Science topics: Physical SciencesWaves

Science topic

# Waves - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Waves, and find Waves experts.

Questions related to Waves

Dear ResearchGate members,

On one hand, there is a theory giving the reflection/transmission coefficients when acoustic planes waves propagating in a medium (rho0, c0) reach a finite thickness object (rho1, c1) with normal incidence. Such theory basically gives the thicknesses (n*lambda1/2) at which the object is theoretically acoustically transparent - of course, the width of the reduced reflection depends on the impedance mismatch between the 2 media – and the thicknesses ([2n-1]*lambda1/4) at which the object is fully reflective.

On the other hand, there is also theory giving the variation of the reflection coefficient depending on the incident angle of acoustic plane waves at the interface between two semi-infinite media (rho0, c0; rho1, c1). Over a critical angle (depending on the impedance mismatch between the two media), the reflection is theoretically total.

Now, here is my question:

**What is the behavior of the acoustic waves when the two phenomena are considered at the same time? If the plane waves reach a surface with an incident angle, and the reflective medium is finite in thickness (acoustic mirror)?**By experience and through simulations, it appears that over the critical angle, the reflection is not total, even with a mirror thickness for which the reflection is theoretically total.

Thanks a lot in advance.

I have a finite array of unit cells, completely backed with PEC. When I try to illuminate it with incident plane wave, I get strong scattered waves from the PEC, apart from scattering at desired directions. But the PEC at the back of the metasurface is supposed to block transmission of the incident wave. Still I get strong far field scattering.

I used both open boundary and FE-BI boundaries for the whole metasurface array for this this purpose with no positive results.

Kindly help me.

If I want to assign anisotropic properties to rocks in the surrounding area of the tunnel when I carry out 2D-seismic wave forward simulation based on the elastic wave equation to explore the impact of shear source on seismic waves, how can I achieve this in Python? Is it reasonable to use np.random.rand() to randomly distribute the density, P-wave velocity, and S-wave velocity of the medium in this region?

**The Covid shock**

Covid19 caught us by surprise. The previous comparable event had happened 100 years earlier and it had been named the Spanish flu, and it probably killed more people than World War I. The 1919 lessons learnt by health policy makers such as the US cities and European governments had been long forgotten.

**Now we have learnt something**

This time, it's 2023, and the Covid years, which are not over, have left a clear memory. We have no excuse, not to go prepared.

What about behavioural economists, looking at the exchange of value, time, tasks, anything, in human groups?

What can they tell us, of practical and explanatory interest for the next wave of Covid, or ahead of a similar event?

**Behavioural economics scenarios and the pandemic**

Can I suggest to look back at the micro-problem replicated a large number of times worldwide, where each household had to self-manage meals, schooling the children, etc. Trade-offs happened at high frequency between the members of the household, seen as agents in a behavioral nano-economy of the house...

**The behavioual economist and a vademecum for the next wave?**

What do you consider worthwhile for planning the next wave each household likely to have to isolate for while, at least now and then?

Let me share the assessment and model developed for the case of Covid19 "household lockdown":

REF

[1]

**Agent Based Model for Covid 19 Transmission: -field approach based on context of interaction**, July 2020,R. Di Francesco, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24583.83364[2] "

**Nanoeconomics of Households in Lockdown Using Agent Models during COVID-19**," Sustainability, by Javier Cifuentes-Faura & Renaud Di Francesco, 2022, vol. 14(4), pages 1, February.[3]

**Microeconomics of intertemporal choice in zero-space during Covid-19: a behavioral economics perspective**. by Cifuentes-Faura, J., Di Francesco, R.,*J Health Econ***23**, 559–563 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01403-zThe Sagnac effect is a very well known phenomenon considered nowadays in several commercial applications from Laser Gyros to GPS.

This quite recent paper shows that the Sagnac effect can be derived only with absolute simultaniety in the LAB frame https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.09537.pdf

A moving detector, installed in a spinning closed loop, detects non simultaneously EM waves emitted in opposite directions along the loop.

Sagnac's ingenious experiment in 1913 used a complicated set of mirrors with a beam splitter and an interferometer, set in rotation, to detect the non simultaneous arrival of the EMwaves of a known same wavelength along opposite paths (bouncing on the same mirrors).

The value found by Sagnac, in terms of the variation of the phase at the rotating interferometer, corresponds to the following tested formula:

(1) Δ

*ϕ*=4*πAω / λc*- A is the area enclosed by the light path (for a circle, 2
*A*=*πr^*2). *ω*is the angular velocity of the rotation.*λ*is the wavelength of the light,*c*is the speed of light in vacuum.

The interval of time between the arrivals of the beams is easily obtained:

(2) Δ

*t*=4*Aω /**c*^{2}In term of the instantaneous speed v of the interferometer and L the length of the path, it becomes

(3) Δ

*t*=2*Lv/**c*^{2}verified for a generic loop of length L [1].

It is important to notice that the exact formulas rely on considerations relevant to relativity.

Eq.(3) is a first order approximation of

(4) Δ

*t*=2 γ^{2}*vL/**c*^{2}relevant to the time measured by the stationary observeror

(5) Δ

*t*=2γ*vL/**c*^{2}relevant to the time measure by a comoving clock with the interferometer.Considering the contribution to the variation of the time for one wave alone

(6) Δ

*t*= γ*vL/**c*^{2}This is also the generic additional light-time of a wave to reach a moving target positioned at distance L from the source, when the wave was emitted.

It means that by varying the position of the target between emission and absorption, light has to cross a different path length than L, hence the time to connect the same objects at constant speed differs by γ

*vL/**c*^{2}- An important conclusion from Sagnac experiment is that the speed of light is independent from the speed of the source (wave behaviour)
- A second important conclusion is that SOL measured in a loop (2 way) is c, provided that the loop does not spin. The measured light time differs from the one at rest by γ
*vL/**c*^{2 }

The measured of SOL by a moving observer who assumes that path of light to connect the clocks is always L, it would become by

SOL+ = DS/Dt = L/(L/c-

*vL/**c*^{2}) = c/(1-v/c).Eq. (6) shows evidence of the term in time transformations of LT

t'=γt - γvx/c

^{2 }where the second term, as shown above, is the due to the variation of the light-time due to the motion of the object in the frame where light is isotropic. In this case one frame is preferred in the problem.

Einstein's requirement according to which the SOL must isotropic in every inertial frame, compels instead the clocks in the new frame to an offset, necessary to make the frames equivalent.

The two views are quite different and Sagnac effect discriminates between the two, showing a way to find experimentally the term γvx/c

^{2 }and reveal its actual Lorentzian nature: if SOL is isotropic in one frame it cannot be the same in relative moving frames.[1] Ruyong Wang et al, “Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time difference between counter-propagating light beams in a uniformly moving fiber”, Physics Letters A 312 (2003) 7-10, DOI:10.1016/S0375-9601(03)00575-9. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/44141186.pdf

I know AMC resonant frequency at phase 0 ! I read many paper, some AMC S11 are near 0 dB some are below -10 dB. I want to know which is correct ?

My point of view is near 0 dB, because AMC is for reflecting the wave in phase. That the reason why antenna gain rise !

Is AMC only for gain increasing ?

In relativity (GTR, STR) we hear of masslessness. What is the meaning of it with respect to really (not merely measurementally) existent particles / waves?

I am of the opinion that, while propagating, naturally, wavicles have mass, and there is no situation where they are absolutely at rest or at rest mass. But we know that there are zero rest masses in physics. These are in my opinion masses obtained when the moving wavicle is relatively at rest. Thus, the energy here is supposed to be at a relative zero.

But such a relative rest is obtainable only with respect to a few movements (under consideration at a given relativistic situation); and always there will be some other physical processes around and within, with respect to which the zero rest mass wavicle already contextually taken as in zero rest mass is not at zero rest mass and zero energy.

If the relatively achieved zero rest mass and/or non-zero mass may always be conceived as the real mass, then nothing has a constant and permanent "own mass". In that case, any specific contextual mass must be fixed for contexts only, and the only thing that may be spoken of its mass is "finite", "non-zero and non-infinite".

This is a thing I have been thinking of giving as a realistic example for a method that I had developed in my 2018 book, in order to characterize the various, most general, accessible values attributable to processes. This is what I have called the maximal-medial-minimal (MMM) method of determining cosmological, physical, and other forms of access values of existent processes.

But I forgot to write down the said example. Recently I wrote it down as an example for discussing it in another book. But I realize that I can write a detailed section of a chapter about it.

The MMM method is based on determining the space, time, matter-energy content, etc. of anything, including the whole cosmos, as being of infinite or finite or zero value of any quantity. I have shown in the said book that this can be developed not only into a method in the philosophy of physics but also in the most general foundational notions and principles of all sciences.

How is the polarization of an em wave change when propagating through fog or rain? Say the wave is initially vertically polarized, how will rain and fog change its polarization?

Electromagnetic rays emitted from mobile phone towers

There are two different waves of the gravitational field (GF):

**1. Gravitational field transverse wave.**What it reflects is the disturbance of the surrounding GF, and the transmission speed of this disturbance is equal to the slow light speed c. For example, the motion of the sun disturbs the GF generated by the center of the galaxy, causing transverse waves of GF around the sun.

**2. Gravitational field longitudinal wave.**It is generated by the gravitational source itself, and GF will transfer energy quickly, and this speed is much greater than the speed of light c.

When the gravitational source changes (position, mass), this change will first be reflected on the longitudinal wave of GF, and distant objects will feel the change of GF soon. At the same time, the disturbance of the gravitational source to other surrounding GFs will propagate to the surroundings at a slow speed c in the form of transverse waves.

**To make an inappropriate analogy:**when you throw a stone into a calm lake, you will observe slow water waves spreading around, which is the disturbance of the stone to the water surface, thus generating water waves. But in addition to water waves, there are sound waves in the water. The speed of the sound waves is much faster than that of the water waves, and the sound waves in the water arrive long before the slow water waves reach the shore.

**A brief summary:**the longitudinal wave of GF is produced by the gravitational source itself, and the transverse wave of GF is produced by the disturbance of the gravitational source to other surrounding GFs.

**Newtonian gravity**studies "sound waves in water", the longitudinal waves of GF.

**Einstein GR**studies the "water wave", that is, the transverse wave of GF.

I hope that you can understand the whole gravity from my simple narrative. You can also download my two papers on gravity here:

Kind regards,

Tony

Light has a dual nature, on one hand it behaves as a wave (Young's double slit experiment) and on the other hand it behaves as a particle (Photoelectric effect), somehow it is acting as both a wave as well as particle.

So why mother nature has chosen the things to work this way ? what could be the reason for a dual nature of radiation and matter? was it a necessity? why not single unique nature persist? Was it the only way to make the universe work the way it is doing?

It is very likely that it is none of this?

The question arises, does the answer to the question belong to "Shut up and calculate"?

I am processing buoy data where two GNSS buoys are separated by about hundreds of metres, and when performing wave direction spectrum analysis, I find that the dominant directions of the two buoys sometimes differ by about 180 degrees, what is the reason for this?

We assume that the statistical matrix definition of the quantum wave function Ψ differentiates the allowed wave functions from the forbidden wave functions.

Moreover, the allowed wave functions and the forbidden wave functions given by the statistics of nature coincide with those of Schrodiger PDE.

The question arises: which is the most complete or contains the most information about the quantum system?

I need to know about the absorbance wave length in chlorophyll.

Dear all,

I am trying to find a way to find dispersion curves of plates using Rayleigh-Lamb frequency equations. I used a repetitive procedure by sweeping through the frequencies and inside it increasing the phase velocity incrementally to find the roots of the equation.

In each frequency, there is some roots of phase velocity. As symmetric and asymmetric equations are already separated it is easy to separate data points of the two different waves. However, at the end of the process we have just (W frequency , Cp phase velocity) datapoints and after plotting the result we can see the behavior of the curves to manually define the mode number.

Main question: One way of clustering the data to different modes is to sweep through the data and define the first Cp as the mode zero, the second one as 1st mode and so on.

1. What if we had a crossing between curves?

2. I got some identical roots derived from both symmetric and asymmetric equations. How can one distinguish these datapoints correctly for the type of wave they belong?

Many thanks in advance for your help.

Mohsen

Two waves Y1 and Y2 are said to be coherent if their phase shift Phi 1 -Phi 2 is constant over time.

The question arises, can quantum entanglement be assumed to be a kind of forced wave coherence similar to that described by Einstein's laser, Amplification of Light by Stimulated Emission of Radiation?.

Hi Folks~ I'm working with a student and one of the supervisors has suggested using FA on responses from wave 1, to select items to use in wave 2; is this a) ethical and

b) rigorous?

I'm thinking no on both counts:

It would be polite to ask permission of the original authors/publishers to break up their scales; 'stacking the deck' re. hypothesis testing, as the full/part scale will be chosen based on those scoring in the direction wanted (on average)

Or am I missing something (or more than one thing ~:-)

TIA

Since the time of N.Bohr, E.Schrdinger, W.Heisenberg and all the great scientists, physicists and mathematicians have called Schrödinger's equation the quantum wave equation.

If we agree on a definition of wave as oscillations in space and time as in emw (E and H oscillate), Sound wave (pressure and displacement oscillate), then the question arises:

Have physicists and mathematicians worked out the details of Schrödinger's equation in different situations up to the 10th digit, but forgot to specify what oscillates there?

YES! THIS HAS BEEN SHOWN IN “PLANAR CRACKS IN UNIFORM MOTION UNDER MODE I AND II LOADINGS” (ANONGBA 2020).

Earlier works have suggested that crack speeds

*v*could not exceed Rayleigh wave velocity, in the subsonic velocity regime (*v< ct*transverse sound wave velocity).Hi, there

I need urgent help please, I am working on tri band antenna project, I started to simulate some papers design in HFSS but I can’t get the same result as in the paper, it is not small differences

1- Higher or lower resonances (500 Mhz) maybe

2- Different S11 levels

3- Different S11 curve specially for higher frequency.

Here I have attached the paper, my HFSS design, If any one could help to get the same results as in the paper, as the paper also measured the physical antenna, so at least I should get at least same simulation results, I tried to change a lot of things, excitation size, solution frequency ..etc

I am using HFSS 2021 R1…

I want to get same results using wave port and lumped port if possible.

One more thing, I have added small fixer at the end to the original design in order to connect the lumped port …..is there any optimum value for the wave port length..!!!!!!!!

It will be very help full if you could suggest how to excite the structure by both wave port and lumped port,,,

I am developing a 2D photonic crystal resonator and would like help from colleagues to configure the propagation of electromagnetic waves in the time domain using the wave optics module. Researching devices based on 2D photonic crystals simulated in comsol on the internet, I realized that there are few tutorials using this software. Can anyone tell me why?

I am designing a circular wave guide with TE11 mode and frequency of about 1.5 GHz. does anyone know how to calculate the radius of the waveguide?

If I vary the 'phi' angle, the modes changes from TE to TM. But it was supposed to change the azimuthal angle.

Hi,

i'm looking to expose my cells culture to ultrasounds.

I need a way to expose the cells to 0.5MHz, 1Khz PRF with an intensity of 0.35-0.5MPa.

Any suggestion?

For my master's study, I need the parameters of an offshore wind turbine built with a jacket type foundation. I need a study in which the basic dimensions of the jacket type are known and the field characteristics (wind, wave load, etc.) are known. Do you have such a work or an article you can send?

In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation calculated wavefunctions with a wave structure over space and changing over time. The Copenhagen interpretation, namely Born‘s interpretation states that the square modulus of the wavefunction represents the probability density function of the particle over space and time. Thus, there will be a distribution of the particle over space because we know particles are moving in the system and may favor some locations.

This is a very confusing explanation that several founders of Quantum Mechanics including Schrödinger himself, Einstein, and de Broglie have formally expressed disagreement.

I have been teaching undergraduate quantum chemistry for several years and also felt difficult to explain the probability density function why there are nodes in the solution where particles will never show up with no particular reason to avoid those places. I have been trying to come up with a different explanation of the wavefunctions with a preprint firstly posted on ChemRxiv in 4/2021. Since then I have been thinking on it and working on revisions while teaching quantum again in the past few years.

DOI: 10.26434/chemrxiv-2022-xn4t8-v17

It reaches a very surprising conclusion that the wavefunction has nothing to do with statistics as Schrödinger himself has argued many times including the famous Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment.

I recently posted the preprint in RG. Please take a read and comments are welcome. I will be teaching quantum again next semester now I have even more difficulties since I have lost beliefs on the classical interpretation.

Gravitational waves that are detected by the current detectors are of long wavelengths and are hence low on energy, but during the initial phase of the universe high energetic phenomena like cosmic strings may have given rise to GWs with high energy. So, what could have been the upper bound for the energy of this waves during that time.

From WIMP to axionic dark matter, their wave function has similar contribution on building the ocean of waves in the universe. Axions being pretty smaller than WIMP, ~10

^{-6 }μeV/c^{2}in mass, they have de Broglie wavelength very larger. Overlapping of one wave into another creates the complex phenomena which shapes the large structure of universe and distribution of matters into it.So how does this scale of de Broglie wave of different candidates of dark matter; (WIMPs , axions, fuzzy), affects the behaviour and distribution in the universe? Simply how does the size of dark matter candidates affects the structure and distribution in universe?

i have generated a triangle wave in matlab and now i want to use that wave as input to my simulink model

In cyclic voltammetry, I ran a reduction blank from 0 to -1.6 V, in tetrabutylammonium perchlorate (TBAP) and dichloromethane, but the CV diagram shows a small wave at around -1.2 V, and I don't know if it is normal or abnormal, and if it is abnormal, what is the problem? The picture is below.

I am working on a paper on smoking and depression in a sample of approximately n=2.000 subjects, and for that, I use longitudinal data (5 waves, 2 years between each wave). For a part of the paper, I want to analyse determinants of smoking in those with depression (both depression and smoking are time-varying variables). The most simple solution would be to do a cross-sectional analysis (for example with the baseline data), but I was wondering whether I could also use all data, and perform a mixed models analysis but without TIME. I feel that the additional value of doing that would be to 1. have more data points (5x2.000=10.000 instead of 2.000); and 2. not only to make a between-person interpretation but also a within-person interpretation. However, I have never read a paper, answering this type of questions (determinants of condition x in disease y) doing a mixed models analysis. Therefore my questions is: am i right and should I do it this way, or do I miss a critical argument not to do so?

China has decided to step up its exploration of the Earth's interior by drilling a 10,000-meter-deep hole in the Earth's crust.

I believe that China needs my knowledge and forecasts to take measures to protect equipment in the event of the passage of the Kozyrev-Yagodin low-frequency wave. With its (wave) passage, it can vibrate and destroy the mine. It is described in my articles.

In this case, China really needs my methodology and system for accurate short-term earthquake prediction.

I am writing to you, my esteemed Chinese colleagues.

How waves carry energy but not matter and how does energy move during changes of matter?

There are many articles about wavelengths of infra red rays used. There are many articles about wavelengths of radio waves used. There are many websites about spectrum of electromagnetic waves. But, I could not find any article which mentions about maximum possible wavelengths of light rays (including infra red rays) constructed or used, and I could not find any article which mentions about minimum possible wavelengths of radio waves (including micro wave) constructed or used. I do not need theoritical articles. I do not need theoritical possibilities. More specifically, I like to know whether any light ray with wavelength 1.5 mm (>1.1 mm) has been constructed, and to know whether any radio wave wavelength 1.5 mm (<1.9 mm) has been constructed.

Scientists, and many other people, have pondered this question. This article - (PDF) Graviton-Photon Interaction and Mass Generation: A Vector-Tensor-Scalar Geometry Approach (researchgate.net) - speaks of retarded and advanced gravitational and electromagnetic waves which respectively travel forwards and back in time, cancelling each other and entangling particles throughout the universe (the physicist Richard Feynman loved advanced waves). It also says particles are thus united into one place in space-time and the idea of their existing in two spots, or times, at once is an outlook resulting from perception of all things and events as distinct and separate. As page 12 of the article puts it, “An alternative interpretation might see these particles unified into a singular entity by the action of advanced and retarded waves, leading to a concept we might call “unipositionality”, drawing from the Latin ’unus’ meaning one.”

If we accept the articles’ propositions, all of space-time plus its contents would be a single entity – a step towards a Unified Field Theory, a Theory of Everything or Quantum Gravity - and the equation 1+1=2 (and presumably every other equation, no matter how complex) appears at first glance to be obviously impossible. Yet those same equations do describe the world and universe remarkably accurately. Is there another explanation besides the apparent one – someday there will be a human civilization that can build their mathematics into the creation, structure, and functioning of life and the cosmos. Emotion may well declare this an absurdity and we might retreat to things like quantum fluctuation or spontaneous creation from nothing. Logically – using Einstein’s nonlinear, curved time added to limitless advance of human potential through the eons – the absurdity is plausible.

What is the similarity between matter and energy and relationship between matter and energy in waves?

Deep learning involves arriving at concrete memory and recall ability outcomes, which were not possible in surface learning

i.e. one who understands quantum mechanics knows by memory that in simple potential cases the wavefuntion is plane wave and in free particle sinusiodal or that operators with that commute have same eigenvalues and similar probabilities.

But these are not outcomes of surface knowledge and only reached at an advanced level of understanding where memorization is EASY

Thus memory's role in learning theories is unjustifiably minimized

We know that at minimum of a group velocity curve, we get Airy phase with large amplitude of surface waves. My question is: Does the amplitude depends on the sharpness of minimum i.e. on |dU/dT| around the group velocity minimum? Here I have used U as group velocity and T is period of surface wave.

Does group velocity of a wave packet in a dispersion medium depend upon the width of the wave packet?

Many theoretical physicists mention the cosmic wave function, but the issue is that according to the laws of quantum mechanics, who is the observer of this wave function to collapse it into a universal special state? This type of view is close to the view that exists regarding the interaction of human consciousness with the world and what it sees. Is the mechanism of human consciousness, in its most fundamental form, based on the laws of fundamental particles that can interact with the world around it? Are there more hidden structures than what theoretical physicists see, causing human consciousness to interact with the world around them? Could these hidden structures be the same hidden world as predicted in the holographic theory of the world?

Energy of a photon is given by the expression, E=hf. Is this the frequency of most prominent wave? Due to the localized nature of photon, photon consist of all possible wave length from zero to infinity and consequently all frequency from zero to infinity.

waves passing through rigid vegetation

Electron is an experimentally verified yet highly speculated and theory of structure of matter co-dependent construct and entity. Fouble slit results further stress this abiguity bevause its has a strange physical entity type"property duality".

Dirac proposed the medium if the world as an alternative to sub atomic structure, an ether like entity containing known subatomic particles but as a medium not as a repeated structure.

Double slit experiments are dubious because they accept two equal explanations about the nature of electron, or better validate its wave nature while also respecting its particle nature in an aproximation.

So electron must be revisited. Maybe relying on Diracs conception for its part of a medium like entity may shed light on double slit paradoxes.

How would this be, there are no current sugggestions because the rival subatomic repeated structure theory is uncontested.

Не так давно умерли Председатель Российского экспертного совета:

проф. А.В. Николаев и проф.Е.А. Рогожин, бывший и Председателем Экспертного совета России и Зам. директором РАН и председателем комиссий конференций...

В КНИГЕ ПАМЯТИ те, кто с ними работал пишут об уважении к ним, о том, что они были лидерами, экспертами. Честными, строгими.

Так почему сразу после их смерти их работу сваливают "в грязь", пытаются заткнуть автора?

Все знают, что научное заключение Генезиса землетрясений, данное РЭС положительное. Нет ни одной проработки этапов и действующих сил, чтоб все было логично и подтверждалось и теорией (скорость волны Козырева-Ягодина рассчитывается теоретически из движений Земли, Луны, Солнца) и скорость волны дает время прохода волны от станции до места, где произойдет землетрясение.

РУБЕН ЭДУАРДОВИЧ ТАТЕВОСЯН - Заместитель директора ИФЗ РАН непрерывно в своих выступлениях на публику повторяет, что "не существует точного классического краткосрочного прогноза землетрясений". Вы читали протокол РЭС по экспертизе работы Александра Ягодина (Председатель проф. А.В. Николаев).

Вы читали заключение по результатам испытаний !!!! Вы понимаете, что такое испытания и что означает заключение РЭС? Или Вы со смертью последних честных ученых уничтожили и то, что было "сделано до вас"?

ВАМ САМИМ НЕ СТЫДНО ЗА ИНСТИТУТ, ЗА СТРАНУ?

Вы заявляете ложь россиянам. Вы готовы убить людей в землетрясении, но скрыть то, что сделал А.Ягодин, поддержал Страшимир Мавродиев, проверили и подтвердили Николаев и Рогожин.

Вы эту ложь пишете и Президенту России, пользуясь тем, что Генеральный прокурор занят другими проблемами?

Интересно, все так лгут в РАН? Ни один человек не заявил правду, которую приняли на заседании РЭС 2015 года?

Not so long ago, the Chairman of the Russian Expert Council died:

prof. A.V. Nikolaev and prof.E.A. Rogozhin, former Chairman of the Expert Council of Russia and Deputy. director of the Russian Academy of Sciences and chairman of the conference committees ...

In the BOOK OF MEMORY, those who worked with them write about respect for them, that they were leaders, experts. Honest, strict.

So why, immediately after their death, their work is dumped "in the mud", trying to shut up the author?

Everyone knows that the scientific conclusion of the Genesis of earthquakes given by the RES is positive. There is not a single study of the stages and acting forces, so that everything is logical and confirmed by theory (the speed of the Kozyrev-Yagodin wave is calculated theoretically from the movements of the Earth, Moon, Sun) and the wave speed gives the time it takes the wave to travel from the station to the place where an earthquake occurs.

RUBEN EDUARDOVICH TATEVOSYAN - The Deputy Director of IPE RAS constantly repeats in his speeches to the public that "there is no accurate classical short-term earthquake forecast". You have read the protocol of the RES on the examination of the work of Alexander Yagodin (Chairman Prof. A.V. Nikolaev).

Have you read the conclusion of the test results !!!! Do you understand what tests are and what the conclusion of the RES means? Or, with the death of the last honest scientists, did you destroy what was "done before you"?

ARE YOU NOT SHAMED FOR THE INSTITUTE, FOR THE COUNTRY?

You are telling lies to the Russians. You are ready to kill people in an earthquake, but to hide what A. Yagodin did, supported by Strashimir Mavrodiyev, checked and confirmed by Nikolaev and Rogozhin.

Are you writing these lies to the President of Russia, taking advantage of the fact that the Prosecutor General is busy with other problems?

I wonder if everyone lies like that in the RAS? Not a single person stated the truth that was accepted at the REC meeting in 2015?

I believe that if we accept the fact that the WQPD [Wigner QuasiProbabilityDistribution] is in fact a regular probability distribution (so there is nothing "quasi" about it) despite not being globally non-negative, Bell's analysis falls apart (probabilities are not non-negative & measurements at distant points of entangled [correlated] particles are not independent) and we can reduce the results of the Aspect, &c., experiments to mere correlation, Bertlmann's socks. For instance, if the wave function is d(x2-x1) (d = Dirac Delta Function), the wave function of the original 1935 EPR thought experiment, the WQPD is d(x2-x1)d(p1+p2), which cannot be reduced to form p(x1,p1)p(x2,p2)--i.e., there is correlation/Bertlmann's socks). Naturally, one has to use the 2-particle WQPD. I believe that a similar circumstance would occur if one calculated the WQPD for spin/position as well as momentum/position. Whaddya think? As for negative probabilities: we simply have to redefine a "probability" as a tool for calculating mean values rather than the classical definition (# times something happened/# runs of experiment). Stuart Boehmer

What happens if a wave beam is introduced into a waveguide line with some mis-alignment (Offset and or Tilt)? Does the wave beam behave like an optical ray and continue to carry the misalignment as it propagates through the waveguide line and emerges with the misalignment at the end of the line? Or as the waveguide is a guided structure with a mode pattern the initial misalignments have no effect at the other end of the waveguide, though there may be some extra losses at the entrance due to misalignment? I m basically interested for beam propagation inside corrugated waveguide with some offset/tilt

Quantum physics is the study of matter and energy at its most fundamental level. A central tenet of quantum physics is that energy comes in indivisible packets called quanta. Quanta behave very differently to macroscopic matter: particles can behave like waves, and waves behave as though they are particles.

source: Quantum physics - Latest research and news | Nature

The field of Quantum Information Science (QIS) is a rapidly growing field, with an expanding number of potential applications that explore the capabilities of currently available noisy quantum devices and promise to eventually solve problems beyond anything that classical systems can accomplish. In the past few years, this expectation for transformational applications has translated to a lot of attention, both from the media (reaching the scientific community and the general public) and the government funding agencies and technology industry. The significant advances have been made in developing new techniques and algorithms and advancing quantum technologies, resulting in applications that are addressing real problems (albeit simplified, in most cases, or very specialized).

source: Quantum Computing: Advancing Fundamental Physics | SpringerLink

What is the future of green energy and its potential for meeting our energy needs?

What do you think? It will be solar, wind or wave?

The decisive answer is left to the experts in quantum mechanics, not me.

But what's really annoying is that for every fundamental quantity, even the Psi wave function itself, you get 3 or more different interpretations where none of them are complete.

That the relevant experimental results are rigorous is not in question here, but the explanations imagined by physicists since the first person wondered about the Moon worry me! I do not care whether Albert Einstein or Neils Bohr was right on the EPR issue: physics is about correcting limitations of magnificent efforts in the past. I just want to understand the nature of Nature better than I do now. My questions are efforts to explore; they are not challenges.

To me, entanglement in non-locality means “here and there go we” and the verbiage that treats separated aspects of one self is misleading. That is, “we” is one self (persona), so the phrase is actually “here and there go I.” (“My skin is not my surface.” lfh.) The aspects of “we” are “form on ground,” the rest frame of the electromagnetic field, at least until they are instantiated by interaction. How does that “ground” read its lines in this drama.

That neither of the “separate particles” that are separating becomes its true self until it becomes defined by an interaction is measured. How do their waveforms separate so they may be considered “unreal” individuals instead of two “unreal” ripples on a common wave. When does the second particle become “real?” Setting aside a hidden variable like a pilot wave, how far in advance of the pairs do their waveforms extend, and how broadly? How is entanglement effected in nature as an actual phenomenon?

An internal communication sufficient to effect the entanglement result appears to be unknown. My observations and questions are just more verbiage without that communication. However, were Paul Dirac’s “sea of negative” energy valid, or were the ideas in the cosmology of inflation valid, then the communication could be effected by “the ground,” that sea of negative energy with “backward in time” antiparticles or ~instantaneous negative gravity activity. It’s a thought. . . .

The problem is: “it is measured that . . .” and “it is

*not*known that . . .” and here we are again! Of course these questions cannot be answered – yet. If you give it a shot, your effort will be appreciated and undoubtedly interesting!As we know EM waves are widely used in our life. One of the common use of these waves is in the kitchen and specially microwave.is it really Carcinogenic?

Is there any nuclear reaction code available to calculate transfer reaction cross-sections using adiabatic distorted wave born approximation (ADWBA) ?

How can the waves emitted from the human body be sensed?

If particles cannot move faster than light then points of a wave function must be discontinuous in time and distance. Because, all near points where a particle has a non-zero probability of existence must be far enough apart in time and distance so that a particle cannot break the speed of light by tunneling. Deferential equations do not give such solutions.

Very low frequency electromagnetic and gravitational waves have quantums of low energy and momentum. Therefore, they have large uncertainties in position and time hence they should move by quantum tunneling a lot. Unless quantum tunneling limited to the speed of light, Some of their quantums should have be going faster than light. By tunneling, i mean having at any one time non-zero probability of existing at many points from their wave functions. The fact they have not been shown to go faster than light appears to show valid wave functions would only give points of existence separated in time and space such that the speed of light is not broken.

For a wave function to be valid where it gives a particle a non-zero probability of existence must be separated in time and distance so that it can only go between those points at speed les than light. That includes by quantum tunneling.

I have S11 parameter only in my design, as I have a single wave guide port excitation . How could I extract eps and mu from S11 in CST? or by matlab coding?
I appreciate your help .

There are indeed many models of the value of elementary electric charge origin, but all of them have introduced other types of new phenomena.

I solved this problem only based on the phenomena that are known and have been measured, in:

It is an article related to electric charge, Hubble's constant, fine structure constant, wave function collapse and reveals the quantified nature of spacetime, but please give more time and patience to read the material to the end, to see how beautifully come all these together (constants), forming a unitary whole (one theory).

I await your observations

I'm simulating a Vivaldi antenna array. There is a vibration wave of S parameter at low frequency. It can't be removed when I select the adaptive mesh of time domain solver. Actually, it doesn't happen only in this simulation. I also see it when I simulate a very simple square patch antenna.

Hi everybody.

I have developed within my research a 3 dimensional numerical wave tank (25 meter long, 10 meter wide and 6 meter water depth) in LS DYNA based on the ICFD method. I have already refined the mesh in the area where the wave acts to increase the accuracy of the wave deflection. At the outlet of the wave tank I have installed a numerical damper to minimize the reflection of the wave.

Now i have evaluated the results at 3 different locations (5m, 10m and 15m) and it is noticeable that energy is lost in the system. The wave deflection decreases at the results at 10m and 15m compared to the results at 5m. Reason for this could be numerical dissipation and numerical dispersion.

My idea now is to either increase the tank length to minimize the influence of the reflecting wave or to adjust the parameters of the linear and quadratic damping terms.

Does anyone of you know about similar problems and has some suggestions for me?

Thanks,

Jonas

The results of our research determined for the first time that for the entire frequency range of acoustic waves, the range of their propagation, measured not in units of measurement of distance, but in cycles, is a constant: the same number of cycles corresponds to the same absorption of acoustic energy. Due to the difference in the lengths of acoustic waves, the range of sound propagation is determined by the wavelength, which for the conditions of the practical absence of sound dispersion in water, has a statistical relationship with the wave frequency. Due to this, the researchers got the wrong impression about the dependence of the sound propagation distance on the frequency. But the presence of correlation in this case is not related to the presence of a cause-and-effect relationship between the frequency of acoustic waves and their propagation distance. Thus, for the first time, the basis for a complete rethinking of the theory of the process of absorbing the energy of acoustic waves in water is presented.

It should be noted that there are signs that the obtained regularity can be extended to transverse waves in water. This is evidenced by the fact that, unlike shorter wind waves, long ocean surface (transverse) waves of "surge" spread over a distance of more than 1000 km. Tsunami waves, which have a length greater than the length of "Zibu" waves, spread over a distance of tens of thousands of kilometers. Seismic waves that propagate in the solid shell of the Earth, at lengths close to the length of tsunami waves, also propagate for tens of thousands of kilometers. In the future, different types of waves propagating in different environments can be considered, which does not exclude the possibility of confirming the general (universal) physically justified and understandable regularity of wave attenuation put forward by us.

EEWS - a method of scammers to spend the budget without benefiting people?

EEWS and its "modifications" start from the moment that "there was an earthquake". (Method "p" - "S" is its analog, only other waves of ALREADY OCCURRED EARTHQUAKES are taken).

Several times I exhibited these methods that do not warn about the time, place, or strength of a future earthquake, and I asked scientists to show all the good and useful things that are in these methods.

No expert has claimed the beneficial properties of these methods.

Maybe then it is necessary to declare that only scammers use this method.

After all, what is spent on these senseless methods could be used for the benefit of people. Approximately the same was said at a meeting of the Commission of the Israeli Knesset in 2005.

Hi everyone,

I have 1.5 mL eppendorf tubes with nanoparticle pellets in water (ZIF8, UIO-66 and UIO-66-PEG). No matter how hard I try to homogenise them into single nanoparticles, using pipetting up and down and vortexing, they immediately clump into a pellet. Do you think that if I put an eppendorf tube with these NPs into a waterbath sonicator, it would be possible to break these clumps into single NP-solution without forming clumps?

Would the walls of eppendorf tube absorb the sonic waves and therefore prevent efficient nanoparticle homogenisation?

Thanks,

Kind regards,

Maria

I know that for Lame potential, we get finite number of bands and band gaps, unlike kronig penney model which shows infinite bands and band gaps. I know by analytically solving the Hill's equation for Lame potential, we find finite band edge wave functions. But how to physically understand the phenomenon of band gap collapse after a certain number of band gaps, such that there exists only finite no. of bands ?

Hello, I am a researcher working on GNSS Interferometric Reflectometry (GNSS-IR). The signal segments we work on may not always contain many waves. Hence, I need an expert opinion on how I should proceed in such a situation. My questions are as follows:

- How many full waves are required to accurately estimate the frequency of a signal segment?
- Is there a conventional criterion for the minimum number of waves?
- Is it possible to express the accuracy of an estimated frequency with a quantity derived from the spectra or periodogram (such as the peak width)?

Thank you in advance for your answers and suggestions.

Regards.

What is the best way to avoid or remove ISI (intersymbol interference)? What is the role of Sinc and raised cosane wave in it? In addition, what role does the equalizer play in ISI?