Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Steely Tom

If a signal has a relative bandwidth of 1% I’d call it coherent. It could have a lot of noise modulation, or whatever, but that’s still coherent to me. Good commercial RF sources have RMS bandwidths in parts per trillion, but for a natural source to exhibit 1% relative bandwidth is provocative.


15 posted on 07/06/2013 5:50:10 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Doing the same thing and expecting different results is called software engineering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: Lonesome in Massachussets
If a signal has a relative bandwidth of 1% I’d call it coherent. It could have a lot of noise modulation, or whatever, but that’s still coherent to me. Good commercial RF sources have RMS bandwidths in parts per trillion, but for a natural source to exhibit 1% relative bandwidth is provocative.

I accept your reasoning.

To me, having been raised in the age of lasers (I was in kindergarten when Ted Maiman announced his sensational ruby laser) I've always thought of "coherence" as being something involving parts-per-million stability.

I can see how, when one considers galactic distance and time scales, that is an unrealistic standard.

If nothing else, relative bandwidths on the order of 1% indicate a very high "Q" somewhere in the transmission chain. High "Q" in turn indicates that large amounts of electro-magnetic energy are being stored somewhere, somehow.

At least, E-M energy storage is the only cause I can think of that doesn't definitely involve intelligent design.

17 posted on 07/06/2013 5:59:44 AM PDT by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson