It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 213
74
<< 210  211  212    214  215  216 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

heha yes, forgot about the noise and lightbulbs




posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Nochzwei

This is puzzling. Why can't you replicate your own video, Savvy?
Lol, this is getting hilarious to say the least. All my ardent research on the video has gone down the drain



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I appreciate the responses that I got to my question about the photoelectric effect
however they weren't necessarily definitive proof and that's what I was asking if there was definitive proof


one final question when the photon knocks the electrons loose what happens to the atom is it still the same?
Just one electron short?

that's the part that's confusing me the most is what happens to the atom once it loose it's electron
edit on 30-11-2015 by disk4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: disk4
I appreciate the responses that I got to my question about the photoelectric effect
however they weren't necessarily definitive proof and that's what I was asking if there was definitive proof


one final question when the photon knocks the electrons loose what happens to the atom is it still the same?
Just one electron short?

that's the part that's confusing me the most is what happens to the atom once it loose it's electron


As simple as it can really be explained is that the energy from the photon (movement) is transferred to the electron which provides the electron with enough energy to overcome the forces holding it in orbit around the atom.

The atom then basically has a less negative (or more positive) charge.

That is without going into maxwells equations or any quantum mechanics.

Once the incident rays of photons are gone, the energy level will seek to return to its equilibrium by forming bonds to 'fill' its outer shell.

-FBB
edit on 30-11-2015 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: can not english



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: disk4
When did you ask your question, was it recently? I don't remember what answers you got.
I think a better approach would be for you to read the experiments on photoelectric effect and explain why you don't think they prove the effect and then see if we can respond to why you think they aren't proof?

The photoelectric effect is easiest to do with metals, because even visible light can knock the electrons off some metals. One property of metals is that they are conductive so if the metal has a source of electrons it will try to redistribute the charges. This is why before you work on a computer or static sensitive electronics you should neutralize any excess charge you may have by touching a grounded piece of metal. Typically such grounds go into the earth which provides a very large reservoir to supply or receive electrons as needed to neutralize any net charge which could damage sensitive electronics or affect experiments.

However if you have more powerful EM radiation such as extreme ultraviolet or higher energy, you can knock electrons off of some non-conductors, and when that happens a net charge can build up in certain conditions, such as low humidity. You may have noticed that if you shuffle your feet on the carpet in the winter, you can build up thousands of volts of static electricity and see a spark when your finger approaches a metal object like a doorknob. If this is discharged into electronic components it can damage them. The static electricity buildup effect doesn't work so well in higher humidity in the summer and likewise humidity could affect the amount of static charge buildup in other experiments such as the photoelectric effect performed on non-conductive materials.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: disk4

that's the part that's confusing me the most is what happens to the atom once it loose it's electron


Now it's an ion. And has a net positive charge.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
it was like 2 weeks ago
Yes I was directed to read the photoelectric effect

And it wasn't that the explanation didn't prove it to me it was rather that I've been thinking of an alternative to the quantum leap
But it's probably wrong lol


this should be able to be proven with a voltmeter then correct?

if the electron does get knocked away wouldn't the overall resistance of the overall sheet of metal change if even for a brief instant?

edit on 30-11-2015 by disk4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Ok thanks



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: disk4
a reply to: Arbitrageur
it was like 2 weeks ago
Yes I was directed to read the photoelectric effect

And it wasn't that the explanation didn't prove it to me
this should be able to be proven with a voltmeter then correct?


I believe if you hook a voltmeter to a photoelectric cell you'll have your answer.



if the electron does get knocked away wouldn't the overall resistance of the overall sheet of metal change if even for a brief instant?
it was rather that I've been thinking of an alternative to the quantum leap


Not in a metal. Maybe in an insulator, if you could ionize a LOT of it. For a few reasons. One, in a metal, things are sort of different. Electrons are not strongly bound to atoms and are more like a gas (see also: Drude gas). Two, you haven't added or removed any mobile charges in a metal, just stirred them around a bit, and last, the recombination time in a metal probably can't be measured.

What exactly do you mean by 'quantum leap'?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam
Thanks for the info

Well the quantum leap is said to be the reason for the different colors we see

I would explain my theory but I don't want to be laughed off the board like I said it's probably just a stupid idea

edit on 30-11-2015 by disk4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: disk4
a reply to: Bedlam
Thanks for the info

Well the quantum leap is said to be the reason for the different colors we see

I would explain my theory but I don't want to be laughed off the board like I said it's probably just a stupid idea


Well it is better to ask and learn than to be embarrassed and keep quiet.

That being said the wavelength of wave is what determines the colors you will see. Is there a specific (or even general) reaction that you think is affecting this?

-FBB



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

That being said the wavelength of wave is what determines the colors you will see. Is there a specific (or even general) reaction that you think is affecting this?

-FBB


I think he is talking about the photon emissions of electron transition.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

That being said the wavelength of wave is what determines the colors you will see. Is there a specific (or even general) reaction that you think is affecting this?

-FBB


I think he is talking about the photon emissions of electron transition.


Oh well then yes, the quantum leap,or in reality the photon being ejected has the potential to travel with a wavelength that is in the visible spectrum.

It would take a fairly fine tuned instrument to capture single photons, but this happens enough so there is an aggregate effect that can be measured if your measuring device is behind a few filters.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

okay I guess I'll say it but I think you guys are already given me enough proof that disprove what I was originally thinking

I recently watched the show on how Niels Bohr and the idea of the model of the atom

in that show they pointed out that when the electron moved from one orbit to the other this gave off different spectrums of light

but the idea of something instantaneously leaping from one orbit to the other seemed a bit illogical however I am aware of how crazy things get on that small of a scale

so I was just sitting back thinking about it and I said what if that isn't what happened

so I imagined it kind of like our own solar system
The Sun being the nucleus obviously

I viewed the photon kind of like a comet streaking through our own solar system if it were to impact a planet its energy would obviously be absorbed

however if it orbited all the way through our solar system and around the backside of our sun could it possibly steal some energy from that source or possibly lose some energy effectively increasing or decreasing its overall wavelength
I'm not talking about increasing or decreasing in speed just it's overall energy output

so a few weeks ago I asked on this board were there any definitive proofs to the quantum leap and I was directed to read the photoelectric effect I guess in a nutshell I was hoping that there was something a little more than just the theory behind it and the explanation of it I thought maybe there was some sort of physical absolute proof that would definitively show it actually happening
because obviously if there was then my idea was completely in the toilet

and with the examples and things that you guys have explained to me tonight I think that you have in fact proven to me that my idea was not a good one to begin with



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: disk4

Oh, now I gotchya.

IDK about anyone else here, but to really explain the physics going on I would have to start babbling about the maths which is hard enough to do in person with a board to show how the problems work themselves out. On this scale you really need to know your probabilities as well as everything else and, honestly a lot of it is hard to understand even after passing a class and reviewing the material hahahaha.

Lame answer, I know. To make up for this I suggest you watch a documentary or read a little about Cantor. The mathematician who heard voices and developed proofs for infinity.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
Lol he actually heard voices
this should be a good read I'll have to look that up and thanks again for the info


okay I watched a short video on him I don't think it was probably the one that you were directing me to however I'm even more confused
different sets of infinity?

I thought infinity was infinity how can it be broken in two different sets?
edit on 1-12-2015 by disk4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: disk4
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
Lol he actually heard voices
this should be a good read I'll have to look that up and thanks again for the info


okay I watched a short video on him I don't think it was probably the one that you were directing me to however I'm even more confused
different sets of infinity?

I thought infinity was infinity how can it be broken in two different sets?


Not just two sets, but an infinity of sets.

Natural numbers (1,2,3,4 . . .) Real numbers (-1,-.9999993,0,.5885858509, 109493302.2, .....) So there are an infinite number of natural numbers, but an additional infinite number in between those natural numbers. So depending on the sets of numbers you use there are different sizes of infinity.

Aleph not is the infinity for natural numbers and the smallest infinity, which is the same size infinity for a few other sets that seem like they would be bigger.

Mind blown yes?

Math CAN be cool and crazy at the same time.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: disk4
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

okay I guess I'll say it but I think you guys are already given me enough proof that disprove what I was originally thinking

I recently watched the show on how Niels Bohr and the idea of the model of the atom

in that show they pointed out that when the electron moved from one orbit to the other this gave off different spectrums of light

but the idea of something instantaneously leaping from one orbit to the other seemed a bit illogical however I am aware of how crazy things get on that small of a scale

so I was just sitting back thinking about it and I said what if that isn't what happened


It isn't really instantaneous. It's more like the electron which had a very high probability to be in one state started oscillating and had mixed probability to be in both states, and then later as the photon left it had a high probability to be only in the second state.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 05:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: disk4

so I imagined it kind of like our own solar system
The Sun being the nucleus obviously

I viewed the photon kind of like a comet streaking through our own solar system if it were to impact a planet its energy would obviously be absorbed

however if it orbited all the way through our solar system and around the backside of our sun could it possibly steal some energy from that source or possibly lose some energy effectively increasing or decreasing its overall wavelength


That is not such a bad model at all. It is very close to the Bohr model actually.

You need to explain the oberved and measured phenomenon that the energy of the incoming or outgoing photons only changes by specific step sizes. This is the observation and measurement that lead to the development of Bohr orbit model and quantum jumps being of sizes that explain the changes in the energies of passing photons.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=20090296]ErosA433 all ignored, because you simply don't want to understand any kind of engineering or science other than magic.

.
Lol that box of tricks has all the hallmarks of magic alright.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 210  211  212    214  215  216 >>

log in

join