Energy and Structure

[monotonic]

Just had an idea. While working on stepper motor circuitry, I realized that a wheel is a different kind of resonator.

Imagine spinning a merry-go-wheel while standing. You move your hands back and forth to push the wheel around; this is the resonant action. However the frequency of this resonator increases as you put more energy in, making the wheel spin faster. There might be one pole on the wheel, or there may be 5, but it works just the same.

So here is an example where energy input directly results in increasing frequency. I wonder if this has anything to do with FRV?

 

[Buddy]

So here is an example where energy input directly results in increasing frequency. I wonder if this has anything to do with FRV?

When I was first exposed to the idea of FRV and combined it with a raw understanding of "higher densities" and the electromagnetic spectrum, I imagined this increased energy shortening my energy wavelengths to the point where matter became transparent, the world around me could be perceived in more dimensions (ways of measuring things) and much more sensory phenomena would be perceived. That would seem to map to the 'variability of physicality' concept and I imagined hearing my friends saying something like: well, he was here a minute ago!

I confess, it's still an appealing idea.

 

[monotonic]

Well, there is a big unspoken assumption here that seems to say that higher frequency means more energy. But this is not always true so what's important is the context, the specific situation.

 

[Buddy]

Well, there is a big unspoken assumption here that seems to say that higher frequency means more energy. But this is not always true so what's important is the context, the specific situation.

Thanks. I'd like to learn more about how context or specific situations apply. This isn't my field of work, so all I can do at present is repeat what I've run across elsewhere. Like this from Hubblesite.org:

The greater the energy, the larger the frequency and the shorter (smaller) the wavelength. Given the relationship between wavelength and frequency — the higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength — it follows that short wavelengths are more energetic than long wavelengths.

Which, at the time I was envisioning all this, suggested a range in the neighborhood of X and gamma bands of blue to ultraviolet light and all that. Probably a bit naive of me, though, as I was simply looking for existing representations for comparison and loosening my imagination a bit.

 

[obyvatel]

Well, there is a big unspoken assumption here that seems to say that higher frequency means more energy. But this is not always true so what's important is the context, the specific situation.

The way you are trying to apply the concept of energy would need to consider attributes like level (or hierarchy) of energy. Electrical motors can be looked at as energy transforming devices which convert electrical (higher or finer form of energy) to mechanical energy. When a wheel is pushed with mechanical force, there is not much of change in the quality of energy (mechanical --> mechanical) but due to structure (shape of wheel) there can be more efficiency in the action. When a human agent is doing the pushing, then there can be a conversion of quite a few levels of energy: intention --> chemical reactions in cells --> electrical impulses in the muscles and nerves --> mechanical force generation. If the mechanical energy is used to push against a wall rather than a wheel, then there is some mechanical stress generated in the wall and there is some production of heat energy (as in getting sweaty) where such heat could be considered as an incoherent form of energy lower in level than the mechanical energy input.

So when we consider energy input, we may need to ask what is the quality or level of energy that is being considered as well as what is the apparatus in place to redirect/transform the energy.

 

[monotonic]

I will really have to think about that, to determine what the distinctions are between different "levels" of energy.

This isn't my field of work, so all I can do at present is repeat what I've run across elsewhere. Like this from Hubblesite.org:

The greater the energy, the larger the frequency and the shorter (smaller) the wavelength. Given the relationship between wavelength and frequency — the higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength — it follows that short wavelengths are more energetic than long wavelengths.

This is some of the worst-written garbage I have ever seen. Did you notice that it makes you feel like it's right but nothing else? I can't imagine how a person who would or could write this should have anything to do with a scientific site.

 

[Buddy]

This isn't my field of work, so all I can do at present is repeat what I've run across elsewhere. Like this from Hubblesite.org:

The greater the energy, the larger the frequency and the shorter (smaller) the wavelength. Given the relationship between wavelength and frequency — the higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength — it follows that short wavelengths are more energetic than long wavelengths.

This is some of the worst-written garbage I have ever seen. Did you notice that it makes you feel like it's right but nothing else? I can't imagine how a person who would or could write this should have anything to do with a scientific site.

Well then, that would certainly explain my handicap on this subject.

 

[gdpetti]

Funny, reminds me of the saying 'blonds have more fun' and how little girls shrieking definitely get your attention more than boys yelling... a difference in pitch, which doesn't have to be clear... as scratching a chalkboard demonstrates... irritating... another example: how sharp pains get your attention more than long drawn out ones. Is it any different with the larger cosmos?

 

[whitecoast]

This isn't my field of work, so all I can do at present is repeat what I've run across elsewhere. Like this from Hubblesite.org:

The greater the energy, the larger the frequency and the shorter (smaller) the wavelength. Given the relationship between wavelength and frequency — the higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength — it follows that short wavelengths are more energetic than long wavelengths.

This is some of the worst-written garbage I have ever seen. Did you notice that it makes you feel like it's right but nothing else? I can't imagine how a person who would or could write this should have anything to do with a scientific site.

Well then, that would certainly explain my handicap on this subject.

I am quite pig-ignorant myself of why that's so badly written. I mean it does sound like a teenager wrote it, but is there anything factually inaccurate about it?

 

[monotonic]

The greater the energy, the larger the frequency and the shorter (smaller) the wavelength.

Why? -

Given the relationship between wavelength and frequency — the higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength — it follows that short wavelengths are more energetic than long wavelengths.

Repetition and circular logic. But so much word-wrangling to make it sound factual. That's the worst part, whatever air of logic or "authority" this has is a trick of language.

It gets one thing right, frequency vs wavelength. That is the one fact that the rest hangs on to.

It creeps me out because at one time, I was a sentence machine and could pour out stuff like this, as well as completely read over it, hanging on to every word and be completely convinced of its veracity because, at that time, all I understood were things that "sounded" true, and that had an authoritative tone. So, it reminded me of a former self and all the pain and confusion from that time (extreme brain fog played a factor).

Whether that sentence was written as it is casually, intentionally, or in confusion, I see a great deal of pretentiousness. I think since I was so pretentious at one time, which generated many negative experiences, I must be sensitive to it.

 

[obyvatel]

The greater the energy, the larger the frequency and the shorter (smaller) the wavelength.

Why? -

The energy part of this is based on experimental results from what is called photoelectric effect and Max Planck's investigation of the problem of black body radiations which led to quantum theory.

The relationship between velocity, frequency and wavelength is a property of a wave.
Distance = velocity X time
Wavelength = speed of wave propagation / frequency

[quote author=monotonic]

Given the relationship between wavelength and frequency — the higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength — it follows that short wavelengths are more energetic than long wavelengths.

Repetition and circular logic. But so much word-wrangling to make it sound factual. That's the worst part, whatever air of logic or "authority" this has is a trick of language.
[/quote]

Follows from Planck's relationship
E=h X f, where E=energy, h=Planck's constant, f=frequency and
v = wavelength X f where v=speed of wave, f= frequency of wave

[quote author=monotonic]
It creeps me out because at one time, I was a sentence machine and could pour out stuff like this, as well as completely read over it, hanging on to every word and be completely convinced of its veracity because, at that time, all I understood were things that "sounded" true, and that had an authoritative tone. So, it reminded me of a former self and all the pain and confusion from that time (extreme brain fog played a factor).

Whether that sentence was written as it is casually, intentionally, or in confusion, I see a great deal of pretentiousness. I think since I was so pretentious at one time, which generated many negative experiences, I must be sensitive to it.
[/quote]

In this specific context, I think you are overreacting.

 

[monotonic]

Yep, I overreacted and it's pretty clear to me now. Thanks for filling in the blanks.

Perhaps FRV is literal. Frequency * Resonance * Vibration

After all, anywhere you see the word "of" you can usually replace it with a * symbol or if you have two nouns next to each other you can often put a * between them and it will still make sense mathematically. For this reason in this case the language may be inseparable from math, because the language is math-based.

We could say R was a factor where 0 was non-resonant and 1 was fully resonant. Vibration would simply be the magnitude of the movement. Seeing it this way there are 3 ways to increase FRV. Increase either F, R or V, and you increase FRV. We can also see that if any of the three are zero, then there is no FRV. If we have plenty of F and R, then V can be smaller, for a given FRV. So the idea must be to increase what can be increased without a corresponding decrease.

Of course, we would need to ascribe significance to F R and V independently. I had the idea that the F*R pair could represent receivership capability, as resonance and frequency relate to signal reception. It seems V would simply be how much work you put in. R alone may be the amount of truth that is in you. Not sure about F. Perhaps R would be faith and F would be the quality of knowledge inside?

 

[Buddy]

[quote author=monotonic]

Given the relationship between wavelength and frequency — the higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength — it follows that short wavelengths are more energetic than long wavelengths.

Repetition and circular logic. But so much word-wrangling to make it sound factual. That's the worst part, whatever air of logic or "authority" this has is a trick of language.

Follows from Planck's relationship
E=h X f, where E=energy, h=Planck's constant, f=frequency and
v = wavelength X f where v=speed of wave, f= frequency of wave
[/quote]

So, I was on a good track already? If so, then thanks for these latest interactions, guys!

I was recently studying some stuff involving the photoelectric effect because in textbooks this effect is usually cited as the first and most obvious proof of the necessity of the photon concept and I was interested in finding out how necessity was proven. I've also been interested in Heinrich Hertz's experiments and that discovery that incident ultraviolet light leads to charging of certain metals like lithium and cesium.

It seems that in classical physics for some reason this photoelectric effect is difficult to explain so I've had to explore the quantum connection involving h-bar due to Einstein's deduction that light is made of photons of energy E = ħω and I'm having to learn and strengthen math skills and energy relationships in the process. Evidently, I'm still weak in this area.

This story continues with, interestingly enough, one of my favorite people, Henri Poincaré, who had the most important argument for the necessity of light quanta. In 1911 and 1912, he published a couple of influential papers proving that the radiation law of blackbodies – in which the quantum of action had been discovered by Max Planck – requires the existence of photons. He also showed that the amount of radiation emitted by a hot body is finite only because of the quantum nature of the processes leading to light emission.

Anyway, this is a long but interesting story and now off-topic, so I'll just say thanks for the latest posts to this thread. Like monotonic, I'm going to keep trying to discover and link the epistemic FRV with its 'ontic' counterparts.

 

[monotonic]

So, I was on a good track already?

Well, maybe, but to support your conclusion on frequency and energy you quoted a paragraph from a source which I cannot find, which basically said "higher frequency means higher energy, so it follows that higher frequency means higher energy". I think even Obyvatel missed the point when he asked "is there anything factually inaccurate about it?".

I think you may want to consider how that paragraph slipped past you, and seemed useful enough to support your statement. Even without any knowledge of the context a person could tell that it was using circular logic to support its assertion. This is the practicality aspect of science, the nuts and bolts. It's very important, because without it, you will have continual setbacks and difficulty with subtle distinctions.

 

[Buddy]

...you quoted a paragraph from a source which I cannot find...

My apologies. Here's the link:

_http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.cat=light&id=73

I think you may want to consider how that paragraph slipped past you, and seemed useful enough to support your statement. Even without any knowledge of the context a person could tell that it was using circular logic to support its assertion. This is the practicality aspect of science, the nuts and bolts. It's very important, because without it, you will have continual setbacks and difficulty with subtle distinctions.

It is my understanding that it is self-referential statements that do not, or should not, appear in physics, nor in sensible mathematics. Circularity, itself, doesn't usually ring alarm bells for me. Ultimately, all classical, propositional logic is circular logic, as it must be, since its axioms are tautologous and propositions require the Tertium non datur.

Even so, one finds circular definition and circularity in general, everywhere, however. That is also due to the fact that at quantum level it is possible to distinguish object from background only approximately. We are just as much a part of nature as any other part, therefore, when we talk about nature or something in nature, we are, in a sense, talking about ourselves. Figure and ground...without an arbitrarily defined, artificial system boundary.

So, as I indicated, the notions themselves cause me no problems, it's that I'm wanting an experiential feel for the reality they represent. I hope this explanation makes sense or at least helps make my thinking process more understandable. If you see where I am misunderstanding you, please point it out.