1.06016 * 10^-27 J / 10^-10000 = 1.06016 * 10^9973 s
= about 1 in every 3.3595 * 10^9965 years. He's off, but
not by a lot.

In sci.physics, Radium
gluceg...@gmail.com
wrote
on 30 May 2007 05:49:21 -0700
1180529361.693321.53...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:



On May 29, 11:31 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:

In sci.physics, Radium
gluceg...@gmail.com
wrote
on 29 May 2007 21:50:16 -0700
1180500616.639919.174...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:

[2] The E/M waves could be fed directly into one's brain. This
admittedly slightly farfetched notion is presumably in the far future,
but it is theoretically possible.

Extremely unlikely. The brain is too poor of a conductor to process
any electromagnetic signals.

The brain is *already* processing electromagnetic signals,
though they're usually represented as electrochemical in
nature in most of the lay literature I've seen. But for
every flowing current there's a magnetic field -- a minute
and probably generally irrelevant one, to be sure, in the
case of brain signals.

Mostly the brain uses proteins to
transmit, receive, record, playback, store, and process signals.

Not up on neurology, are you? Well, I'm not either, but the
transmissions are rather complex, and affected in a general way
by many chemicals (L-dopamine being the most well-known), as the
impulse jumps the synapses. I know that sodium and potassium
are intimately involved. I doubt proteins are doing the moving,
though.

There
is a long list of what determines those signals. This includes - but
is clearly not limited to - the types of proteins, the amounts of
proteins, the rate at which the proteins move, whether they move at
all, and a many other variables regarding proteins. Most CNS signals
are based on proteins, though many sci-fi thrillers tend to spread the
myth that the brain is purely-electric.

The brain is electrochemical; this is readily demonstrable.

Paul Cardinale pointed out that AM carrier waves as weak as 10^-10,000
watt [i.e. 10-to-the-power-NEGATIVE-10,000 watt] would mean "expect
photons to arrive at a rate of about one every 10^9964 years."

It's a relatively simple calculation. If one assumes a 1600 khz
carrier, the energy is

E = h*f = 6.626*10^-34 J-s * 1600000 = 1.06016 * 10^-27 J

per photon. If one assumes 10^-10000 J/s for the power source,
one divides

1.06016 * 10^-27 J / 10^-10000 = 1.06016 * 10^9973 s
= about 1 in every 3.3595 * 10^9965 years. He's off, but
not by a lot.

I am
now aware that my power requirements are way too low to receive
anything in a human lifetime. So let's increase the initial wattage of
the AM carrier wave to where it is equivalent to one 150 KHz photon
per second. Now, I can expect - after super-amplification and
subsequent demodulation -- to hear those terrifying yet enjoyable high-
pitched, heterodyne-like, EAS-resembling tones while on the spacecraft.

Even with the FM radio band (88-108 MHz) one will still have to wait
about 5 * 10^9963 years.

On May 31, 2:48 pm, Paul Cardinale <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 5:49 am, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

Calculate the bandwidth of that signal.

Calculate your stupidity Paul Cardinale.

On May 30, 10:59 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics, Radium
gluceg...@gmail.com
wrote
on 30 May 2007 05:49:21 -0700
1180529361.693321.53...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:





On May 29, 11:31 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:

In sci.physics, Radium
gluceg...@gmail.com
wrote
on 29 May 2007 21:50:16 -0700
1180500616.639919.174...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:

On May 29, 7:46 pm, "Tomoko Kanazawa"
T.Kanaz...@eodomo.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:

Radios dont work in space. It's a VACKYOOM.

Yes they do. Sound cannot travel through space, however,
electromagnetic representations of audio signals can. The spaceship
has air in it [duh!, otherwise those onboard wouldn't survive] so
loudspeakers attached to the radio and amplifiers should give out some
sound. Right?

Well, congrats on knowing the basics, though you forgot three additional
possibilities.

Thanks.

[1] The electromagnetic waves could be converted to light pulses, which
would then feed a video receiver.

In which case, I wonder what would be seen on the screen.

Slow-scan TV is routinely used in space missions. I'd have
to look but it's probably 5-10 minutes a picture.

A standard 60 fps NTSC picture uses almost 6 MHz of bandwidth,

It's actually 30 fps (due to interlacing, the field rate is twice the
frame rate).
Bandwidth of the video portion is 4.5 Mhz (6 Mhz is the channel
spacing).

Paul Cardinale

On May 30, 10:59 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
1.06016 * 10^-27 J / 10^-10000 = 1.06016 * 10^9973 s
= about 1 in every 3.3595 * 10^9965 years. He's off, but
not by a lot.

All lots are lots!

Thank you; in any event, that gives one an idea as to
the bandwidth required for a realtime signal. Since 4.5
Mhz bandwidth is not available on spacecraft (presumably
things get noisy out there, and the lower the bandwidth,
the easier one can pick up weak signals, AIUI), realtime
is not an option, except maybe from Earth to Moon.

If one assumes 5 minutes to transmit a picture and a
scan resolution similar to NTSC, that works out to a 30
kHz bandwidth. That sounds about right -- and it would
indeed sound rather peculiar, but the modulation would be
almost audible.

For a 10 minute transmit time the signal would indeed be
audible (15kHz), at least for younger ears.

On May 30, 10:59 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:

In sci.physics, Radium
gluceg...@gmail.com
wrote
on 30 May 2007 05:49:21 -0700
1180529361.693321.53...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:



On May 29, 11:31 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:

In sci.physics, Radium
gluceg...@gmail.com
wrote
on 29 May 2007 21:50:16 -0700
1180500616.639919.174...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:

[2] The E/M waves could be fed directly into one's brain. This
admittedly slightly farfetched notion is presumably in the far future,
but it is theoretically possible.

Extremely unlikely. The brain is too poor of a conductor to process
any electromagnetic signals.

The brain is *already* processing electromagnetic signals,
though they're usually represented as electrochemical in
nature in most of the lay literature I've seen. But for
every flowing current there's a magnetic field -- a minute
and probably generally irrelevant one, to be sure, in the
case of brain signals.

The brain -- being a biological entity -- is a lot more chemical than
electric. The electric part is what can be seen most easily. However,
the chemical reactions are a lot more significant to the brain, than
the electricity.

Mostly the brain uses proteins to
transmit, receive, record, playback, store, and process signals.

Not up on neurology, are you? Well, I'm not either, but the
transmissions are rather complex, and affected in a general way
by many chemicals (L-dopamine being the most well-known), as the
impulse jumps the synapses. I know that sodium and potassium
are intimately involved. I doubt proteins are doing the moving,
though.

Many neurotransmitters are proteins.

There
is a long list of what determines those signals. This includes - but
is clearly not limited to - the types of proteins, the amounts of
proteins, the rate at which the proteins move, whether they move at
all, and a many other variables regarding proteins. Most CNS signals
are based on proteins, though many sci-fi thrillers tend to spread the
myth that the brain is purely-electric.

The brain is electrochemical; this is readily demonstrable.

Yes. Not denying that. Just stating that the neural signals are based
far more on chemicals than electricity.

Paul Cardinale pointed out that AM carrier waves as weak as 10^-10,000
watt [i.e. 10-to-the-power-NEGATIVE-10,000 watt] would mean "expect
photons to arrive at a rate of about one every 10^9964 years."

It's a relatively simple calculation. If one assumes a 1600 khz
carrier, the energy is

E = h*f = 6.626*10^-34 J-s * 1600000 = 1.06016 * 10^-27 J

per photon. If one assumes 10^-10000 J/s for the power source,
one divides

1.06016 * 10^-27 J / 10^-10000 = 1.06016 * 10^9973 s
= about 1 in every 3.3595 * 10^9965 years. He's off, but
not by a lot.

I am
now aware that my power requirements are way too low to receive
anything in a human lifetime. So let's increase the initial wattage of
the AM carrier wave to where it is equivalent to one 150 KHz photon
per second. Now, I can expect - after super-amplification and
subsequent demodulation -- to hear those terrifying yet enjoyable high-
pitched, heterodyne-like, EAS-resembling tones while on the spacecraft.

Even with the FM radio band (88-108 MHz) one will still have to wait
about 5 * 10^9963 years.

So what is the minimum amount of amplitude [photons-per-second]
required to receive, amplify, and hear the signals in real-time?

In sci.physics, Radium
gluceg...@gmail.com
wrote
on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:40:15 -0000
1180665615.967283.112...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:

So what is the minimum amount of amplitude [photons-per-second]
required to receive, amplify, and hear the signals in real-time?

That is a good question. The answer is probably
infinitesimally zero, though for various reasons testing
it would be next to impossible. Photons are very weird
beasts, and are not true packets.

Of course, there's the little question of signal-to-noise
ratio; the background radiation was initially detected by
Penzias and Wilson, and is about 2.5 to 3 K. To punch through
that noise floor, one will probably have to limit bandwidth.

There is also the far larger problem -- assuming an
ET civilization next to a star -- of the star. If one
is seeing 10^-10000 W on one's high-gain input antenna
because of a 50 kW FM music station's transmitter on planet
Whatever, one will see maybe 1.5 * 10^-9979 W or so on the
same antenna from the Sun's energy output, swamping the music --
an over 210 dB noise-to-signal problem.

(This is assuming a very broad-spectrum antenna. To get a
more specific answer, I'd have to do some work; the general
spectrum of the Sun, however, is reasonably well known,
and the Sun can be treated as a black body, weird as that
may sound to a non-scientist; Stefan-Boltzmann can be used
with T = 5800K to estimate the energy thrown out of Sol
in a specific bandwidth range.)

In sci.physics, Paul Cardinale
pcardinale@volcanomail.com
wrote
on 31 May 2007 11:55:28 -0700
1180637727.814419.166940@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
On May 30, 10:59 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics, Radium
gluceg...@gmail.com
wrote
on 30 May 2007 05:49:21 -0700
1180529361.693321.53...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:





On May 29, 11:31 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:

In sci.physics, Radium
gluceg...@gmail.com
wrote
on 29 May 2007 21:50:16 -0700
1180500616.639919.174...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:

On May 29, 7:46 pm, "Tomoko Kanazawa"
T.Kanaz...@eodomo.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:

Radios dont work in space. It's a VACKYOOM.

Yes they do. Sound cannot travel through space, however,
electromagnetic representations of audio signals can. The spaceship
has air in it [duh!, otherwise those onboard wouldn't survive] so
loudspeakers attached to the radio and amplifiers should give out some
sound. Right?

Well, congrats on knowing the basics, though you forgot three additional
possibilities.

Thanks.

[1] The electromagnetic waves could be converted to light pulses, which
would then feed a video receiver.

In which case, I wonder what would be seen on the screen.

Slow-scan TV is routinely used in space missions. I'd have
to look but it's probably 5-10 minutes a picture.

A standard 60 fps NTSC picture uses almost 6 MHz of bandwidth,

It's actually 30 fps (due to interlacing, the field rate is twice the
frame rate).
Bandwidth of the video portion is 4.5 Mhz (6 Mhz is the channel
spacing).

Thank you; in any event, that gives one an idea as to
the bandwidth required for a realtime signal. Since 4.5
Mhz bandwidth is not available on spacecraft (presumably
things get noisy out there, and the lower the bandwidth,
the easier one can pick up weak signals, AIUI), realtime
is not an option, except maybe from Earth to Moon.

If one assumes 5 minutes to transmit a picture and a
scan resolution similar to NTSC, that works out to a 30
kHz bandwidth. That sounds about right -- and it would
indeed sound rather peculiar, but the modulation would be
almost audible.

For a 10 minute transmit time the signal would indeed be
audible (15kHz), at least for younger ears.

Don't you mean "dynamic range" instead of "bandwidth"? Bandwidth > is
the amount of available frequencies. Dynamic range is the amount of
available amplitudes. To "see through" the noise floor, one would have
to use extremely high-resolution limited to extremely weak amplitude
signals.

In electromagnetic signals,

Amplitude = number of photons per time.

How is this measured in radio-frequencies, where a photon is
considered a wave, not a particle? My guess is that the amplitude of a
low-frequency photon [RF or below] is measured by the strengths of its
electric and magnetic fields combined. Electric fields represent the
voltage, while magnetic fields represent the amperage - or so it
seems.

Amplitude = wattage = voltage X amperage = strength of electric field
X strength of magnetic field.

To further clarify, a photon is made up of 4 parts:

1. Negative Electric Field
2. Positive Electric Field
3. North Magnetic Field
4. South Magnetic Field

Hence, the amplitude of a photon is derived by multiplying the above 4
together.

Photon's Amplitude = Strength of Negative Electric Field X Strength of
Positive Electric Field X Strength of North Magnetic Field X Strength
of South Magnetic Field

Please assist me as I maybe significantly off.

A photon doesn't have an "amplitude".

A photon has energy and you've been told several times in the past
what it is.

A collection of photons has an "amplitude".

On Jun 1, 1:15 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

A photon doesn't have an "amplitude".

A photon has energy and you've been told several times in the past
what it is.

A collection of photons has an "amplitude".

Does this also apply to the lower frequencies where the photon is
considered a wave rather than a particle [e.g. radio-frequencies]? If
so, does this mean the amplitude of a radio signal is determined by
the number of photons it contains?

On May 31, 10:42 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics, Radium
gluceg...@gmail.com
wrote
on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:40:15 -0000
1180665615.967283.112...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:

So what is the minimum amount of amplitude [photons-per-second]
required to receive, amplify, and hear the signals in real-time?

That is a good question. The answer is probably
infinitesimally zero, though for various reasons testing
it would be next to impossible. Photons are very weird
beasts, and are not true packets.

So there is no lower limit?

Of course, there's the little question of signal-to-noise
ratio; the background radiation was initially detected by
Penzias and Wilson, and is about 2.5 to 3 K. To punch through
that noise floor, one will probably have to limit bandwidth.

Don't you mean "dynamic range" instead of "bandwidth"? Bandwidth is
the amount of available frequencies. Dynamic range is the amount of
available amplitudes. To "see through" the noise floor, one would have
to use extremely high-resolution limited to extremely weak amplitude
signals.

In electromagnetic signals,

Amplitude = number of photons per time.

How is this measured in radio-frequencies, where a photon is
considered a wave, not a particle? My guess is that the amplitude of a
low-frequency photon [RF or below] is measured by the strengths of its
electric and magnetic fields combined. Electric fields represent the
voltage, while magnetic fields represent the amperage - or so it
seems.

Amplitude = wattage = voltage X amperage = strength of electric field
X strength of magnetic field.

There is also the far larger problem -- assuming an
ET civilization next to a star -- of the star. If one
is seeing 10^-10000 W on one's high-gain input antenna
because of a 50 kW FM music station's transmitter on planet
Whatever, one will see maybe 1.5 * 10^-9979 W or so on the
same antenna from the Sun's energy output, swamping the music --
an over 210 dB noise-to-signal problem.

What if it's a 50 kW AM station instead of FM? I guess that AM would
be more likely to receive more distant signals than FM. Naturally,
most magnetic disruptions are AM. Man-made disturbances, OTOH, can be
AM or FM.

(This is assuming a very broad-spectrum antenna. To get a
more specific answer, I'd have to do some work; the general
spectrum of the Sun, however, is reasonably well known,
and the Sun can be treated as a black body, weird as that
may sound to a non-scientist; Stefan-Boltzmann can be used
with T = 5800K to estimate the energy thrown out of Sol
in a specific bandwidth range.)

Electromagnetic disturbances from the sun would probably take ~ 8
minutes to reach a satellite orbiting earth. So I can forget about
real-time in this scenario, and definitely, if I am searching for
signals more distant than the sun.

All photons are both waves and particles; the main