# A Gestalt Theory on the Nature of light and related phenomena

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by quant, Sep 1, 2012.

1. ### quantRegistered Member

Messages:
49
The inference here is that light EMR spreads out because of the manner in which it is radiated. Surely if that were the case we would be using lasers to communicate with deep space craft rather than radio waves.

3. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,086
You should look up this stuff and you could answer your own questions. First the radio waves are focused so that they don't spread out in an inverse square manner.

The inverse square law as I stated (and shown in the supplied a link) is simply a consequence of the geometry. The inverse square law has nothing to do with the individual photons. This is not a theory this is proven.

For example lets take the case of a radioactive point source that is emitting gamma rays with an energy of 1 Mev and at a dose of 10 R/hr @ 10 feet. If you measure the dose at 50 ft you will find that the dose is now:

$\frac{I_1}{I_2}= \frac{D_1^2}{D_2^2}$

$I_2=\frac{{I_1}{D_1^2}}{{D_2^2}$

$I_2=\frac{{10}*{10^2}}{{50^2}$

= 0.4 R/hr or 400 mR/hr

However the individual gamma rays at this distance would still have an energy of 1 Mev!

That is the point, get it? The dose (or number of gamma rays) decreases with inverse square NOT the energy.

5. ### quantRegistered Member

Messages:
49
Everything that you state would be true if we were looking at Maxwell’s theory of Electromagnetic radiation as being the accepted modern theory for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation. It is not and the reason that it is not is complicated. It is so complicated that in order to fulfill all of the criteria required by what we know today of the properties of EMR, processes like normalisation, renormalisation and quantization and re-quantization are necessary. Some of the most gifted mathematicians involved with trying to solve this problem such as Dirac, opted out of it because the process involved many subterfuges. He was hounded for stating what he felt was true and denied many responsible posts that he should have had by merit alone. So just putting forward a statement like: "it is all to do with geometry" is ridiculous in the extreme. As for looking up stuff, I suggest you take your own advice because the POV advanced by you here does not make sense , except in the most broad terms.

7. ### quantRegistered Member

Messages:
49
Everything that you state would be true if we were looking at Maxwell’s theory of Electromagnetic radiation as being the accepted modern theory for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation. It is not and the reason that it is not is complicated. It is so complicated that in order to fulfill all of the criteria required by what we know today of the properties of EMR, processes like normalisation, renormalisation and quantization and re-quantization are necessary. Some of the most gifted mathematicians involved with trying to solve this problem such as Dirac, opted out of it because the process involved many subterfuges. He was hounded for stating what he felt was true and denied many responsible posts that he should have had by merit alone. So just putting forward a statement like: "it is all to do with geometry" is ridiculous in the extreme. As for looking up stuff, I suggest you take your own advice because the POV advanced by you here does not make sense , except in the most broad terms.
Directional antenna, are useful even for space transmissions, but are only effective at close range (i.e., terrestrial applications) for instance a 1 cm square beam would spread out, according to the inverse square law, to an area of 6.25 million square kilometres by the time it reached the moon and by the time it reached the sun it would be several trillion square miles in area. Further what about light that does not obey the inverse square law such as collimated light and lasers. A laser can pack in a lot more information than any radio wave, so why not use them for deep space communication ? Ideally deep space communication should use long radio waves because these travel further, unfortunately they can carry little information.

8. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,086
When I was working nuclear power, on of my areas of expertise was Radiation Control. I am not talkiing theoretically here, I have measured the radiation decrease as part of my training. I have measured the energy of the gama rays as part of my training. It is rather odd that you don't seem to get that the inverse square law is a well documented phenomena, AND it is simple geometry to understand why it works.

9. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,086
You do realize that the difference between light and radio waves is just the frequency (or wavelength if you prefer). The reason I ask is because you seen to think that a directional radio wave would follow the inverse square law but a directional light source like a laser would not, when actually neither would.

The inverse square law ONLY applies to a point source. If there is a source such as a long neon tube and you are 5 feet way and then move to 10 feet away the decrease in intensity will NOT follow the inverse square law! Do you know why that is? If you guessed that it is simple geometry, you got the right answer...

A laser is not a good method for several reasons, should we go over that too?

10. ### quantRegistered Member

Messages:
49

Hi Origin,
Thanks for validating your remarks and giving some background. I think we are to a certain extent talking at cross purposes. Obviously the inverse square Law is based on Geometry, it is a way of explaining how light or (EMR ) spreads out as it travels, that point is taken as established. The point of contention seems to be what is the mechanics behind this spreading out of EMR according to the inverse square law, is it because of self sustaining electric and magnetic fields as suggested by Maxwell or is it due to some kind of interaction with 'virtual' particles as suggested by QM or is it due to electromagnetic fields that permeate the whole of the Universe. OR is it due to geometry alone ? I am not clear on what your stand is on this.
The second point we need to clarify is what exactly are we referring to when we speak of the inverse square law, are we talking about the space in your living room or are we talking about space tranmissions. Again, obviously if we are talking about the living room, then a tube light would be regarded as a line source and the radiation would fall off linearly (i.e., twice the distance half the intensity and not one quarter the intensity as would be the case with a point source) on the other hand when huge distances are involved as in deep space transmissions it does all come down to the inverse square law. There are numerous references to this at NASA web sites and in wikipedia ( Look under the sub-heading Computers.) Here is a quote from a power point presentation on satellite communication systems: Free space attenuation is determined by the inverse square law, which states that the power received is inversely proportional to the square of the distance . I hope that this post has clarified any doubts on what was being discussed.

11. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,086
Geometry alone. That is not only my stand but also the stand of science. I supplied you with a link that discussed the equations to obtain the inverse square relationship.

The inverse square law is applicable to your living room or interstellar space (for point sources).

As I have said before parabolic antennas do not follow the inverse square law. As far as the wiki entry, they got that a bit fouled up, which is one of the problems with relying on wiki. They first imply that the inverse square law applies and then say: For example, the data rate used from Jupiter was about 115,000 bits per second. That was halved at the distance of Saturn So clearly these contradict each other! Jupiter is 4.2 AU from earth and Saturn is 8.5 AU from earth so if the inverse square law was in play the bit rate should have been quartered not halved!

As for your power point quote, I would assume they were talking about point sources. Could you supply the website that you got the quote from?

12. ### quantRegistered Member

Messages:
49
I can only suggest that confirmation is needed from an unbiased source. I am very very clear that deep space transmissions (especially spacecraft to earth) follow the inverse square law. Any antenna gain is insignificant.

13. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,086
I could supply you with more sites that confirm that the inverse square law is simply consequence of geometry but you could simply look them up yourself and you clearly are not interested in that, it appears you want to stick with your preconcieved notioins - fine.

Your own source stated that voyagers directed signals do not follow the inverse square law but you have chosen to ignore your own source - fine.

Not sure why you want to engage in willful ignorance, but what the hell - knock yourself out!

14. ### quantRegistered Member

Messages:
49
I think we are getting bogged down here in a kind of childish argument 'is' and isn't' kind of thing. No-one disputes that if you extend a solid angle from a point on a sphere, what you get, geometrically is the inverse square law. That is not the point in question, what occupies that geometric space is. I will ask you again, do you feel that that space (whether it comes under the inverse square law or of a directed beam) is (a) filled (in the case of EMR) according to Maxwell's theory by self sustaining electric and magnetic fields (b) by EM fields that occupy the whole of the Universe OR (c) 'virtual particles' that occupy all of space as in QM ? Again, data rate (that you have quoted) has nothing to do with the intensity of the signal.
Also radio signals from Voyager were only possible because the signal was in effect reflected back from the heliosphere and also to intermediate boosting of the signal by other deep space craft. I have detailed information and will post it soon. I agree that wiki may not be the best source.

15. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,086
Then why in the world did you write this???

So how does it happen, as I have pointed out the existence of a 'virtual photon' aether would exactly account for why light follows the inverse square law.

I think this is the first time you asked this. Before you were asking about the inverse square law.
That is a strangely worded question, though. I frankly do not know what you are asking, I do not necessarily think space is 'filled' with anything or anything occupies 'all of space'. What are you asking?

Looking forward to the detailed information.

16. ### quantRegistered Member

Messages:
49
Look you seem to have no idea on what I mean by the inverse square law. I say this because of statements like :
Antenna gain, G, is the ratio of surface power radiated by the antenna to the surface power radiated by a hypothetical isotropic antenna.
$G=\frac{(P/S)ant}{(P/S)iso}$
'Antenna gain:
Power output, in a particular direction, compared to that produced in any direction by a perfect omni-directional antenna (isotropic antenna)'
The point that you are missing is that both transmission, the one from the isotropic radiator AND the transmission from the high gain directivity antenna, FOLLOW the inverse square law. The only difference is that high gain antennas 'direct' more of the available energy in a given direction. That is all. It certainly does not mean that the transmission of a high gain antenna propagates linearly or according to some other bizarre notion of yours.
Brilliant !!

17. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,086
That may be true. When I refer to the inverse square law I am refering to the mathematical equation that describes how the flux of a radiating point source decreases with distance from the source. What do you mean?

There is no need to be a dick. You said the signals from the voyager followed the inverse square law - I supplied you information disputing that claim.