Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aastrotech
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
What is "field" in this context? Do you mean "medium", perchance?
|
I suppose either word could be used. I chose field. |
But physicists use "medium", because "field" has other meanings.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aastrotech
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Can you show us how that works?
As far as I understand, inhomogeneity of the medium yields refraction.
|
If you've seen a video of an explosion in clear air where you can see the shockwave expand out from the explosion then what you are seing is the change in pressure in the shockwave refracting the light waves passing through it. In effect one wave refracting another wave. |
The refraction is the consequence of the pressure wave changing the density of the air, that is, making the medium inhomogeneous.
And it does not answer my question: can you show us how
anisotropy is responsible for refraction of waves?
Using you example: can you shows us that the light of the explosion is refracted?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aastrotech
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
What if we have a spherical wave?
|
Then it would be anisotropic to the surrounding field. |
A spherical wave is the same in any direction (remember: "Isotropy is uniformity in all directions" and "Isotropic radiation has the same intensity regardless of the direction of measurement, and an isotropic field exerts the same action regardless of how the test particle is oriented" from your Wikipedia link), therefore it is isotropic.
I think you call "anisotropy" what the rest of the world, and the physicists, call "inhomogeneity".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aastrotech
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Can you show us how that works?
|
A ripple has low anisotropy and low energy a tsunami has high anisotropy and high energy. |
How about a stick of dynamite and a nuclear bomb, both a high altitude? The shockwaves are both spherical.
Also, can you stop using analogies and actually show us something more rigorous?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aastrotech
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
View Post
Are you saying that different parts of the same wave affect each [other]? Is this some sort of action at a distance, or have you something like a double slit setup in mind?.
|
I'm talking about a complicated wave form here that could as easily be understood as two waves refracting each other. |
What if we don't have a complicated wave?
What if it is just a spherical wave (which is isotropic) or a simple plane wave (which is anisotropic)?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aastrotech
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Sorry, but this is just word salad.
|
I don't appreciate the snippy tone. Kindly watch your tone in the future. |
I am just calling a spade a spade.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aastrotech
You don't really ask a question here but I see from your other failures that an analogous description might help.
|
You don't understand: I am not asking for analogies. I want a formal and rigorous presentation of your ideas.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aastrotech
Imagine a piece of plastic wrap stretched over the top of a bowl. It's smooth or isotropic. A wave moving across will travel smoothly.
|
In this case, the ripple and the tsunami are both isotropic.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aastrotech
Imagine a spatter of hot grease landing on the plastic and burning a pucker in it. Obviously the pucker is not smooth thus it is anisotropic.
|
The surface is no longer homogeneous either.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aastrotech
But the pucker also pulls on the unburned surrounding plastic increasing the overall tension and therefore the anisotropy around it. Greater near the pucker and less farther away.
|
And if you look at it from the point of view of the pucker, the surface is isotropic.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aastrotech
A wave then travrling across the plastic will be refracted by the resulting anisotropy.
|
But the effect does not depend on the direction in which the wave travels across surface.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aastrotech
However I don't want to characterize the specific dynamic of the anisotropy mentioned in the OP as "tension". It could be "thinning", "softening", "hardening" "dispersing" "time dialating" etc. the point is changing the isotropy and therefore the index of refraction of the field.
|
Except that in your analogy the refraction does not depend on the direction of travel, and therefore it is not a matter of isotropy or anisotropy of the surface. Infact, it is the consequence of having a region of the surface being different than the surrounding areas: an inhomogeneity. Just like a lens in optics.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aastrotech
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Since when do lenses change the frequency of the light?
|
At that point I was talking about a sub quantum level change. |
You said: "
Refraction is implicitly a slowing of the wave or a change in frequency."
And refraction is how lenses in classical optics work.
If you want to avoid misunderstandings, you need to be more careful and thorough with your definitions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aastrotech
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
I think you need to study more rigorously the behaviour of waves.
|
I think you need to brush up on terminology then talk to me about behaviour. |
You are the one who is using non standard terminology.