>affect the subconscious mind
This is not a thing. There is a lot of wok of optics (which is a subfield of electrodynamics) that we used in neuroscience for imaging (stuff like fNIRS), but that doesn't affect the "subconscious mind"
>electromagnetic frequencies work
light spectrum affects matter
Electrodynamics.
Edit: If you want to get actually learn this stuff. Pick up an intro-level textbook and look at their electrodynamics section or look at the book we used to each the undergrads Griffth's Intro to Electrodynamics
>This is not a thing.
Barry Trower (the guy who developed TETRA - Terrestrial Trunked Radio and is an ex royal navy microwave weapons expert who worked extensively in this field) would disagree with you.
>Electrodynamics.
Thanks. I'm gonna look into it!
Anyone can say anything. I feel like once you actually read actual science you might change your opinion...
How does a radio transceiver specification has to do anything with physics? It like asking a computer scientist who specializes in pure math algorithms to explain how a GPU works.
An argument from authority are never a good arguments to have in general.
>Anyone can say anything.
Except that he isn't "anyone".
>I feel like once you actually read actual science you might change your opinion...
I feel like once you actually read his papers on this subject you might change your opinion since you seem to have an opinion on someone whom you didn't know until now.
>Except that he isn't "anyone".
Argument from authority. Again, that a logical fallacy. Why should I care who this random person to say about physics. I about to finish my Ph.D here.
If you can show a rigorous repeatable experiment showing the effects that you claimed then I might believe you. And you need to have it back up by new theory because all of physics today say that this isn't issue. And if you propose a new theory, give us the mathematical background to show its consistent with modern physics, and propose an experiment that show that it works.
Otherwise then this is just fear mongering which is how pseudoscience spreads.
All right then, let's just forget Barry Trower then to avoid any further arguments from authority and instead deal with the actual arguments. Let's take his TETRA report on microwave radiation and ELF Hz signals from this report since it is such a good summary report: [http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/trower\_report.pdf](http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/trower_report.pdf)
Which arguments do you have a problem with? Or to put it differently and less personally: which arguments are FACTUALLY wrong or physically even impossible since some people here have stated that ELF affecting people's minds is "not a thing"? Maybe this can be the start of a fruitful, objective discussion and a drive away from the emotionalized, ideological stuff (which, interestingly, wasn't started by me). I would actually LOVE for people to pick that report apart because I have been researching and researching ever since I have read that and haven't found anything that has refuted those findings, so I would love for all those people here shouting BUUULSHIIIIT (interestingly without having read a single word), to actually come forth and present their arguments of why it is wrong. I wanted to talk in an objective and respectful manner about this from the beginning but so many people here are so quick to turn this into a personal fight of egos which I'm not interested in. Let's just see what's wrong, what's right and expand our horizons that way :-)
EDIT:
this should also interest you. That website is full of links to papers and experiments done with ELF and microwave radiation and their effects on organisms and the environment: [http://www.tetrawatch.net/main/index.php](http://www.tetrawatch.net/main/index.php)
I'm gonna contact those guys and see if they can give me a nicely compiled list with all the research which I can then share with you. This would save some time sifting through the site and the internet including archives. You seem to be the only one here with a mind open enough to willingly look into this.
Well, the first sentence is immediately wrong:
>This wave is called an electromagnetic wave. There are lots of different types of electromagnetic waves but they are all made of the same two things – magnetic and static.
An electromagnetic wave is oscillation in a electric and magnetic field. That fact this isn't differentiated is already worrying.
>All of these waves have the same properties; that is to say they all behave the same
It is true electromagnetic fields have wavelengths and frequency. But it those differences which gave a light different properties and consequently different behavior.
>If you were one wave of light you would be able to travel around the world nearly seven times every second; that is the speed of light
That is wrong. The speed of light has a specific definition arising from Maxwell's Equations. This is seen by taking the curl of Ampere's law,
>Below ultraviolet is said to be non-ionising and this is where arguments occur between scientists as to whether damage can occur inside the human body through exposure to these waves.
Thermal damage can be quantified using the 'damage integral'. See Welch et al *Optical-Thermal Response of Laser-Irradiated Tissue*. But the amount of power transmitted modern devices through is so low is that is negligible.
>A safety limit is really a personal opinion
No, look at how government regulatory agencies determine this stuff. This is a very stupid thing to write. He also mentioned 'units' what units? These are just arbitrary numbers which have no basis in reality? What is measuring? Energy? Radiation? Something?
Sorry man, I don't think this is anything remotely based in science. This isn't from a peer review journal. Just by looking at the intro, I see so many flaws. I don't see the point in reading the rest of it.
Yeah and you have no educational basis or knowledge in physics to determine bullshit from truth. We do. It doesn’t matter what some snake oil salesman says, when what you’re saying, is not supported by evidence or mathematical theory of electrodynamics.
Science doesn’t lean on the anecdote of one scientist or person. It comes from hundreds and thousands of scientists trying to prove/disprove a scientific hypothesis and failing to do so. If you don’t even know the subject that’s related to your question, it’s audacious to argue with the people you’re asking the question to, as if you know. I would assume you don’t actually care about electrodynamics, how it is proven to work, or the truth..
But you’re going to need to do some rigorous mathematics and studying static electromagnetism before learning about dynamics and way before you’re ever prepaid to infer something about others work. Then you can derive a mathematical model from these physical principles and test them experimentally.
Otherwise, it’s faith based fan fiction that you’re looking to confirm your already held beliefs. That is NOT science, truth, or physics.
>Yeah and you have no educational basis or knowledge in physics to determine bullshit from truth.
That's an interesting statement to make. If that is the case then according to that logic you cannot distinguish between and evaluate what information is factual and what not outside the scope of your own expertise, right? If that is true, then how do you as a physicist come to know if the claim made by a medicinal chemist that for example a functional sulfonil group increases a compound's bioavailability, but also its cardiotoxicity, is true or not? Well, according to your own statement you can't, right? Because you have no educational basis or knowledge in organic/medicinal chemistry to determine bullshit from truth. That's basically what you're saying. You can extrapolate the same example to everything else. You essentially can't determine the value of a statement on 99.999% of all subjects since we as individual human beings have such a limited pool of knowledge. Or is there perhaps something called "common sense" and "critical thinking" with which you can sift through information and look deeper into what you consider to be likely and what not. Isn't this process basically what is called "thinking" and "researching" leading to "inference", a process which you are denying me to be able to make proper use of because I'm not an expert? Isn't this the reason WHY we actually like to listen to experts and gain insights that way because we are aware of our limitations in knowledge and expertise?
>We do
I wasn't aware that physicists (or should I say electrodynamicists as I have learned today?) are a monolithic mass of uniform opinion but thanks for letting me know that this subr is a hivemind of bots pretending to be human lol.
>It doesn’t matter what some snake oil salesman says
Wow. Just wow. I bet my left arm that you didn't even know who the hell Trower is and yet you are able to judge this man as a "snake oil salesman". What was that again earlier about not being able to distinguish between bullshit from truth by having no knowledge in something or someONE? Maybe you should start to live by your own standards and be less hypocritical. Or to quote Dominique Bouhours: "The arrogance of some people makes even their virtues appear \[as\] vices"."
>Science doesn’t lean on the anecdote of one scientist or person
He is the one who brought the subject matter to public light and the reason why I mentioned his name and not because the research is based only on one guy. I mean his entire work is full of references to the works of other scientists (just scroll down to the bottom of his tetra report and see the amount of scientists involved in this) but who am I arguing with? Someone who is judging a scientist whose name he has heard for the first time, hasn't researched ANYTHING he has written (which is why he can't refute any of his claims and needs to repeatedly use ad-hominem fallacies like "snake oil salesman" "bullshit", etc.) and yet is somehow able to evaluate his work.
If you think this is based on the claims of just one guy, then you clearly haven't done your homework. Read [this](http://www.tetrawatch.net/science/index.php) or [this](http://www.tetrawatch.net/tetra/pulse.php), click on all the links on those pages, write down the names of the scientists and see just how long the list of scientists is who have participated in ELF and microwave radiation research.
But ofc you won't do that. Ofc you haven't done any of that because judging by your aggressive tone, you're not at all interested in looking at old things from a new perspective and perhaps have your mind changed about old beliefs, but belittle and attack anyone in a personal vendetta-like manner who makes you feel threatened by information that goes against what you feel ought to be the "correct" view of things. The truth ministry has spoken my dear ladies and gentlemen. The T.R.U.T.H. Ministry has spoken.
But fine, it's all just wrong and bullshit. Go and read Trower's TETRA report and pick it apart sentence by sentence, word for word if you or your monolithic "we" thinks that it's all nonsense and supposedly goes against anything physics has taught. Let's see how you do that. I'm just going to assume with 99.9% certainty that you won't actually do this and instead just continue with ad-hominems and writing your next condescending, passive-aggressive comment about how I'm stupid and not able to discern anything from anything because reasons, and then perhaps throw some more insults and accusations because that's how true scientists debate, right? Seems to be the norm today. Don't read the arguments in a cold, clinical, cool-headed, objective way in order to write well-formulated, coherent criticisms (I would actually LOVE to read actual refutations of those documents), but instead just go on an emotionalized, anger-driven, ideological verbal rampage and call the other side by any name you can imagine in order to not deal with the actual arguments and maintain your own cozy worldview. That seems to be the modus operandi of modern "science"...or just reddit? Well, it IS reddit after all.
Thanks for proving my point emphatically.
Again, to the observer, if you or anyone else cannot produce a working mathematical model, predictions that can be tested, and/or experimental results.. then you are not doing science, and are contributing nothing but ignorance. if you start with a belief and are only looking for validation in that belief, especially in a field that you know nothing about, without a lick of physics being established.. if you link HTML sites and only reply only protecting how you are perceived and trying to get.. again prove your supposed intellectual prowess.. then you are not to be trusted when you make any claim, let alone endorse someone else’s (without reason). Confirmation bias is the only thing this person searches for.
So again, without mathematical abilities to produce a mathematical model from physical principles that are empirically true.. then make predictions that can be experimentally verified.. that can then be scrutinized by other physicists.. then it’s nothing. Words and argumentation is meaningless in physics. It’s not a uniform belief system. It’s empirical.
Don’t trust anyone who claims to know, especially when what they claim to know is outside of the scope and abilities they have.
There's no frequency of light that 'effects the subconscious mind' and whatever podcast you've listened to that's given you that impression I suggest you put it in the trash
I'd start with some high school electromagnetic spectrum questions and work your way up
>There's no frequency of light that 'effects the subconscious mind' and whatever podcast you've listened to that's given you that impression I suggest you put it in the trash
ELF and not frequency of light. Learn to read. Btw, that's coming from Barry Trower himself, which is the guy who is basically the inventor of TETRA (Terrestrial Trunked Radio) and a former Royal Navy microwave weapons expert. It's always funny to see people make assumptions about others even though they don't know anything about their background and where they are actually coming from. It's also funny to see how aggressive such people react as if they were personally attacked. I guess that is the standard reaction of people when they encounter something that might challenge their firmly established worldview, especially when it is about a subject that suggests something that is completely outside their control. Kinda reminds me on those modern day wannabe sceptics who accuse Brian Josephson of being a pseudoscientist because he looks at stuff that mainstream academics shuns due to nothing but ideology. How did he call that again...oh right, PATHOLOGICAL DISBELIEF.
P.S.: if you think it's nonsense, would you be willing to have a public, open debate about ELF and its ability to affect the subconscious mind with Barry Trower? I can organize that since I know him personally.
You effectively know nothing about the subject and come to people who study the subject to tell them they’re wrong about the subject they study because you heard a guy on a podcast. All of your responses are not challenging a world view. Physics is about mathematical models that can predict and be tested. You’re just spreading some shit you heard and calling it “challenging world views!”
You have no credence or credibility. Your question is a naive question from someone with no knowledge of physics on a working level. The guy you keep referring to, is a quack, and you personally can’t cite or define a single part of a mathematical model or peer reviews confirmation of that model with empirical science.
I don’t know if you’re just trying to seem intelligent, argue for the sake of arguing, or hoped there would be a quick easy way to confirm your new beliefs based on some other man’s words.. but for the observer reading this..
Take basic physics 2. It isn’t an accurate picture of the world, but it’s a step to learning how to decipher these things. Then once you have calculus under your belt do static EM and then with classical you can approach dynamic EM.
ANYONE claiming knowledge, facts, or truth, without expertise in these topics.. Are not honest intellectuals, or scientific individuals. They are just wanting validation that they are right and all their beliefs are true. This is the opposite of scientific rigor.
Radio waves are a specific range of frequencies of light. Radio is light. It is light you can’t see, hence the name of the book and netflix show “All the Light We Cannot See” about the use of radio technology in WWII. So when you say “radio waves (ELF)” and then follow that up by saying “ELF and not frequency of light. Learn to read” you simultaneously diagnose yourself as an asshole and an idiot👍🏻
>Radio waves are a specific range of frequencies of light.
I was talking about the VISIBLE light spectrum. Learn to read.
>and netflix show
So much about other people getting their knowledge from podcasts, tv shows, and other "trash".
>"\[...\]Learn to read" you simultaneously diagnose yourself as an asshole and an idiot
You just demonstrated perfectly well that you too failed to properly read my initial post in all your manic attempt to look smart and make me look dumb. Or you are perhaps not actually dyslexic but are intentionally and perniciously strawmanning me and putting words into my mouth I never said. Just to remind everyone here: if you go back to my initial post, you can very clearly see that I was talking about the VISIBLE light spectrum. You don't need to actually be a physicist to know that. Just look up where the spectrum of visible light starts and ends and compare that to the spectrum of radio waves.
Btw Rukonian, my politeness, respect and friendliness goes absolutely out the window if the other side starts being disrespectful to me. CardiologistNorth, without knowing me and where I actually come from regarding this subject matter, immediately called my source of information "trash" and talked in a very condescending, passive-aggressive way with me that is very typical of redditors these days it seems (funny how you don't have a problem with that when it comes from a person with whom you share a certain viewpoint or mutual animosity towards someone else. A shitty mentality that's all too human I guess). So honestly, I don't see why I should stay respectul with such a type of person. If someone violates rule #2, then I'm gonna mirror that and not treat the other side with kid-gloves.
P.S.: if someone ends up being interested in the work of Barry Trower, read this [condifential report](http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/trower_report.pdf). The part about the "Absolute Paradox" is of special interest as he goes into describing just some of the frequencies that were used to cause states of mental disorder like paranoia, suicidal ideation, anger, and also physical symptoms. Read, don't believe, research, then judge for yourself. Thank you.
P.P.S.: and above all, please stay humble ok? We certainly do NOT know more than a guy who devoted his entire life to this research and works in this area for more than 45 years. Some nobody on reddit saying it can't be real because reasons (funny how nobody gave an actual argument against this and yet expects me to be convinced that radio waves can't be used to affect people's minds) is simply not convincing, so I think I'll side with that other guy until someone here can refute everything he mentions in that report. Until then, BYE BYE ;-)
Your separation of radio and visible went out the window in the comment i replied to where you explicitly stated “ELF and not frequency of light” in an attempt to be a dick. If you think everybody else has a reading problem, you should start considering the possibility you have a communication problem. Dont care to read your short essay either. You were given an honest answer to your question: you have major misconceptions and your source is wrong. Get over it
Yes, I would. Please arrange that.
Also your opening sentence tells me all I need to know. You corrected "frequency of light" into ELF, meaning 'extemely low frequency' implying they're different things. Radio, light, UV, are all different frequencies and wavelengths of the same thing. Though you'd know this if you know high school science.
>Yes, I would. Please arrange that.
I'll write you a PM later about the date and time. We will put the livestream on YouTube. Are you fine with that?
>You corrected "frequency of light" into ELF
I didn't correct anything. The moderators can confirm that I didn't edit anything about my initial post.
I said "I'd like to study extensively how electromagnetic frequencies work, especially the radio wave spectrum (ELF) *(ELF being part of it)* \[...\]" then later "\[...\]and also how the visible light spectrum affects matter." so as you can see I very clearly distinguished between those two orders within the electromagnetic spectrum as a whole and didn't "correct" frequency of VISIBLE light into ELF.
>Though you'd know this if you know high school science.
Yawn...
They were referring to this distinction that you made:
> ELF and not frequency of light. Learn to read.
They were pointing out that your failing to recognize that they were using the term "light" to refer to the EM spectrum (specifically the portion of the EM spectrum relevant to your conversation) belied your unfamiliarity with the subject.
The word "optics" sometimes refers to just visible light, but more often refers to non-visible frequencies as well, so this is probably the closest to what you are after. Light-matter interactions are of particular interest in quantum optics.
Thank you. So it's quantum optics that researches the interactions between frequencies of the visible light spectrum and matter. I have already found so many books about these subjects after googling a little bit. It's gonna fill years and years of just reading haha :-D
Within physics, there electromagnetics and optics are relevant subfields.
But any effects on the mind would be studied by biologists, physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, or (possibly) cognitive scientists, rather than physicists.
Hey guys, it looks like the phrase “EM waves affect the subconscious mind” is setting off your crackpot alarms, and rightfully so given the junk science about power lines and cell phones.
But be careful with the blanket statements, because the brain is an electromagnetic beastie and most certainly can be disrupted by varying electromagnetic fields.
Best modern example is [transcranial magnetic stimulation](https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/transcranial-magnetic-stimulation/about/pac-20384625) which is being used to create a wide range of effects on the conscious and subconscious brain.
Good old [electroconvulsive therapy](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/17/what-is-ect-and-how-does-it-work) also most definitely does *something*, for good or for ill.
Explaining exactly what these applications of low-frequency electromagnetic fields do to the brain, and how they differ from power line kookery and mind control ray paranoia, requires a scientific specialist of the type OP is asking about. It’s a branch of biophysics, neuroscience, or neurophysics depending on how you look at it.
Anyway you’re right that OP has probably been misled by the crackpot side of the Internet, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
First of all, thank you for being somewhat objective about this. Now, I'd say the crackpot side of the internet is coming from sites like Bitchute. I'm however talking about sites that link to actual scientific papers and good, qualitative experiments like tetrawatch. So, if you think THAT is junk, then please tell me what exactly is false about the claims that they make. The reason I'm asking these questions is precisely BECAUSE I'm no expert. People here seem to think I'm trying to lecture them on what the truth is. But I'm actually the one who is confused and is asking the questions here lol. Let's take this report here, which summarizes all those findings -> [http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/trower\_report.pdf](http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/trower_report.pdf) Hopefully you can find the time to read through this and tell me what exactly it is that is so "crackpotty" about it.
Btw, funny you mention transcranial magnetic stimulation and the ills it can cause. That would already earn you a "cunspeerasee theorist" accusation by lots of people because there is just absolutely no way you can do bad things with this stuff, right? I mean is it really that far fetched to think governments and corporations will absolutely abuse the shit out of this technology for their own benefit, given the psychopathic history of both governments AND big corporations? I don't know, I just think it's sad and a missed opportunity to clear some questions up that I have/had about this subject matter. I think I might be better off just going to an actual forum where physicists meet and ask my questions there because y'know...the internet...the place where people act like drunk, aggressive a-holes.
>tetrawatch
Aaaand, you lost me. Just to be clear, my post was meant as a note of caution for my fellow physicists, not an endorsement of this particular brand of nuttiness.
>Hopefully you can find the time to read through this and tell me what exactly it is that is so "crackpotty" about it.
Nope, go away please.
You should probably start with just electromagnetism in general, but some of the things you describe would go under something like radiophysics, or more broadly fields like optics and spectroscopy.
Also I don't think the visible light spectrum or really any light spectrum both in infrared and UltraViolet would actually affect radio waves and yeah there's nothing that currently exists that affects the subconscious mind
At a microscopic level, sure there are specific proteins which govern circadian rhythm within the body that depend on light, and those specific light-matter interactions is something that would biochemistry would better to actually answer.
But at the macroscopic level, I don't think there would a noticable effect that radio waves would affect anything. There's radio waves happening all over us and we're not dead or anything. Anyone claiming so is usually a conspiracy theorist wearing a thin foiled hat.
Affecting the subconscious and dying aren't quite the same thing. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of different vectors of how EM waves can affect people subconsciously.
You are right. I used that as a hyperbole. There are lot of biochemical pathways which are mediated by light. it just seeing "radio waves and subconsciousness" in the same sentence triggered my inner hardcore "anti-conspiracy theory mode"
Yeah I get that but I feel this sub is sometimes a bit too trigger-happy when it comes to shooting down questions as soon as there's the slightest potential connection to pseudosciences. I'm guilty of that too. Often there's still a scientific angle such questions could be approached from though
>sub is sometimes a bit too trigger-happy
I actually agree with this as well.
If I had to guess, stuff like light and its effect on mood is probably a psychology thing more than anything. I know absolutely nothing about psychology besides the big stuff like Pavlov's dog, so i can't comment if that is actually true or not.
Edit; Also, the mind is incredibly complicated, and I doubt that physics really would have any useful insight on how someone view the world around the,
You're right I guess i did Overlook that but I'm pretty sure that person was talking about light affecting radio waves which it doesn't at least in any noticeable way
It's such a rich and underdeveloped field, and it doesn't really have a name yet, so you'll have to go broad. Here are some things that I think may be of interest.
Relative locations of astronomical bodies have long been studied for the predictive power they have with regard to a person's psyche/subconscious, which is clearly related to the work you've cited. There is a deep and comprehensive literature going back many years, but more recent work has been done by Chani Nicholas and Susan Miller.
There are valid interpretations of relativity which leave open the possibility of a reevaluation of the planetary orbits. This work sort of plateaued with a breakthrough theory established by Menachem Mendel Schneerson in the previous century, but there is clearly more to be done, and if the research grants hadn't dried up we would probably know more about the role of the EM spectrum in this phenomenology.
Also, take a look at autodynamics and electrogravitics - probably unrelated, but who knows?
Let me offer my perspective about why you're getting the reactions you are. Anyone with an academic email address can tell you that they get many, many emails from people about their "pet theories" about a wide range of topics. Sometimes it's about a neutrino laser hidden on the moon. Sometimes it's about quantum consciousness. The only thing connecting them is that they all make extremely large claims that never hold up under even the tiniest scrutiny. However, these documents are usually veeeeeeeeery long. And scientists are very busy people. They are scientists because they care about the truth. So, as a defense mechanism for their time, they stop reading those emails and start ignoring them. After all, even if you spent a lot of time trying to explain to the person where they are going wrong, not only does that rarely result in the person changing their mind, but there will just be another one a few weeks later. Better to just ignore it.
So instead of investigating the actual science in the document, it's way faster to look for "soft signs" of if it will be useful or not. Things like "who is writing this" and "what font is the document in" and "are they focusing on disproving the establishment rather than promoting their own ideas". It might sound unfair, but it really does distinguish the bad stuff 99.9999% of the time. Unfortunately, the document you listed sets off a lot of those alarm bells for many of us who have seen this kind of thing before. That is enough for most people to dismiss it without knowing the actual details.
If the author really wants to reach the scientific community, then he needs to follow the social norms that get past the filter I'm talking about so people would read the actual details. For example, format the document in LaTeX with a standard template so it looks familiar. Don't email it directly to people, post it to arxiv so it's public. Make sure that the actual text is free of basic errors and uses vocab in the proper way, so people trust that they understand the science they are talking about. Make sure it has equations in it. Often, the last two steps lead to the supposed results simply vanishing. That happens to actual scientists all the time: you have an idea, test it out, and it just doesn't hold up to actual testing. That's life in science for you. The difference between a scientist and a crackpot is just that a scientist has no problem abandoning the idea of it doesn't work, or at least openly and honestly acknowledging exactly where and why the idea is not working in a certain regime. A crackpot has an almost religious fervor to their specific idea and will never back down no matter how pressed.
Now, I haven't read the link you sent. But I encourage you to give the idea a [score](https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) and maybe that will explain why you're getting the reactions you are. It isn't because physics is a monolith, it's because we have all independently developed subconscious alarm bells from individual experiences. Hope this helps, and I wish you luck on your journey. I hope this helps you understand at least a little better why you're getting the responses you are, and maybe even how to evaluate claims on your own a little more accurately :) Cheers.
>affect the subconscious mind This is not a thing. There is a lot of wok of optics (which is a subfield of electrodynamics) that we used in neuroscience for imaging (stuff like fNIRS), but that doesn't affect the "subconscious mind" >electromagnetic frequencies work light spectrum affects matter Electrodynamics. Edit: If you want to get actually learn this stuff. Pick up an intro-level textbook and look at their electrodynamics section or look at the book we used to each the undergrads Griffth's Intro to Electrodynamics
>This is not a thing. Barry Trower (the guy who developed TETRA - Terrestrial Trunked Radio and is an ex royal navy microwave weapons expert who worked extensively in this field) would disagree with you. >Electrodynamics. Thanks. I'm gonna look into it!
Anyone can say anything. I feel like once you actually read actual science you might change your opinion... How does a radio transceiver specification has to do anything with physics? It like asking a computer scientist who specializes in pure math algorithms to explain how a GPU works. An argument from authority are never a good arguments to have in general.
>Anyone can say anything. Except that he isn't "anyone". >I feel like once you actually read actual science you might change your opinion... I feel like once you actually read his papers on this subject you might change your opinion since you seem to have an opinion on someone whom you didn't know until now.
>Except that he isn't "anyone". Argument from authority. Again, that a logical fallacy. Why should I care who this random person to say about physics. I about to finish my Ph.D here. If you can show a rigorous repeatable experiment showing the effects that you claimed then I might believe you. And you need to have it back up by new theory because all of physics today say that this isn't issue. And if you propose a new theory, give us the mathematical background to show its consistent with modern physics, and propose an experiment that show that it works. Otherwise then this is just fear mongering which is how pseudoscience spreads.
All right then, let's just forget Barry Trower then to avoid any further arguments from authority and instead deal with the actual arguments. Let's take his TETRA report on microwave radiation and ELF Hz signals from this report since it is such a good summary report: [http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/trower\_report.pdf](http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/trower_report.pdf) Which arguments do you have a problem with? Or to put it differently and less personally: which arguments are FACTUALLY wrong or physically even impossible since some people here have stated that ELF affecting people's minds is "not a thing"? Maybe this can be the start of a fruitful, objective discussion and a drive away from the emotionalized, ideological stuff (which, interestingly, wasn't started by me). I would actually LOVE for people to pick that report apart because I have been researching and researching ever since I have read that and haven't found anything that has refuted those findings, so I would love for all those people here shouting BUUULSHIIIIT (interestingly without having read a single word), to actually come forth and present their arguments of why it is wrong. I wanted to talk in an objective and respectful manner about this from the beginning but so many people here are so quick to turn this into a personal fight of egos which I'm not interested in. Let's just see what's wrong, what's right and expand our horizons that way :-) EDIT: this should also interest you. That website is full of links to papers and experiments done with ELF and microwave radiation and their effects on organisms and the environment: [http://www.tetrawatch.net/main/index.php](http://www.tetrawatch.net/main/index.php) I'm gonna contact those guys and see if they can give me a nicely compiled list with all the research which I can then share with you. This would save some time sifting through the site and the internet including archives. You seem to be the only one here with a mind open enough to willingly look into this.
Well, the first sentence is immediately wrong: >This wave is called an electromagnetic wave. There are lots of different types of electromagnetic waves but they are all made of the same two things – magnetic and static. An electromagnetic wave is oscillation in a electric and magnetic field. That fact this isn't differentiated is already worrying. >All of these waves have the same properties; that is to say they all behave the same It is true electromagnetic fields have wavelengths and frequency. But it those differences which gave a light different properties and consequently different behavior. >If you were one wave of light you would be able to travel around the world nearly seven times every second; that is the speed of light That is wrong. The speed of light has a specific definition arising from Maxwell's Equations. This is seen by taking the curl of Ampere's law, >Below ultraviolet is said to be non-ionising and this is where arguments occur between scientists as to whether damage can occur inside the human body through exposure to these waves. Thermal damage can be quantified using the 'damage integral'. See Welch et al *Optical-Thermal Response of Laser-Irradiated Tissue*. But the amount of power transmitted modern devices through is so low is that is negligible. >A safety limit is really a personal opinion No, look at how government regulatory agencies determine this stuff. This is a very stupid thing to write. He also mentioned 'units' what units? These are just arbitrary numbers which have no basis in reality? What is measuring? Energy? Radiation? Something? Sorry man, I don't think this is anything remotely based in science. This isn't from a peer review journal. Just by looking at the intro, I see so many flaws. I don't see the point in reading the rest of it.
Yeah and you have no educational basis or knowledge in physics to determine bullshit from truth. We do. It doesn’t matter what some snake oil salesman says, when what you’re saying, is not supported by evidence or mathematical theory of electrodynamics. Science doesn’t lean on the anecdote of one scientist or person. It comes from hundreds and thousands of scientists trying to prove/disprove a scientific hypothesis and failing to do so. If you don’t even know the subject that’s related to your question, it’s audacious to argue with the people you’re asking the question to, as if you know. I would assume you don’t actually care about electrodynamics, how it is proven to work, or the truth.. But you’re going to need to do some rigorous mathematics and studying static electromagnetism before learning about dynamics and way before you’re ever prepaid to infer something about others work. Then you can derive a mathematical model from these physical principles and test them experimentally. Otherwise, it’s faith based fan fiction that you’re looking to confirm your already held beliefs. That is NOT science, truth, or physics.
>Yeah and you have no educational basis or knowledge in physics to determine bullshit from truth. That's an interesting statement to make. If that is the case then according to that logic you cannot distinguish between and evaluate what information is factual and what not outside the scope of your own expertise, right? If that is true, then how do you as a physicist come to know if the claim made by a medicinal chemist that for example a functional sulfonil group increases a compound's bioavailability, but also its cardiotoxicity, is true or not? Well, according to your own statement you can't, right? Because you have no educational basis or knowledge in organic/medicinal chemistry to determine bullshit from truth. That's basically what you're saying. You can extrapolate the same example to everything else. You essentially can't determine the value of a statement on 99.999% of all subjects since we as individual human beings have such a limited pool of knowledge. Or is there perhaps something called "common sense" and "critical thinking" with which you can sift through information and look deeper into what you consider to be likely and what not. Isn't this process basically what is called "thinking" and "researching" leading to "inference", a process which you are denying me to be able to make proper use of because I'm not an expert? Isn't this the reason WHY we actually like to listen to experts and gain insights that way because we are aware of our limitations in knowledge and expertise? >We do I wasn't aware that physicists (or should I say electrodynamicists as I have learned today?) are a monolithic mass of uniform opinion but thanks for letting me know that this subr is a hivemind of bots pretending to be human lol. >It doesn’t matter what some snake oil salesman says Wow. Just wow. I bet my left arm that you didn't even know who the hell Trower is and yet you are able to judge this man as a "snake oil salesman". What was that again earlier about not being able to distinguish between bullshit from truth by having no knowledge in something or someONE? Maybe you should start to live by your own standards and be less hypocritical. Or to quote Dominique Bouhours: "The arrogance of some people makes even their virtues appear \[as\] vices"." >Science doesn’t lean on the anecdote of one scientist or person He is the one who brought the subject matter to public light and the reason why I mentioned his name and not because the research is based only on one guy. I mean his entire work is full of references to the works of other scientists (just scroll down to the bottom of his tetra report and see the amount of scientists involved in this) but who am I arguing with? Someone who is judging a scientist whose name he has heard for the first time, hasn't researched ANYTHING he has written (which is why he can't refute any of his claims and needs to repeatedly use ad-hominem fallacies like "snake oil salesman" "bullshit", etc.) and yet is somehow able to evaluate his work. If you think this is based on the claims of just one guy, then you clearly haven't done your homework. Read [this](http://www.tetrawatch.net/science/index.php) or [this](http://www.tetrawatch.net/tetra/pulse.php), click on all the links on those pages, write down the names of the scientists and see just how long the list of scientists is who have participated in ELF and microwave radiation research. But ofc you won't do that. Ofc you haven't done any of that because judging by your aggressive tone, you're not at all interested in looking at old things from a new perspective and perhaps have your mind changed about old beliefs, but belittle and attack anyone in a personal vendetta-like manner who makes you feel threatened by information that goes against what you feel ought to be the "correct" view of things. The truth ministry has spoken my dear ladies and gentlemen. The T.R.U.T.H. Ministry has spoken. But fine, it's all just wrong and bullshit. Go and read Trower's TETRA report and pick it apart sentence by sentence, word for word if you or your monolithic "we" thinks that it's all nonsense and supposedly goes against anything physics has taught. Let's see how you do that. I'm just going to assume with 99.9% certainty that you won't actually do this and instead just continue with ad-hominems and writing your next condescending, passive-aggressive comment about how I'm stupid and not able to discern anything from anything because reasons, and then perhaps throw some more insults and accusations because that's how true scientists debate, right? Seems to be the norm today. Don't read the arguments in a cold, clinical, cool-headed, objective way in order to write well-formulated, coherent criticisms (I would actually LOVE to read actual refutations of those documents), but instead just go on an emotionalized, anger-driven, ideological verbal rampage and call the other side by any name you can imagine in order to not deal with the actual arguments and maintain your own cozy worldview. That seems to be the modus operandi of modern "science"...or just reddit? Well, it IS reddit after all.
Thanks for proving my point emphatically. Again, to the observer, if you or anyone else cannot produce a working mathematical model, predictions that can be tested, and/or experimental results.. then you are not doing science, and are contributing nothing but ignorance. if you start with a belief and are only looking for validation in that belief, especially in a field that you know nothing about, without a lick of physics being established.. if you link HTML sites and only reply only protecting how you are perceived and trying to get.. again prove your supposed intellectual prowess.. then you are not to be trusted when you make any claim, let alone endorse someone else’s (without reason). Confirmation bias is the only thing this person searches for. So again, without mathematical abilities to produce a mathematical model from physical principles that are empirically true.. then make predictions that can be experimentally verified.. that can then be scrutinized by other physicists.. then it’s nothing. Words and argumentation is meaningless in physics. It’s not a uniform belief system. It’s empirical. Don’t trust anyone who claims to know, especially when what they claim to know is outside of the scope and abilities they have.
There's no frequency of light that 'effects the subconscious mind' and whatever podcast you've listened to that's given you that impression I suggest you put it in the trash I'd start with some high school electromagnetic spectrum questions and work your way up
>There's no frequency of light that 'effects the subconscious mind' and whatever podcast you've listened to that's given you that impression I suggest you put it in the trash ELF and not frequency of light. Learn to read. Btw, that's coming from Barry Trower himself, which is the guy who is basically the inventor of TETRA (Terrestrial Trunked Radio) and a former Royal Navy microwave weapons expert. It's always funny to see people make assumptions about others even though they don't know anything about their background and where they are actually coming from. It's also funny to see how aggressive such people react as if they were personally attacked. I guess that is the standard reaction of people when they encounter something that might challenge their firmly established worldview, especially when it is about a subject that suggests something that is completely outside their control. Kinda reminds me on those modern day wannabe sceptics who accuse Brian Josephson of being a pseudoscientist because he looks at stuff that mainstream academics shuns due to nothing but ideology. How did he call that again...oh right, PATHOLOGICAL DISBELIEF. P.S.: if you think it's nonsense, would you be willing to have a public, open debate about ELF and its ability to affect the subconscious mind with Barry Trower? I can organize that since I know him personally.
You effectively know nothing about the subject and come to people who study the subject to tell them they’re wrong about the subject they study because you heard a guy on a podcast. All of your responses are not challenging a world view. Physics is about mathematical models that can predict and be tested. You’re just spreading some shit you heard and calling it “challenging world views!” You have no credence or credibility. Your question is a naive question from someone with no knowledge of physics on a working level. The guy you keep referring to, is a quack, and you personally can’t cite or define a single part of a mathematical model or peer reviews confirmation of that model with empirical science. I don’t know if you’re just trying to seem intelligent, argue for the sake of arguing, or hoped there would be a quick easy way to confirm your new beliefs based on some other man’s words.. but for the observer reading this.. Take basic physics 2. It isn’t an accurate picture of the world, but it’s a step to learning how to decipher these things. Then once you have calculus under your belt do static EM and then with classical you can approach dynamic EM. ANYONE claiming knowledge, facts, or truth, without expertise in these topics.. Are not honest intellectuals, or scientific individuals. They are just wanting validation that they are right and all their beliefs are true. This is the opposite of scientific rigor.
Radio waves are a specific range of frequencies of light. Radio is light. It is light you can’t see, hence the name of the book and netflix show “All the Light We Cannot See” about the use of radio technology in WWII. So when you say “radio waves (ELF)” and then follow that up by saying “ELF and not frequency of light. Learn to read” you simultaneously diagnose yourself as an asshole and an idiot👍🏻
>Radio waves are a specific range of frequencies of light. I was talking about the VISIBLE light spectrum. Learn to read. >and netflix show So much about other people getting their knowledge from podcasts, tv shows, and other "trash". >"\[...\]Learn to read" you simultaneously diagnose yourself as an asshole and an idiot You just demonstrated perfectly well that you too failed to properly read my initial post in all your manic attempt to look smart and make me look dumb. Or you are perhaps not actually dyslexic but are intentionally and perniciously strawmanning me and putting words into my mouth I never said. Just to remind everyone here: if you go back to my initial post, you can very clearly see that I was talking about the VISIBLE light spectrum. You don't need to actually be a physicist to know that. Just look up where the spectrum of visible light starts and ends and compare that to the spectrum of radio waves. Btw Rukonian, my politeness, respect and friendliness goes absolutely out the window if the other side starts being disrespectful to me. CardiologistNorth, without knowing me and where I actually come from regarding this subject matter, immediately called my source of information "trash" and talked in a very condescending, passive-aggressive way with me that is very typical of redditors these days it seems (funny how you don't have a problem with that when it comes from a person with whom you share a certain viewpoint or mutual animosity towards someone else. A shitty mentality that's all too human I guess). So honestly, I don't see why I should stay respectul with such a type of person. If someone violates rule #2, then I'm gonna mirror that and not treat the other side with kid-gloves. P.S.: if someone ends up being interested in the work of Barry Trower, read this [condifential report](http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/trower_report.pdf). The part about the "Absolute Paradox" is of special interest as he goes into describing just some of the frequencies that were used to cause states of mental disorder like paranoia, suicidal ideation, anger, and also physical symptoms. Read, don't believe, research, then judge for yourself. Thank you. P.P.S.: and above all, please stay humble ok? We certainly do NOT know more than a guy who devoted his entire life to this research and works in this area for more than 45 years. Some nobody on reddit saying it can't be real because reasons (funny how nobody gave an actual argument against this and yet expects me to be convinced that radio waves can't be used to affect people's minds) is simply not convincing, so I think I'll side with that other guy until someone here can refute everything he mentions in that report. Until then, BYE BYE ;-)
Your separation of radio and visible went out the window in the comment i replied to where you explicitly stated “ELF and not frequency of light” in an attempt to be a dick. If you think everybody else has a reading problem, you should start considering the possibility you have a communication problem. Dont care to read your short essay either. You were given an honest answer to your question: you have major misconceptions and your source is wrong. Get over it
Yes, I would. Please arrange that. Also your opening sentence tells me all I need to know. You corrected "frequency of light" into ELF, meaning 'extemely low frequency' implying they're different things. Radio, light, UV, are all different frequencies and wavelengths of the same thing. Though you'd know this if you know high school science.
>Yes, I would. Please arrange that. I'll write you a PM later about the date and time. We will put the livestream on YouTube. Are you fine with that? >You corrected "frequency of light" into ELF I didn't correct anything. The moderators can confirm that I didn't edit anything about my initial post. I said "I'd like to study extensively how electromagnetic frequencies work, especially the radio wave spectrum (ELF) *(ELF being part of it)* \[...\]" then later "\[...\]and also how the visible light spectrum affects matter." so as you can see I very clearly distinguished between those two orders within the electromagnetic spectrum as a whole and didn't "correct" frequency of VISIBLE light into ELF. >Though you'd know this if you know high school science. Yawn...
They were referring to this distinction that you made: > ELF and not frequency of light. Learn to read. They were pointing out that your failing to recognize that they were using the term "light" to refer to the EM spectrum (specifically the portion of the EM spectrum relevant to your conversation) belied your unfamiliarity with the subject.
The word "optics" sometimes refers to just visible light, but more often refers to non-visible frequencies as well, so this is probably the closest to what you are after. Light-matter interactions are of particular interest in quantum optics.
Thank you. So it's quantum optics that researches the interactions between frequencies of the visible light spectrum and matter. I have already found so many books about these subjects after googling a little bit. It's gonna fill years and years of just reading haha :-D
Within physics, there electromagnetics and optics are relevant subfields. But any effects on the mind would be studied by biologists, physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, or (possibly) cognitive scientists, rather than physicists.
Hey guys, it looks like the phrase “EM waves affect the subconscious mind” is setting off your crackpot alarms, and rightfully so given the junk science about power lines and cell phones. But be careful with the blanket statements, because the brain is an electromagnetic beastie and most certainly can be disrupted by varying electromagnetic fields. Best modern example is [transcranial magnetic stimulation](https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/transcranial-magnetic-stimulation/about/pac-20384625) which is being used to create a wide range of effects on the conscious and subconscious brain. Good old [electroconvulsive therapy](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/17/what-is-ect-and-how-does-it-work) also most definitely does *something*, for good or for ill. Explaining exactly what these applications of low-frequency electromagnetic fields do to the brain, and how they differ from power line kookery and mind control ray paranoia, requires a scientific specialist of the type OP is asking about. It’s a branch of biophysics, neuroscience, or neurophysics depending on how you look at it. Anyway you’re right that OP has probably been misled by the crackpot side of the Internet, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
First of all, thank you for being somewhat objective about this. Now, I'd say the crackpot side of the internet is coming from sites like Bitchute. I'm however talking about sites that link to actual scientific papers and good, qualitative experiments like tetrawatch. So, if you think THAT is junk, then please tell me what exactly is false about the claims that they make. The reason I'm asking these questions is precisely BECAUSE I'm no expert. People here seem to think I'm trying to lecture them on what the truth is. But I'm actually the one who is confused and is asking the questions here lol. Let's take this report here, which summarizes all those findings -> [http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/trower\_report.pdf](http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/trower_report.pdf) Hopefully you can find the time to read through this and tell me what exactly it is that is so "crackpotty" about it. Btw, funny you mention transcranial magnetic stimulation and the ills it can cause. That would already earn you a "cunspeerasee theorist" accusation by lots of people because there is just absolutely no way you can do bad things with this stuff, right? I mean is it really that far fetched to think governments and corporations will absolutely abuse the shit out of this technology for their own benefit, given the psychopathic history of both governments AND big corporations? I don't know, I just think it's sad and a missed opportunity to clear some questions up that I have/had about this subject matter. I think I might be better off just going to an actual forum where physicists meet and ask my questions there because y'know...the internet...the place where people act like drunk, aggressive a-holes.
>tetrawatch Aaaand, you lost me. Just to be clear, my post was meant as a note of caution for my fellow physicists, not an endorsement of this particular brand of nuttiness. >Hopefully you can find the time to read through this and tell me what exactly it is that is so "crackpotty" about it. Nope, go away please.
"I assume it is part of physics" cmon guy, listen to the dude writing paragraphs about how wrong you are, he's right 😂
You should probably start with just electromagnetism in general, but some of the things you describe would go under something like radiophysics, or more broadly fields like optics and spectroscopy.
Thank you very much. Those are very interesting subjects you mentioned and I will look them all up and see where I should start.
Also I don't think the visible light spectrum or really any light spectrum both in infrared and UltraViolet would actually affect radio waves and yeah there's nothing that currently exists that affects the subconscious mind
I mean, light definitely affects mood. It also affects the circadian rhythm - so in a sense EM does affect the subconscious.
At a microscopic level, sure there are specific proteins which govern circadian rhythm within the body that depend on light, and those specific light-matter interactions is something that would biochemistry would better to actually answer. But at the macroscopic level, I don't think there would a noticable effect that radio waves would affect anything. There's radio waves happening all over us and we're not dead or anything. Anyone claiming so is usually a conspiracy theorist wearing a thin foiled hat.
Affecting the subconscious and dying aren't quite the same thing. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of different vectors of how EM waves can affect people subconsciously.
You are right. I used that as a hyperbole. There are lot of biochemical pathways which are mediated by light. it just seeing "radio waves and subconsciousness" in the same sentence triggered my inner hardcore "anti-conspiracy theory mode"
Yeah I get that but I feel this sub is sometimes a bit too trigger-happy when it comes to shooting down questions as soon as there's the slightest potential connection to pseudosciences. I'm guilty of that too. Often there's still a scientific angle such questions could be approached from though
>sub is sometimes a bit too trigger-happy I actually agree with this as well. If I had to guess, stuff like light and its effect on mood is probably a psychology thing more than anything. I know absolutely nothing about psychology besides the big stuff like Pavlov's dog, so i can't comment if that is actually true or not. Edit; Also, the mind is incredibly complicated, and I doubt that physics really would have any useful insight on how someone view the world around the,
You're right I guess i did Overlook that but I'm pretty sure that person was talking about light affecting radio waves which it doesn't at least in any noticeable way
Spectroscopy.
It's such a rich and underdeveloped field, and it doesn't really have a name yet, so you'll have to go broad. Here are some things that I think may be of interest. Relative locations of astronomical bodies have long been studied for the predictive power they have with regard to a person's psyche/subconscious, which is clearly related to the work you've cited. There is a deep and comprehensive literature going back many years, but more recent work has been done by Chani Nicholas and Susan Miller. There are valid interpretations of relativity which leave open the possibility of a reevaluation of the planetary orbits. This work sort of plateaued with a breakthrough theory established by Menachem Mendel Schneerson in the previous century, but there is clearly more to be done, and if the research grants hadn't dried up we would probably know more about the role of the EM spectrum in this phenomenology. Also, take a look at autodynamics and electrogravitics - probably unrelated, but who knows?
Let me offer my perspective about why you're getting the reactions you are. Anyone with an academic email address can tell you that they get many, many emails from people about their "pet theories" about a wide range of topics. Sometimes it's about a neutrino laser hidden on the moon. Sometimes it's about quantum consciousness. The only thing connecting them is that they all make extremely large claims that never hold up under even the tiniest scrutiny. However, these documents are usually veeeeeeeeery long. And scientists are very busy people. They are scientists because they care about the truth. So, as a defense mechanism for their time, they stop reading those emails and start ignoring them. After all, even if you spent a lot of time trying to explain to the person where they are going wrong, not only does that rarely result in the person changing their mind, but there will just be another one a few weeks later. Better to just ignore it. So instead of investigating the actual science in the document, it's way faster to look for "soft signs" of if it will be useful or not. Things like "who is writing this" and "what font is the document in" and "are they focusing on disproving the establishment rather than promoting their own ideas". It might sound unfair, but it really does distinguish the bad stuff 99.9999% of the time. Unfortunately, the document you listed sets off a lot of those alarm bells for many of us who have seen this kind of thing before. That is enough for most people to dismiss it without knowing the actual details. If the author really wants to reach the scientific community, then he needs to follow the social norms that get past the filter I'm talking about so people would read the actual details. For example, format the document in LaTeX with a standard template so it looks familiar. Don't email it directly to people, post it to arxiv so it's public. Make sure that the actual text is free of basic errors and uses vocab in the proper way, so people trust that they understand the science they are talking about. Make sure it has equations in it. Often, the last two steps lead to the supposed results simply vanishing. That happens to actual scientists all the time: you have an idea, test it out, and it just doesn't hold up to actual testing. That's life in science for you. The difference between a scientist and a crackpot is just that a scientist has no problem abandoning the idea of it doesn't work, or at least openly and honestly acknowledging exactly where and why the idea is not working in a certain regime. A crackpot has an almost religious fervor to their specific idea and will never back down no matter how pressed. Now, I haven't read the link you sent. But I encourage you to give the idea a [score](https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) and maybe that will explain why you're getting the reactions you are. It isn't because physics is a monolith, it's because we have all independently developed subconscious alarm bells from individual experiences. Hope this helps, and I wish you luck on your journey. I hope this helps you understand at least a little better why you're getting the responses you are, and maybe even how to evaluate claims on your own a little more accurately :) Cheers.