dafür braucht und sich in Wellen fortbewegt.
Die Wellenlänge verstehe ich ( durch Hobby bei beim Lichtspektrum), damit auch halbwegs die Energie. Die Amplitude (die Höhe von Ausschlag) nicht so richtig, außer das es auch die Art der Strahlung ankommt aber nicht wie/weshalb.
Aber die Frage ist eigendlich diese :
Ich habe mal in einer Doku von diesen Doppelspalt-Experiment gehört und mich damit beschäftigt. Im dem Fall sichtbares Licht. Wer mir hilft weiß was ich meine denke ich. Glaube das war die Heisenbergsche Unschärfe-Relation..
Wenn elektromagn. Strahlung sich als Welle und nicht als Teilchen verhält und erst wenn es gemessen, gesehen, von Materie *gespürt * wird, zu einen physischen Teilchen ein Elektron wird und damit auf sie einwirkt , was hat das zu bedeuten?
Wenn den Welle, die Amplitude nur den Warscheinlichkeits-Bereich angibt, wo ein Teilchen auftritt/ Wirkung zeigt?
Kann man das irgendwie erklären?
Gruß
(2 votes)
Loading...
This applies to free-space shafts which do not necessarily spread out at speed of light either in a waveguide without air. But this would be a little bit by little. This statement is valid for TEM waves in space.
This is a form of description.
The amplitude is the electrical and magnetic field strength of the shaft in the Maxwell model. The energy that transports this shaft is determined via this amplitude, the power density being proportional to the square of the amplitude of the field.
Important here is that the Maxwell model is not the quantum mechanical description photons do not come here therefore there is no relationship of the form E=hf
The Heisenberg blur relation is a way to explain the result another way would be to use the Schrödinger equation.
Well, it must be noted here that both wave and particles are only one model here. Light is not one of both it sometimes behaves like particles and sometimes like a wave. So the light does not suddenly change its shape when it comes to contact with matter.
In the sense of the Koppenhagen interpretation (in the meantime, however, obsoletely applicable to concepts such as Schrödinger equation and blur relation), light can be seen as a particle whose probability of residence is described as a wave.
Light remains light it will not become an electron.
Important here is that the amplitude here has a different meaning as above in the Maxwell theory, so you must not mix both.
Generally, it is possible to describe 99% of all things in optics through the Maxwell theory. Idr says here just forget that light can be a particle and describe it pure as a wave.
Wow, thank you so much for coming to me later. There were rough spelling errors in my question and could not correct them because of (Armin) access.
But the statement was important.
You really did that.
If I want to focus more on this, I’ll prefer the Maxwell model, I’ll trust it.
I try to imagine the most visually in my head, but theories are well illustrated.
Have you studied?
Oh, actually, I would have a thousand questions because I can’t blame it myself.
How does radiation pressure arise? Example Sunsail?
Why are high-energy light beams such as UV/blue light absorbed by water or gases in the atmosphere and not the long-wave?
Why is light broken differently in optical media /prism depending on the wavelength?
The red/blue shift in stars I have understood at least to the extent that the LG is always the same but depending on whether the bodies remove (red) or move from the relative speed to each other from the spectrum.
An arrow shot by a motorcycle is faster or slower depending on the direction of travel to object (wit) so kinetic energy, with light it is also energy only different.
Yes Electrical engineering, therefore, I am also more concerned in the field of Maxwell equations than with Quatenmechanik.
Photons have a pulse which also results from the theory of relativity. As a result of the pulse retention, the pulse must therefore pass over to the object during absorption, etc., which is then referred to as radiation pressure.
You can’t say that directly. Each gas has a specific absorption maximum at specific wavelengths. For CO2, this is in the infrared range.
UV is only absorbed by ozone.
Water absorbs e.g. red light better than blue light.
The speed of light in a medium depends on the frequency, which is referred to as dispersion.
In the Maxwell theory, this can be understood as an interaction of the wave with the medium, wherein the medium reacts differently to different frequencies.
Since the refractive index is only the ratio of the light velocities, this frequency dependence, which then leads to a splitting of the spectrum.
However, in order to be able to explain this, one must understand the different polarization mechanisms in matter. For a basic explanation, you can google after the term Lorentz oscillator.
Depends on where she comes from. Cosmic red shift is a direct result of space expansion. The optical Doppler effect, which can be described as the normal Doppler effect, is defined by this.
This applies to the reference system. The kinetic energy therefore always depends on reference system.
Yes, however, you must not consider this as kinetic energy. Since photons are massless, they do not have kinetic energy in the classical sense and also no resting energy but a total energy.
Wave and particles are only two views of the same in the sense of blur relation. If one forces experimentally sharpening the location, one has particles, one forces pulse sharpness*, one has waves. In other words, the absolute square of a wave function in one place is the probability density to “attain” a particle there.
*) the pulse is directly related to the wavelength. It is true that the wavelength can only be measured with an infinitely long wave train – the shorter the wave train, the more precise the location, the more blurring the wavelength and thus the pulse.
Electromagnetic radiation, also known as electromagnetic waves or electromagnetic fields, is a form of energy which spreads through the vacuum or by matter in the form of waves. It includes a broad spectrum of frequencies and energy levels, which leads to different manifestations and properties. Here are some of the most important properties of electromagnetic radiation:
Wave characteristic: Electromagnetic radiation shows wave-like behavior, which means that it spreads through oscillations of electrical and magnetic fields. These fields are perpendicular to one another and to the direction of propagation of the shaft.
Speed: Electromagnetic radiation spreads in vacuo at a constant speed corresponding to the speed of light, about 299.792.458 meters per second (approximately 300,000 kilometers per second).
Spectrum: Electromagnetic radiation extends over a wide range of frequencies and energy levels. This spectrum includes radio radiation, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-ray radiation and gamma radiation.
Frequency and wavelength: The frequency of an electromagnetic wave indicates how many vibrations occur per second. The wavelength is the distance between successive peaks or valleys of a wave. They are inversely proportional to each other: the higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength and vice versa.
Energy transmission: Electromagnetic radiation transports energy from one place to another. The energy of an electromagnetic wave is directly proportional to the frequency and thus to the photon energy. High-frequency radiation such as X-ray or gamma radiation has higher energy and potentially greater penetration capability.
Interaction with matter: Electromagnetic radiation can interact with matter. This can lead to absorption, reflection, refraction, scattering and transmission, depending on the properties of the matter and the wavelength of the radiation.
Polarization: Electromagnetic radiation can oscillate in certain directions, which is called polarization. The polarization can be linear, circular or elliptical.
Quantum nature: Electromagnetic radiation can be considered as quantum, so-called photons. Photons are discrete energy packets which can behave both wave-like and particle-like.
Speed in various media: The speed of electromagnetic radiation varies depending on the medium through which it moves. In matter, the speed is generally lower than in vacuum.
Ionization capability: High-energy electromagnetic radiation such as X-ray and gamma radiation can be ionizing, i.e. it can remove electrons from atoms and thus generate ionized particles. This can cause biological damage. UV radiation (Sonne) is already ionizing with a photon energy of 5.5 EV, i.e. it can disintegrate (organic) polymers, a sunburn is no thermal effect, the skin cells are destroyed by the UV light…
These properties make electromagnetic radiation a versatile and important phenomenon in nature that plays a role in many applications and scientific disciplines.
Particles are waves except we look….:
https://mfe.webhop.me/astronomy-physics/energy/wie-electronics-sich-aus-dem-wegs/
mash
But thanks also to you your statement corresponds to what you read in online articles and textbooks.
👍
These are all just model ideas and constructs with which we are trying to explain the measurement results we are trying to explain in the processes we are watching. The wave-particle dualism is a parade example that lacks a fundamental understanding. A crutch! An electron can be clearly described in a one-dimensional box with the means of mathematics and physics, only as a result the nature of the electron is not clearer. Black holes in the universe and black matter are very exciting. But no physicist knows what black matter could be. You just postulate.
I mean, the physicists believe too much and know too little. But I’m not sure.
Cool thanks, these are these goose bump moments.
Whether Einstein, Hawking (with his books or Schrödinger with the cat in the box.
True respect and in the end such models (not their theories!) serve to illustrate what they mean, what happens in their heads.
Well, I’ll see you.
I think it’s exciting.
In the past, I always liked to philosophize, in the processes of black holes (I know how I originate), I find it less exciting what *in* happens to them, as I think there is neither space nor time in it, but I find the event horizon interesting.
(now I’m getting rid of the intelligent)
I have the imagination that the space herb is strongly curved in this region, which can be imagined like vertebrae, not about it rotating but horizontally outward.
There extreme states are much more extreme than the singularity behind the event horizon. Because there seem to be no more natural forces.
Well, enough for today. Don’t want to tell crazy theories.
I think it’s great that you’re following this thought! I always do. It’s always exciting. But I’m an old bag now. therefore also a little disillusioned. I’m a chemist and I know about things in the real world. I also like classical and relativistic physics, but I also have certain reservations.
There is no black matter. Not even dark matter. And it’s pretty stupid physicists not to subordinate knowledge if you have no idea of the subject.