Does light intensity oscillate really fast since it is a wave?












10












$begingroup$


If you shine light on a wall, what will be seen is a "patch" with constant intensity. However, if light is viewed as a wave, then it is oscillations of the electromagnetic field changing from 0 to the amplitude and back really fast. So my question is, if I were able to look at the world at extreme slow motion, a quadrillion times slower or so, and I shined a beam of light at a wall, will I see a "patch" with oscillating intensity, with maximum brightness at the peaks of the wave and minimum when the field is 0? If so, is the constant brightness seen normally just our puny mortal eyes capturing only the average of this oscillating brightness?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Adgorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Related Have we directly observed the electric component to EM waves?
    $endgroup$
    – Farcher
    22 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    What you are talking about is the amplitude. Intensity usually means the average power and that would be constant. And you can't talk about seeing patches in those timescales but observing electric field change.
    $endgroup$
    – Džuris
    18 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you were able to look at the world at extreme slow motion, a quadrillion times slower or so, then you would have to be using some kind of "vision" that would not, in any way, resemble how your vision actually works.
    $endgroup$
    – Solomon Slow
    16 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Have we directly observed the electric component to EM waves?
    $endgroup$
    – ahemmetter
    15 hours ago


















10












$begingroup$


If you shine light on a wall, what will be seen is a "patch" with constant intensity. However, if light is viewed as a wave, then it is oscillations of the electromagnetic field changing from 0 to the amplitude and back really fast. So my question is, if I were able to look at the world at extreme slow motion, a quadrillion times slower or so, and I shined a beam of light at a wall, will I see a "patch" with oscillating intensity, with maximum brightness at the peaks of the wave and minimum when the field is 0? If so, is the constant brightness seen normally just our puny mortal eyes capturing only the average of this oscillating brightness?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Adgorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Related Have we directly observed the electric component to EM waves?
    $endgroup$
    – Farcher
    22 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    What you are talking about is the amplitude. Intensity usually means the average power and that would be constant. And you can't talk about seeing patches in those timescales but observing electric field change.
    $endgroup$
    – Džuris
    18 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you were able to look at the world at extreme slow motion, a quadrillion times slower or so, then you would have to be using some kind of "vision" that would not, in any way, resemble how your vision actually works.
    $endgroup$
    – Solomon Slow
    16 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Have we directly observed the electric component to EM waves?
    $endgroup$
    – ahemmetter
    15 hours ago
















10












10








10


3



$begingroup$


If you shine light on a wall, what will be seen is a "patch" with constant intensity. However, if light is viewed as a wave, then it is oscillations of the electromagnetic field changing from 0 to the amplitude and back really fast. So my question is, if I were able to look at the world at extreme slow motion, a quadrillion times slower or so, and I shined a beam of light at a wall, will I see a "patch" with oscillating intensity, with maximum brightness at the peaks of the wave and minimum when the field is 0? If so, is the constant brightness seen normally just our puny mortal eyes capturing only the average of this oscillating brightness?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Adgorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




If you shine light on a wall, what will be seen is a "patch" with constant intensity. However, if light is viewed as a wave, then it is oscillations of the electromagnetic field changing from 0 to the amplitude and back really fast. So my question is, if I were able to look at the world at extreme slow motion, a quadrillion times slower or so, and I shined a beam of light at a wall, will I see a "patch" with oscillating intensity, with maximum brightness at the peaks of the wave and minimum when the field is 0? If so, is the constant brightness seen normally just our puny mortal eyes capturing only the average of this oscillating brightness?







visible-light waves electromagnetic-radiation intensity






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Adgorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Adgorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 21 hours ago









Ruslan

9,81843173




9,81843173






New contributor




Adgorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 23 hours ago









AdgornAdgorn

5415




5415




New contributor




Adgorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Adgorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Adgorn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Related Have we directly observed the electric component to EM waves?
    $endgroup$
    – Farcher
    22 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    What you are talking about is the amplitude. Intensity usually means the average power and that would be constant. And you can't talk about seeing patches in those timescales but observing electric field change.
    $endgroup$
    – Džuris
    18 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you were able to look at the world at extreme slow motion, a quadrillion times slower or so, then you would have to be using some kind of "vision" that would not, in any way, resemble how your vision actually works.
    $endgroup$
    – Solomon Slow
    16 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Have we directly observed the electric component to EM waves?
    $endgroup$
    – ahemmetter
    15 hours ago
















  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Related Have we directly observed the electric component to EM waves?
    $endgroup$
    – Farcher
    22 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    What you are talking about is the amplitude. Intensity usually means the average power and that would be constant. And you can't talk about seeing patches in those timescales but observing electric field change.
    $endgroup$
    – Džuris
    18 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you were able to look at the world at extreme slow motion, a quadrillion times slower or so, then you would have to be using some kind of "vision" that would not, in any way, resemble how your vision actually works.
    $endgroup$
    – Solomon Slow
    16 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Have we directly observed the electric component to EM waves?
    $endgroup$
    – ahemmetter
    15 hours ago










4




4




$begingroup$
Related Have we directly observed the electric component to EM waves?
$endgroup$
– Farcher
22 hours ago




$begingroup$
Related Have we directly observed the electric component to EM waves?
$endgroup$
– Farcher
22 hours ago




3




3




$begingroup$
What you are talking about is the amplitude. Intensity usually means the average power and that would be constant. And you can't talk about seeing patches in those timescales but observing electric field change.
$endgroup$
– Džuris
18 hours ago




$begingroup$
What you are talking about is the amplitude. Intensity usually means the average power and that would be constant. And you can't talk about seeing patches in those timescales but observing electric field change.
$endgroup$
– Džuris
18 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
If you were able to look at the world at extreme slow motion, a quadrillion times slower or so, then you would have to be using some kind of "vision" that would not, in any way, resemble how your vision actually works.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
16 hours ago




$begingroup$
If you were able to look at the world at extreme slow motion, a quadrillion times slower or so, then you would have to be using some kind of "vision" that would not, in any way, resemble how your vision actually works.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
16 hours ago












$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Have we directly observed the electric component to EM waves?
$endgroup$
– ahemmetter
15 hours ago






$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Have we directly observed the electric component to EM waves?
$endgroup$
– ahemmetter
15 hours ago












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















11












$begingroup$

You would need a coherent beam, because in waves it is not only intensity but also phase that makes a difference. In an incoherent beam, as sunlight, you would not get any changes in this thought experiment, because the average intensity would hold even at wavelength distances.



In a coherent laser beam you should see in your thought experiment what is shown towards the end of this youtube video,(at 2' 09") the sinusoidal in time pattern of impinging intensity . The video draws the oscillating electric field E, and the intensity left on the screen will be $=E^2$, which will also be oscillating in time.



After all, mathematics allows us to materialize thought experiments as this one.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 4




    $begingroup$
    An incoherent beam would mean noise in the electric field magnitude, not constant magnitude. You said yourself "average". If you average a coherent beam over a wavelength, it is also constant intensity. I do agree that the coherent beam makes for the better thought experiment.
    $endgroup$
    – EL_DON
    22 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I would just add that visible light oscillates $10^{14}$ times per second, so the oscillations certainly cannot be seen by eye alone. There have been some ingenious experiments capturing the oscillation though, see science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5688/1267
    $endgroup$
    – Void
    21 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EL_DON Calculating the variance in the magnitude caused by the noise in the case of shining a flashlight on the wall is implicitly left as an exercise for the reader.
    $endgroup$
    – JiK
    17 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Good job not getting sidetracked by the biological impossibility of the question. However, the sum of a set of randomly phase shifted sinusoids of the same frequency still oscillates. Adding waves of different frequencies still makes an oscillating wave, albiet a less regular one. This is because average amplitude will remain zero, while average power will be the sum of the individual waves. Watching such a wave in very slow motion should seem to flash in a very noisy pattern.
    $endgroup$
    – Vaelus
    14 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @annav but sometimes the E-field amplitudes of the individual photons would add up to a positive number, and (unless there's a large DC-bias for some reason) sometimes they'd add up to a negative number, and in between they cross zero. So the instantaneous amplitude $I(t)sim E^2(t)$ also goes to zero. That the beam is incoherent just means the zero-crossings wouldn't be very correlated, and so an incoherent beam would flicker very irregularly, but it would still flicker.
    $endgroup$
    – aquirdturtle
    5 hours ago





















7












$begingroup$

All depends how you "look" at the light.



For example, in a linearly polarized EMW the electric and the magnetic fields oscillate like $sin(omega t)$ or $cos(omega t)$ at a given point of space. Then the question is: what device do you use for "detecting" the EMF?



For EMF there are two notions expressed via fields: it is the energy density $ propto E^2+B^2$ and the energy-momentum flux $ propto vec{E}timesvec{B}$ which may oscillate or not at a given point, depending on their phase shifts.



Some devices deal with a light "spot", where there are many points of the space involved, so you must average (sum up, integrate) local things. Some devices have inertial response and effectively average over time the incident wave too.



However, some devices are much more sensitive to the electric field than to the magnetic one (photo effect, for example), so they clearly "feel" oscillations.



There are also some devices (magnetic antennas, for example) that are more sensitive to the magnetic field (some radio-receivers).



In other words, the incident fields get into the equation of motion of the detector charges and currents, and the detector features determine what you get in reality.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I've heard this before (from an E&M professor, I think), but I don't see how you satisfy Maxwell's equations with it. $nablatimes E=-partial B/partial t$ doesn't work if $Epropto cos(omega t-kcdot x)$ unless $B$ is also a cosine because they each take one derivative. Also, the poynting vector goes like $Etimes B$, so you'd get periodic variation in energy flux, anyway.
    $endgroup$
    – EL_DON
    22 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The fields in a linearly polarized wave are in phase - that is a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations. As such also $|vec E times vec B|$ is oscillating, not a constant. Only when you average the Poynting vector over one period $langle vec S rangle$, the intensity becomes constant.
    $endgroup$
    – ahemmetter
    20 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @ahemmetter: The Poynting vector is a vector, not an intensity $I$.
    $endgroup$
    – Vladimir Kalitvianski
    19 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The intensity is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Poynting vector.
    $endgroup$
    – ahemmetter
    17 hours ago



















3












$begingroup$

The EM field strength in a linearly polarized, coherent light wave does indeed cross through zero in between + and - peaks, just like the surface of a pond goes through its natural rest height in between going up and down as ripples go by. If you slowed the wave down, you'd change its frequency, which is the same as changing its color. You could change from blue, to red, to infrared, and all the way through radio waves and other invisible colors. So no, you could not see the EM field changing as a flashing light for a slow wave (the slow changes couldn't simulate your vision receptors) , but you could set up an electric field meter and measure the change in field as the (no longer visible) wave went by. What does it really mean for the field to cross through zero? Not much; just like having the surface of a pond cross through its equilibrium height doesn't mean the ripples are gone, neither does a moment of 0 electric field mean the light wave is gone.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    "Light intensity" in my opinion means the number of optical photons absorbed by a light detector. Such detectors resonate with the electric field and absorb the photons with a characteristic time of many periods of oscillation. So you can say that the oscillation is observed by the detector, but is not translated into a rapid oscillation of the detected intensity. The latter varies with the number of photons absorbed instead, which is at a generally much longer timescale. However, extremely short laser pulses can approach the timescale of the light oscillation period.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$














      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "151"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });






      Adgorn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f471463%2fdoes-light-intensity-oscillate-really-fast-since-it-is-a-wave%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      11












      $begingroup$

      You would need a coherent beam, because in waves it is not only intensity but also phase that makes a difference. In an incoherent beam, as sunlight, you would not get any changes in this thought experiment, because the average intensity would hold even at wavelength distances.



      In a coherent laser beam you should see in your thought experiment what is shown towards the end of this youtube video,(at 2' 09") the sinusoidal in time pattern of impinging intensity . The video draws the oscillating electric field E, and the intensity left on the screen will be $=E^2$, which will also be oscillating in time.



      After all, mathematics allows us to materialize thought experiments as this one.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 4




        $begingroup$
        An incoherent beam would mean noise in the electric field magnitude, not constant magnitude. You said yourself "average". If you average a coherent beam over a wavelength, it is also constant intensity. I do agree that the coherent beam makes for the better thought experiment.
        $endgroup$
        – EL_DON
        22 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        I would just add that visible light oscillates $10^{14}$ times per second, so the oscillations certainly cannot be seen by eye alone. There have been some ingenious experiments capturing the oscillation though, see science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5688/1267
        $endgroup$
        – Void
        21 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @EL_DON Calculating the variance in the magnitude caused by the noise in the case of shining a flashlight on the wall is implicitly left as an exercise for the reader.
        $endgroup$
        – JiK
        17 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        Good job not getting sidetracked by the biological impossibility of the question. However, the sum of a set of randomly phase shifted sinusoids of the same frequency still oscillates. Adding waves of different frequencies still makes an oscillating wave, albiet a less regular one. This is because average amplitude will remain zero, while average power will be the sum of the individual waves. Watching such a wave in very slow motion should seem to flash in a very noisy pattern.
        $endgroup$
        – Vaelus
        14 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @annav but sometimes the E-field amplitudes of the individual photons would add up to a positive number, and (unless there's a large DC-bias for some reason) sometimes they'd add up to a negative number, and in between they cross zero. So the instantaneous amplitude $I(t)sim E^2(t)$ also goes to zero. That the beam is incoherent just means the zero-crossings wouldn't be very correlated, and so an incoherent beam would flicker very irregularly, but it would still flicker.
        $endgroup$
        – aquirdturtle
        5 hours ago


















      11












      $begingroup$

      You would need a coherent beam, because in waves it is not only intensity but also phase that makes a difference. In an incoherent beam, as sunlight, you would not get any changes in this thought experiment, because the average intensity would hold even at wavelength distances.



      In a coherent laser beam you should see in your thought experiment what is shown towards the end of this youtube video,(at 2' 09") the sinusoidal in time pattern of impinging intensity . The video draws the oscillating electric field E, and the intensity left on the screen will be $=E^2$, which will also be oscillating in time.



      After all, mathematics allows us to materialize thought experiments as this one.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 4




        $begingroup$
        An incoherent beam would mean noise in the electric field magnitude, not constant magnitude. You said yourself "average". If you average a coherent beam over a wavelength, it is also constant intensity. I do agree that the coherent beam makes for the better thought experiment.
        $endgroup$
        – EL_DON
        22 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        I would just add that visible light oscillates $10^{14}$ times per second, so the oscillations certainly cannot be seen by eye alone. There have been some ingenious experiments capturing the oscillation though, see science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5688/1267
        $endgroup$
        – Void
        21 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @EL_DON Calculating the variance in the magnitude caused by the noise in the case of shining a flashlight on the wall is implicitly left as an exercise for the reader.
        $endgroup$
        – JiK
        17 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        Good job not getting sidetracked by the biological impossibility of the question. However, the sum of a set of randomly phase shifted sinusoids of the same frequency still oscillates. Adding waves of different frequencies still makes an oscillating wave, albiet a less regular one. This is because average amplitude will remain zero, while average power will be the sum of the individual waves. Watching such a wave in very slow motion should seem to flash in a very noisy pattern.
        $endgroup$
        – Vaelus
        14 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @annav but sometimes the E-field amplitudes of the individual photons would add up to a positive number, and (unless there's a large DC-bias for some reason) sometimes they'd add up to a negative number, and in between they cross zero. So the instantaneous amplitude $I(t)sim E^2(t)$ also goes to zero. That the beam is incoherent just means the zero-crossings wouldn't be very correlated, and so an incoherent beam would flicker very irregularly, but it would still flicker.
        $endgroup$
        – aquirdturtle
        5 hours ago
















      11












      11








      11





      $begingroup$

      You would need a coherent beam, because in waves it is not only intensity but also phase that makes a difference. In an incoherent beam, as sunlight, you would not get any changes in this thought experiment, because the average intensity would hold even at wavelength distances.



      In a coherent laser beam you should see in your thought experiment what is shown towards the end of this youtube video,(at 2' 09") the sinusoidal in time pattern of impinging intensity . The video draws the oscillating electric field E, and the intensity left on the screen will be $=E^2$, which will also be oscillating in time.



      After all, mathematics allows us to materialize thought experiments as this one.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      You would need a coherent beam, because in waves it is not only intensity but also phase that makes a difference. In an incoherent beam, as sunlight, you would not get any changes in this thought experiment, because the average intensity would hold even at wavelength distances.



      In a coherent laser beam you should see in your thought experiment what is shown towards the end of this youtube video,(at 2' 09") the sinusoidal in time pattern of impinging intensity . The video draws the oscillating electric field E, and the intensity left on the screen will be $=E^2$, which will also be oscillating in time.



      After all, mathematics allows us to materialize thought experiments as this one.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited 15 hours ago

























      answered 22 hours ago









      anna vanna v

      161k8153454




      161k8153454








      • 4




        $begingroup$
        An incoherent beam would mean noise in the electric field magnitude, not constant magnitude. You said yourself "average". If you average a coherent beam over a wavelength, it is also constant intensity. I do agree that the coherent beam makes for the better thought experiment.
        $endgroup$
        – EL_DON
        22 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        I would just add that visible light oscillates $10^{14}$ times per second, so the oscillations certainly cannot be seen by eye alone. There have been some ingenious experiments capturing the oscillation though, see science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5688/1267
        $endgroup$
        – Void
        21 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @EL_DON Calculating the variance in the magnitude caused by the noise in the case of shining a flashlight on the wall is implicitly left as an exercise for the reader.
        $endgroup$
        – JiK
        17 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        Good job not getting sidetracked by the biological impossibility of the question. However, the sum of a set of randomly phase shifted sinusoids of the same frequency still oscillates. Adding waves of different frequencies still makes an oscillating wave, albiet a less regular one. This is because average amplitude will remain zero, while average power will be the sum of the individual waves. Watching such a wave in very slow motion should seem to flash in a very noisy pattern.
        $endgroup$
        – Vaelus
        14 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @annav but sometimes the E-field amplitudes of the individual photons would add up to a positive number, and (unless there's a large DC-bias for some reason) sometimes they'd add up to a negative number, and in between they cross zero. So the instantaneous amplitude $I(t)sim E^2(t)$ also goes to zero. That the beam is incoherent just means the zero-crossings wouldn't be very correlated, and so an incoherent beam would flicker very irregularly, but it would still flicker.
        $endgroup$
        – aquirdturtle
        5 hours ago
















      • 4




        $begingroup$
        An incoherent beam would mean noise in the electric field magnitude, not constant magnitude. You said yourself "average". If you average a coherent beam over a wavelength, it is also constant intensity. I do agree that the coherent beam makes for the better thought experiment.
        $endgroup$
        – EL_DON
        22 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        I would just add that visible light oscillates $10^{14}$ times per second, so the oscillations certainly cannot be seen by eye alone. There have been some ingenious experiments capturing the oscillation though, see science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5688/1267
        $endgroup$
        – Void
        21 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @EL_DON Calculating the variance in the magnitude caused by the noise in the case of shining a flashlight on the wall is implicitly left as an exercise for the reader.
        $endgroup$
        – JiK
        17 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        Good job not getting sidetracked by the biological impossibility of the question. However, the sum of a set of randomly phase shifted sinusoids of the same frequency still oscillates. Adding waves of different frequencies still makes an oscillating wave, albiet a less regular one. This is because average amplitude will remain zero, while average power will be the sum of the individual waves. Watching such a wave in very slow motion should seem to flash in a very noisy pattern.
        $endgroup$
        – Vaelus
        14 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @annav but sometimes the E-field amplitudes of the individual photons would add up to a positive number, and (unless there's a large DC-bias for some reason) sometimes they'd add up to a negative number, and in between they cross zero. So the instantaneous amplitude $I(t)sim E^2(t)$ also goes to zero. That the beam is incoherent just means the zero-crossings wouldn't be very correlated, and so an incoherent beam would flicker very irregularly, but it would still flicker.
        $endgroup$
        – aquirdturtle
        5 hours ago










      4




      4




      $begingroup$
      An incoherent beam would mean noise in the electric field magnitude, not constant magnitude. You said yourself "average". If you average a coherent beam over a wavelength, it is also constant intensity. I do agree that the coherent beam makes for the better thought experiment.
      $endgroup$
      – EL_DON
      22 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      An incoherent beam would mean noise in the electric field magnitude, not constant magnitude. You said yourself "average". If you average a coherent beam over a wavelength, it is also constant intensity. I do agree that the coherent beam makes for the better thought experiment.
      $endgroup$
      – EL_DON
      22 hours ago




      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      I would just add that visible light oscillates $10^{14}$ times per second, so the oscillations certainly cannot be seen by eye alone. There have been some ingenious experiments capturing the oscillation though, see science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5688/1267
      $endgroup$
      – Void
      21 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      I would just add that visible light oscillates $10^{14}$ times per second, so the oscillations certainly cannot be seen by eye alone. There have been some ingenious experiments capturing the oscillation though, see science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5688/1267
      $endgroup$
      – Void
      21 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      @EL_DON Calculating the variance in the magnitude caused by the noise in the case of shining a flashlight on the wall is implicitly left as an exercise for the reader.
      $endgroup$
      – JiK
      17 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @EL_DON Calculating the variance in the magnitude caused by the noise in the case of shining a flashlight on the wall is implicitly left as an exercise for the reader.
      $endgroup$
      – JiK
      17 hours ago




      3




      3




      $begingroup$
      Good job not getting sidetracked by the biological impossibility of the question. However, the sum of a set of randomly phase shifted sinusoids of the same frequency still oscillates. Adding waves of different frequencies still makes an oscillating wave, albiet a less regular one. This is because average amplitude will remain zero, while average power will be the sum of the individual waves. Watching such a wave in very slow motion should seem to flash in a very noisy pattern.
      $endgroup$
      – Vaelus
      14 hours ago






      $begingroup$
      Good job not getting sidetracked by the biological impossibility of the question. However, the sum of a set of randomly phase shifted sinusoids of the same frequency still oscillates. Adding waves of different frequencies still makes an oscillating wave, albiet a less regular one. This is because average amplitude will remain zero, while average power will be the sum of the individual waves. Watching such a wave in very slow motion should seem to flash in a very noisy pattern.
      $endgroup$
      – Vaelus
      14 hours ago






      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      @annav but sometimes the E-field amplitudes of the individual photons would add up to a positive number, and (unless there's a large DC-bias for some reason) sometimes they'd add up to a negative number, and in between they cross zero. So the instantaneous amplitude $I(t)sim E^2(t)$ also goes to zero. That the beam is incoherent just means the zero-crossings wouldn't be very correlated, and so an incoherent beam would flicker very irregularly, but it would still flicker.
      $endgroup$
      – aquirdturtle
      5 hours ago






      $begingroup$
      @annav but sometimes the E-field amplitudes of the individual photons would add up to a positive number, and (unless there's a large DC-bias for some reason) sometimes they'd add up to a negative number, and in between they cross zero. So the instantaneous amplitude $I(t)sim E^2(t)$ also goes to zero. That the beam is incoherent just means the zero-crossings wouldn't be very correlated, and so an incoherent beam would flicker very irregularly, but it would still flicker.
      $endgroup$
      – aquirdturtle
      5 hours ago













      7












      $begingroup$

      All depends how you "look" at the light.



      For example, in a linearly polarized EMW the electric and the magnetic fields oscillate like $sin(omega t)$ or $cos(omega t)$ at a given point of space. Then the question is: what device do you use for "detecting" the EMF?



      For EMF there are two notions expressed via fields: it is the energy density $ propto E^2+B^2$ and the energy-momentum flux $ propto vec{E}timesvec{B}$ which may oscillate or not at a given point, depending on their phase shifts.



      Some devices deal with a light "spot", where there are many points of the space involved, so you must average (sum up, integrate) local things. Some devices have inertial response and effectively average over time the incident wave too.



      However, some devices are much more sensitive to the electric field than to the magnetic one (photo effect, for example), so they clearly "feel" oscillations.



      There are also some devices (magnetic antennas, for example) that are more sensitive to the magnetic field (some radio-receivers).



      In other words, the incident fields get into the equation of motion of the detector charges and currents, and the detector features determine what you get in reality.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 2




        $begingroup$
        I've heard this before (from an E&M professor, I think), but I don't see how you satisfy Maxwell's equations with it. $nablatimes E=-partial B/partial t$ doesn't work if $Epropto cos(omega t-kcdot x)$ unless $B$ is also a cosine because they each take one derivative. Also, the poynting vector goes like $Etimes B$, so you'd get periodic variation in energy flux, anyway.
        $endgroup$
        – EL_DON
        22 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The fields in a linearly polarized wave are in phase - that is a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations. As such also $|vec E times vec B|$ is oscillating, not a constant. Only when you average the Poynting vector over one period $langle vec S rangle$, the intensity becomes constant.
        $endgroup$
        – ahemmetter
        20 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @ahemmetter: The Poynting vector is a vector, not an intensity $I$.
        $endgroup$
        – Vladimir Kalitvianski
        19 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The intensity is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Poynting vector.
        $endgroup$
        – ahemmetter
        17 hours ago
















      7












      $begingroup$

      All depends how you "look" at the light.



      For example, in a linearly polarized EMW the electric and the magnetic fields oscillate like $sin(omega t)$ or $cos(omega t)$ at a given point of space. Then the question is: what device do you use for "detecting" the EMF?



      For EMF there are two notions expressed via fields: it is the energy density $ propto E^2+B^2$ and the energy-momentum flux $ propto vec{E}timesvec{B}$ which may oscillate or not at a given point, depending on their phase shifts.



      Some devices deal with a light "spot", where there are many points of the space involved, so you must average (sum up, integrate) local things. Some devices have inertial response and effectively average over time the incident wave too.



      However, some devices are much more sensitive to the electric field than to the magnetic one (photo effect, for example), so they clearly "feel" oscillations.



      There are also some devices (magnetic antennas, for example) that are more sensitive to the magnetic field (some radio-receivers).



      In other words, the incident fields get into the equation of motion of the detector charges and currents, and the detector features determine what you get in reality.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 2




        $begingroup$
        I've heard this before (from an E&M professor, I think), but I don't see how you satisfy Maxwell's equations with it. $nablatimes E=-partial B/partial t$ doesn't work if $Epropto cos(omega t-kcdot x)$ unless $B$ is also a cosine because they each take one derivative. Also, the poynting vector goes like $Etimes B$, so you'd get periodic variation in energy flux, anyway.
        $endgroup$
        – EL_DON
        22 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The fields in a linearly polarized wave are in phase - that is a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations. As such also $|vec E times vec B|$ is oscillating, not a constant. Only when you average the Poynting vector over one period $langle vec S rangle$, the intensity becomes constant.
        $endgroup$
        – ahemmetter
        20 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @ahemmetter: The Poynting vector is a vector, not an intensity $I$.
        $endgroup$
        – Vladimir Kalitvianski
        19 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The intensity is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Poynting vector.
        $endgroup$
        – ahemmetter
        17 hours ago














      7












      7








      7





      $begingroup$

      All depends how you "look" at the light.



      For example, in a linearly polarized EMW the electric and the magnetic fields oscillate like $sin(omega t)$ or $cos(omega t)$ at a given point of space. Then the question is: what device do you use for "detecting" the EMF?



      For EMF there are two notions expressed via fields: it is the energy density $ propto E^2+B^2$ and the energy-momentum flux $ propto vec{E}timesvec{B}$ which may oscillate or not at a given point, depending on their phase shifts.



      Some devices deal with a light "spot", where there are many points of the space involved, so you must average (sum up, integrate) local things. Some devices have inertial response and effectively average over time the incident wave too.



      However, some devices are much more sensitive to the electric field than to the magnetic one (photo effect, for example), so they clearly "feel" oscillations.



      There are also some devices (magnetic antennas, for example) that are more sensitive to the magnetic field (some radio-receivers).



      In other words, the incident fields get into the equation of motion of the detector charges and currents, and the detector features determine what you get in reality.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      All depends how you "look" at the light.



      For example, in a linearly polarized EMW the electric and the magnetic fields oscillate like $sin(omega t)$ or $cos(omega t)$ at a given point of space. Then the question is: what device do you use for "detecting" the EMF?



      For EMF there are two notions expressed via fields: it is the energy density $ propto E^2+B^2$ and the energy-momentum flux $ propto vec{E}timesvec{B}$ which may oscillate or not at a given point, depending on their phase shifts.



      Some devices deal with a light "spot", where there are many points of the space involved, so you must average (sum up, integrate) local things. Some devices have inertial response and effectively average over time the incident wave too.



      However, some devices are much more sensitive to the electric field than to the magnetic one (photo effect, for example), so they clearly "feel" oscillations.



      There are also some devices (magnetic antennas, for example) that are more sensitive to the magnetic field (some radio-receivers).



      In other words, the incident fields get into the equation of motion of the detector charges and currents, and the detector features determine what you get in reality.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited 15 hours ago

























      answered 22 hours ago









      Vladimir KalitvianskiVladimir Kalitvianski

      11.2k11334




      11.2k11334








      • 2




        $begingroup$
        I've heard this before (from an E&M professor, I think), but I don't see how you satisfy Maxwell's equations with it. $nablatimes E=-partial B/partial t$ doesn't work if $Epropto cos(omega t-kcdot x)$ unless $B$ is also a cosine because they each take one derivative. Also, the poynting vector goes like $Etimes B$, so you'd get periodic variation in energy flux, anyway.
        $endgroup$
        – EL_DON
        22 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The fields in a linearly polarized wave are in phase - that is a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations. As such also $|vec E times vec B|$ is oscillating, not a constant. Only when you average the Poynting vector over one period $langle vec S rangle$, the intensity becomes constant.
        $endgroup$
        – ahemmetter
        20 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @ahemmetter: The Poynting vector is a vector, not an intensity $I$.
        $endgroup$
        – Vladimir Kalitvianski
        19 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The intensity is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Poynting vector.
        $endgroup$
        – ahemmetter
        17 hours ago














      • 2




        $begingroup$
        I've heard this before (from an E&M professor, I think), but I don't see how you satisfy Maxwell's equations with it. $nablatimes E=-partial B/partial t$ doesn't work if $Epropto cos(omega t-kcdot x)$ unless $B$ is also a cosine because they each take one derivative. Also, the poynting vector goes like $Etimes B$, so you'd get periodic variation in energy flux, anyway.
        $endgroup$
        – EL_DON
        22 hours ago








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The fields in a linearly polarized wave are in phase - that is a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations. As such also $|vec E times vec B|$ is oscillating, not a constant. Only when you average the Poynting vector over one period $langle vec S rangle$, the intensity becomes constant.
        $endgroup$
        – ahemmetter
        20 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @ahemmetter: The Poynting vector is a vector, not an intensity $I$.
        $endgroup$
        – Vladimir Kalitvianski
        19 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The intensity is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Poynting vector.
        $endgroup$
        – ahemmetter
        17 hours ago








      2




      2




      $begingroup$
      I've heard this before (from an E&M professor, I think), but I don't see how you satisfy Maxwell's equations with it. $nablatimes E=-partial B/partial t$ doesn't work if $Epropto cos(omega t-kcdot x)$ unless $B$ is also a cosine because they each take one derivative. Also, the poynting vector goes like $Etimes B$, so you'd get periodic variation in energy flux, anyway.
      $endgroup$
      – EL_DON
      22 hours ago






      $begingroup$
      I've heard this before (from an E&M professor, I think), but I don't see how you satisfy Maxwell's equations with it. $nablatimes E=-partial B/partial t$ doesn't work if $Epropto cos(omega t-kcdot x)$ unless $B$ is also a cosine because they each take one derivative. Also, the poynting vector goes like $Etimes B$, so you'd get periodic variation in energy flux, anyway.
      $endgroup$
      – EL_DON
      22 hours ago






      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      The fields in a linearly polarized wave are in phase - that is a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations. As such also $|vec E times vec B|$ is oscillating, not a constant. Only when you average the Poynting vector over one period $langle vec S rangle$, the intensity becomes constant.
      $endgroup$
      – ahemmetter
      20 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      The fields in a linearly polarized wave are in phase - that is a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations. As such also $|vec E times vec B|$ is oscillating, not a constant. Only when you average the Poynting vector over one period $langle vec S rangle$, the intensity becomes constant.
      $endgroup$
      – ahemmetter
      20 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      @ahemmetter: The Poynting vector is a vector, not an intensity $I$.
      $endgroup$
      – Vladimir Kalitvianski
      19 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @ahemmetter: The Poynting vector is a vector, not an intensity $I$.
      $endgroup$
      – Vladimir Kalitvianski
      19 hours ago




      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      The intensity is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Poynting vector.
      $endgroup$
      – ahemmetter
      17 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      The intensity is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Poynting vector.
      $endgroup$
      – ahemmetter
      17 hours ago











      3












      $begingroup$

      The EM field strength in a linearly polarized, coherent light wave does indeed cross through zero in between + and - peaks, just like the surface of a pond goes through its natural rest height in between going up and down as ripples go by. If you slowed the wave down, you'd change its frequency, which is the same as changing its color. You could change from blue, to red, to infrared, and all the way through radio waves and other invisible colors. So no, you could not see the EM field changing as a flashing light for a slow wave (the slow changes couldn't simulate your vision receptors) , but you could set up an electric field meter and measure the change in field as the (no longer visible) wave went by. What does it really mean for the field to cross through zero? Not much; just like having the surface of a pond cross through its equilibrium height doesn't mean the ripples are gone, neither does a moment of 0 electric field mean the light wave is gone.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        3












        $begingroup$

        The EM field strength in a linearly polarized, coherent light wave does indeed cross through zero in between + and - peaks, just like the surface of a pond goes through its natural rest height in between going up and down as ripples go by. If you slowed the wave down, you'd change its frequency, which is the same as changing its color. You could change from blue, to red, to infrared, and all the way through radio waves and other invisible colors. So no, you could not see the EM field changing as a flashing light for a slow wave (the slow changes couldn't simulate your vision receptors) , but you could set up an electric field meter and measure the change in field as the (no longer visible) wave went by. What does it really mean for the field to cross through zero? Not much; just like having the surface of a pond cross through its equilibrium height doesn't mean the ripples are gone, neither does a moment of 0 electric field mean the light wave is gone.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          The EM field strength in a linearly polarized, coherent light wave does indeed cross through zero in between + and - peaks, just like the surface of a pond goes through its natural rest height in between going up and down as ripples go by. If you slowed the wave down, you'd change its frequency, which is the same as changing its color. You could change from blue, to red, to infrared, and all the way through radio waves and other invisible colors. So no, you could not see the EM field changing as a flashing light for a slow wave (the slow changes couldn't simulate your vision receptors) , but you could set up an electric field meter and measure the change in field as the (no longer visible) wave went by. What does it really mean for the field to cross through zero? Not much; just like having the surface of a pond cross through its equilibrium height doesn't mean the ripples are gone, neither does a moment of 0 electric field mean the light wave is gone.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          The EM field strength in a linearly polarized, coherent light wave does indeed cross through zero in between + and - peaks, just like the surface of a pond goes through its natural rest height in between going up and down as ripples go by. If you slowed the wave down, you'd change its frequency, which is the same as changing its color. You could change from blue, to red, to infrared, and all the way through radio waves and other invisible colors. So no, you could not see the EM field changing as a flashing light for a slow wave (the slow changes couldn't simulate your vision receptors) , but you could set up an electric field meter and measure the change in field as the (no longer visible) wave went by. What does it really mean for the field to cross through zero? Not much; just like having the surface of a pond cross through its equilibrium height doesn't mean the ripples are gone, neither does a moment of 0 electric field mean the light wave is gone.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 22 hours ago

























          answered 22 hours ago









          EL_DONEL_DON

          2,3422726




          2,3422726























              0












              $begingroup$

              "Light intensity" in my opinion means the number of optical photons absorbed by a light detector. Such detectors resonate with the electric field and absorb the photons with a characteristic time of many periods of oscillation. So you can say that the oscillation is observed by the detector, but is not translated into a rapid oscillation of the detected intensity. The latter varies with the number of photons absorbed instead, which is at a generally much longer timescale. However, extremely short laser pulses can approach the timescale of the light oscillation period.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                "Light intensity" in my opinion means the number of optical photons absorbed by a light detector. Such detectors resonate with the electric field and absorb the photons with a characteristic time of many periods of oscillation. So you can say that the oscillation is observed by the detector, but is not translated into a rapid oscillation of the detected intensity. The latter varies with the number of photons absorbed instead, which is at a generally much longer timescale. However, extremely short laser pulses can approach the timescale of the light oscillation period.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  "Light intensity" in my opinion means the number of optical photons absorbed by a light detector. Such detectors resonate with the electric field and absorb the photons with a characteristic time of many periods of oscillation. So you can say that the oscillation is observed by the detector, but is not translated into a rapid oscillation of the detected intensity. The latter varies with the number of photons absorbed instead, which is at a generally much longer timescale. However, extremely short laser pulses can approach the timescale of the light oscillation period.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  "Light intensity" in my opinion means the number of optical photons absorbed by a light detector. Such detectors resonate with the electric field and absorb the photons with a characteristic time of many periods of oscillation. So you can say that the oscillation is observed by the detector, but is not translated into a rapid oscillation of the detected intensity. The latter varies with the number of photons absorbed instead, which is at a generally much longer timescale. However, extremely short laser pulses can approach the timescale of the light oscillation period.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 20 hours ago









                  my2ctsmy2cts

                  5,7872719




                  5,7872719






















                      Adgorn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Adgorn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      Adgorn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Adgorn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f471463%2fdoes-light-intensity-oscillate-really-fast-since-it-is-a-wave%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to label and detect the document text images

                      Vallis Paradisi

                      Tabula Rosettana