Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (2105)	9/13/2000 11:51:43 AM
From: Richard Belanger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12231

Maurice - The Winn Theory of Superposition. <Since photons are wave-functions, they too will interfere when an electron-buoy absorbs their energy as they hit. If you have a 2GHz wave, it has 0.01% of the energy needed to ring the bell. But if at the same time there is a bunch of high-energy photons coming in, then there will be superposition of the wave functions and lots of bell-ringing whereas there was none without the addition of the extra energy.> Let’s see, in this analogy, I’ll assume the normal swell represents the X-ray background and the passing wake is a burst of UHF photons. The problem here is one of scale: the X-ray and gamma-ray background have energies on the order of thousands to millions of electron volts - with very wide variation - whereas the UHF photons are very puny by comparison: much less than 1 eV. So our surfer would be bobbing in waves bigger than a monster swell at Maverick’s, while the passing wake would be a mere ripple. Lots of bell-ringing? Pretty hard to imagine. Also, keep in mind that the mechanisms by which photons of different energies interact with matter are qualitatively different. They don’t call X-rays “ionizing” and UHF “non-ionizing” for nothing. While I do like these surfing analogies (especially on days like today: a warm, and semi-muggy one in SD), I would have to say your theory still doesn’t hold water. Of course anything is possible on a microscale level. I have not disproved your theory. I am only trying to point out that the superposition of cell phone photons on the ionizing radiation background is likely to be trivial and non-detectable by scientific methods. That said, there will still be big-time controversy over cell phone radiation. You are right, the public is very wary of science. So let’s see if CDMA technology can at least claim the upper hand in the public’s eye. Rich P.S. Latest same-store NZ lamb quote: $3.99/lb NZ vs. $4.29/lb domestic.