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: 237
74
<< 234  235  236    238  239  240 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Your whole argument leads back to the conservation of energy. An electron creates a photon by decreasing thr energy of thr electron. It drops to a lower energy state. Thus extra energy has to go somewhere at see it as a photon. There is no photon supply the universe draws from. And it doesn't exist prior to thr energy creating it. I'm not sure why you think we don't understand photons there has been a lot of research in to them. We know how to make them we manipulate their energy and we know what happens when we do. For example look at your screen this is a manipulation of photons.


A beaver can manipulate water and wood but I doubt it knows the equations of fluid dynamics, how a seed turns into a tree, the atomic make up of water or wood.

I dont care if physicists know 99.9% about a photon, I only care about what is not known, my questions are all attempting to further comprehension, my questions are questioning what is claimed to be knowledge, and my questions are questioning what is not known. You have a hard time accepting this as my motive, because you do not ask questions, you read and remember, you do not think, you do not generate, you do not innovate, you do not progress the field of physics and you do not attempt to. Those things are all I am trying to do.

You fundamentally do not comprehend what a photon is. Maybe you do 67%, but I am interested in what is not known.




posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Furthering understanding of how reality actually exists: My only interest.
If that's truly your interest, and you're really aware that much of quantum mechanics could not have possibly been predicted from asking questions like yours, then surely you must realize that logic alone is inadequate to predict what will happen in observations.

So the only two ways I know to make progress in your area of interest are for you to write theories for others to test (become a theoretical physicist), or to actually test ideas (become an experimental or observational physicist).

If you misinterpreted Sean Carroll's statement in the OP video that we don't know the answer of the fundamental nature of reality for a lack of interest on his part, you badly misinterpreted the video and my support of much of what he says (though I'm not as much a fan of the Everett interpretation but he's not trying to force anybody to believe that). In fact he explicitly says we'd like to know the true nature of fundamental reality and it's disappointing that we don't, but we don't. The fact that he's discussing it in this manner shows an interest on his part and I'm certainly interested too, as are most physicists.

But while we admit we don't know the answer, I must unfortunately say that I haven't seen it coming from you either. So where does that leave us? There are some things we don't know, and we will continue to not know them until someone figures out a credible way to solve these problems in a convincing manner. So if you don't have the answer, go meet with your theoretical physicist hero if you think he will help and come back and give us the answer when you have it. Just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean we've not interested in knowing it.


Limits, problems, inconsistencies, paradoxes, incompleteness: We are both aware.
Maybe but your line of questioning seems to omit much of the last century of physics which has been revealed through experimentation, not through logical deduction. So no it's not apparent to me you are really aware of this fundamental flaw in your approach to focus on logic when you apparently don't even know about much less understand all the experiments. Also you seem to like to set up gedanken experiments that are impossible to test since you propose conditions that don't exist in reality. I suggest that you'll make more progress toward your goal if you instead formulate experiments which can actually be conducted in the real world and then try to understand those experimental results.


originally posted by: geezlouise
a reply to: ImaFungi

What if there was something else BEFORE the electron and the photon
If you're talking about the big bang, we suspect there was something before electrons and physics as we know it today, but of course none of us was around at the big bang so we rely on particle accelerators to get us as close to big bang conditions as our technology will allow, though even LHC energies fall short of big bang energies. While speculative, our ideas are in line with something existing before particles:

Chronology of the Universe

the very earliest universe was so hot, or energetic, that initially no matter particles existed or could exist perhaps only fleetingly. According to prevailing scientific theories, at this time the distinct forces we see around us today were joined in one unified force. Space-time itself expanded during an inflationary epoch due to the immensity of the energies involved. Gradually the immense energies cooled – still to a temperature inconceivably hot compared to any we see around us now, but sufficiently to allow forces to gradually undergo symmetry breaking, a kind of repeated condensation from one status quo to another, leading finally to the separation of the strong force from the electroweak force and the first particles.


edit on 201617 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: geezlouise

What if there was something else BEFORE the electron and the photon, something that was made up of electrons and photons in part, and it got split up which then birthed the endless cycle of the electron absorbing photons and accelerated electrons releasing photons. It's an ouroboros kind of cycle. I do see what you're saying! (snake eating it's own tail- chicken or egg, head or tail, photon or electron, which comes first?!)


I do of course believe there was something before, so that is a nice intuitive thought, but I think I now realize why I may have been confused, and it is because of what I have read of the physics theory and perhaps it is my fault but I am not sure.

The problem begins, or at least can begin here, with the saying that "Em radiation/photons are created via an accelerated electron";

So it seems to be thought, if there exists one relatively motionless electron not producing photons;

and then an electron is moving toward the non moving electron; that when they collide, the electron that was not moving, would have been accelerated, and thus produce photons;

So that leads me to ask questions like 'where did the photons that were produced, exist, before they were produced'

Also it is not clear whether or not electrons continuously produce photons, even while traveling a steady velocity.

The chicken or the egg saying was wrong on my part, because I was thinking the only way electrons are accelerated are via EM radiation (this is wrong because there are the forces, and just wrong anyway, I shouldnt have said that, I was tired and annoyed, and rushed a thought).

But yes, the history of the universe appears to be, that at some point there was some stuff, or I quite reasonably believe there has always been some stuff (the same quantity of stuff), but who is to say how much it has changed over a potentially unfathomable amount of time.

But regardless, it appears as if, the totality of stuff, can be more and less solidified into particular qualities; such as electron, quark/proton/neutron, whatever it is that allows gravity, photon...etc.

Even though it may be said that it may be possible for the different types of things to under certain circumstances change into others.

A related idea is that of the concept of charge, and its relation to photon, and how this relates to why two pieces of wood do not stick together but two magnets do.

I personally hold the belief that there is still a significant amount of unknown information regarding these apparently fundamental phenomena; matter, charge, gravity, photon, magnetism.

But I try to be careful with my statements and questions.







There's something about inertia that's really mysterious to me(do electrons and photons have inertia?) and there's also something about everything balancing out and reaching for a state of equilibrium that really feels like... maybe even on electron/photon levels, this is what is happening. Like they are just trying to reach a state of equilibrium, together. Like everything is just looking for that state of equilibrium. Even I am, mentally, lol. And heat transfers always travel from hot to cold, too. There's something sneaky to that whole idea... which could be applied here... somehow. I just know there's something to it all, lol.


Photons are thought to not have inertia, but I am not sure how much of this is man made semantics and how much is pure fundamental concepts of reality.

The concept of inertia is the concept of an object in motion stays in motion, if the original concept of a vacuum was true, the concept of pure nothingness, this would be very intuitive, as if you threw a ball into pure nothingness, you would expect there to be no physical reason for the ball to stop moving.

There is discussion and experiment into the nature of volume in between planets and solar systems and galaxies, and it is not known if it is pure nothing, but the concept must still fundamentally be true regardless; that if an object is forced into motion, there must be some physical reason as to why that objects motion would be altered; i.e. wind, or running into a wall.

This is a good question, because I personally do not know how I feel about it, because part of my efforts have been to attempt to reduce all thought and concepts (reduce in a reductionist sense) to attempt to elucidate what exactly is really being talked about when these words and concepts are being used; such as photon.

Electron can have inertia, because they are said to have mass, so the mass can be forced to move slower or faster.

Photon are said to have no mass, photon is said to travel light speed, the same exactly velocity no matter what.

So according to 'them' it is said photon does not have inertia, because it cannot be made to move slower or faster; it has no resistance to acceleration (definition of inertia) because it cannot be accelerated.






But an object's inertia can CHANGE, like it can be reset/changed depending on it's environment, too. Which is wild. So then, the state of equilibrium can change as well, depending on environment. Anyway... completely different direction wow.


Yes, state of equilibrium is interesting. It appears the universe is a system of many systems, and yes life is the most glaring example of the flux of energy, highs and lows, gains and expenditures, cycles.




I don't know much about anything. Have no idea about any e or h fields. Still, there it is. I love "what if's" and I love these subjects!


Yeah nice; E field is the concept of electric field and H field is the concept of magnetic field; it could be called M field; and a photon is considered to be the continuous interaction between the E and M field, this is part of the problem I have with at least my understanding; Because it seems to be circular logic; I can ask how does the E and M field physically really exist, what is it like in reality? And I would like to see an answer. When an electron is accelerated, it is said that the E field is moved, which moves the M field, which moves the E field, which moves the M field, which moves the E field, and it is said that that, is what a photon is, that continual process which occurs at the speed of light;

One of my problems is that it is not admitted, that according to their theory, there must exist 'somethingness' at all points in space;

If it is true that an electron can be accelerated anywhere in the universe, and the result of that electrons acceleration is that photon propagation (E to M/H to E to M to E to M), then this must mean, that there is physical substance at all points in space, waiting to be propagated, when an electron is accelerated near it;

Or, that there is substance at all points in space, which it itself does not move as propagation from point a to b, but like newtons cradle, and like sound, the local vibration from the electrons movement, vibrates the nearest 'substance' which passes on the vibration to its neighbor and so on;

But naturally, that made me question, if an electron is accelerated, in what direction does the resulting photon propagate in; according to that view, it would seem, as like sound, the vibration would propagate in all directions, I have not gotten a clear answer on whether or not this is the case.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

The problem begins, or at least can begin here, with the saying that "Em radiation/photons are created via an accelerated electron";

So it seems to be thought, if there exists one relatively motionless electron not producing photons;

and then an electron is moving toward the non moving electron; that when they collide, the electron that was not moving, would have been accelerated, and thus produce photons;


Correct.



So that leads me to ask questions like 'where did the photons that were produced, exist, before they were produced'


They didn't. They were created by the acceleration of the charge. Some of the energy that was applied to accelerate the charge was diverted off to create the photon.

One might also ask (albeit not accurately in terms of a visualization) where the ripples were before you chucked the rock into the pond.



Also it is not clear whether or not electrons continuously produce photons, even while traveling a steady velocity.


They don't...at least not real photons. It gets weird and eye-rubby if you start talking about bare charges and the like so I won't.



The chicken or the egg saying was wrong on my part, because I was thinking the only way electrons are accelerated are via EM radiation...


An electric field gradient is not EM radiation but accelerates charges.



Electron can have inertia, because they are said to have mass, so the mass can be forced to move slower or faster.

Photon are said to have no mass, photon is said to travel light speed, the same exactly velocity no matter what.

So according to 'them' it is said photon does not have inertia, because it cannot be made to move slower or faster; it has no resistance to acceleration (definition of inertia) because it cannot be accelerated.


They can have momentum, though.



Yeah nice; E field is the concept of electric field and H field is the concept of magnetic field; it could be called M field; and a photon is considered to be the continuous interaction between the E and M field, this is part of the problem I have with at least my understanding; Because it seems to be circular logic; I can ask how does the E and M field physically really exist, what is it like in reality? And I would like to see an answer.


You seem to want to find out it's made of wood or something (not literally). But the definition of an E field is that it accelerates a test charge. So it's made out of the condition that charges accelerate a certain way when placed in it.

That's sort of the terminal point of the Socratic reductionism you seem to like, as otherwise it ends up being turtles all the way down.



When an electron is accelerated, it is said that the E field is moved, which moves the M field, which moves the E field, which moves the M field, which moves the E field, and it is said that that, is what a photon is, that continual process which occurs at the speed of light;


Well, the E field is not only moved, motion of an E field doesn't by itself cause EM radiation. It's that second derivative. The rate of change of position has to change.



One of my problems is that it is not admitted, that according to their theory, there must exist 'somethingness' at all points in space;

If it is true that an electron can be accelerated anywhere in the universe, and the result of that electrons acceleration is that photon propagation (E to M/H to E to M to E to M), then this must mean, that there is physical substance at all points in space, waiting to be propagated, when an electron is accelerated near it;


Not really. If you set aside temporarily your unwillingness to consider that the photon is actually being created ab initio by the acceleration, your need for an aether will vanish.



But naturally, that made me question, if an electron is accelerated, in what direction does the resulting photon propagate in; according to that view, it would seem, as like sound, the vibration would propagate in all directions, I have not gotten a clear answer on whether or not this is the case.


For any particular photon, not in all directions. But the direction and phase are random, except for unusual circumstances where you're stimulating the emission.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The fact that he's discussing it in this manner shows an interest on his part and I'm certainly interested too, as are most physicists.

But while we admit we don't know the answer, I must unfortunately say that I haven't seen it coming from you either. So where does that leave us? There are some things we don't know, and we will continue to not know them until someone figures out a credible way to solve these problems in a convincing manner. So if you don't have the answer, go meet with your theoretical physicist hero if you think he will help and come back and give us the answer when you have it. Just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean we've not interested in knowing it.


I never said you or any one was not interested in progressing physics; I merely insinuated your methods were proving you unable to.



Maybe but your line of questioning seems to omit much of the last century of physics which has been revealed through experimentation, not through logical deduction.


No it doesnt omit it. It questions it.



So no it's not apparent to me you are really aware of this fundamental flaw in your approach to focus on logic when you apparently don't even know about much less understand all the experiments.


I focus on absolutely all information; with logic as a tool. I focus on logic and reason as a tool of thought, to comprehend all information I can be confronted with. I absorb the modals, theories, and history of theoretical fundamental physics, and I question it. I am doing so rightly. I am on the side of science.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I haven't finished reading but really quick tho, the speed of light does in fact vary. But it's not really dramatic in nature but like it does slow down in water and through glass and stuff. However I have read that light has been managed to be captured and frozen in some kind of crystal for seconds at a time?

Anyway carrying on.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: geezlouise
I haven't finished reading but really quick tho, the speed of light does in fact vary.


Speed in a vacuum, however, doesn't. At least, that's the limit. It can be slowed by virtual particles in vacuo, maybe just a twidge.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

How much is just a twidge?


Crazy bassplyr scheming again.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: geezlouise
I haven't finished reading but really quick tho, the speed of light does in fact vary.


Speed in a vacuum, however, doesn't. At least, that's the limit. It can be slowed by virtual particles in vacuo, maybe just a twidge.



But it is thought that it itself does not slow down. If you define photon as X. And we agree that X can potentially move anywhere, the idea is that it always does so at an equal velocity. There are things like atoms, electrons, crystals, science apparatuses, virtual particles, but X always moves between and amidst these things..any things... at the same speed.

It would be like if you had a battery powered robot that once turned on could not stop walking, and it made exactly 1 step every exactly a second exactly without fail. And you got good at observing this robot walk, and you got good at from afar looking at the distances it covers, and equating those distances with time; and then one day the robot walks on a terrain that is not exactly flat, and you say, that distance appears to equal Y, why did it take time Y - 10 time units. Or one day, the robot walks against very strong wind and you say, but I have ran the robot at this distance and measured it time and time again, it takes it 100 steps, and it does so in 100 seconds from 100 feet, how come this time for 100 feet it took 120 steps and 120 seconds... well because there were physical variables outside the constant, which altered the perception of the constants movement through its environment.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Bedlam

How much is just a twidge?


Crazy bassplyr scheming again.


(holds up fingers) About that much. An RCH.
edit on 7-1-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam


They didn't. They were created by the acceleration of the charge. Some of the energy that was applied to accelerate the charge was diverted off to create the photon.


This is the beginning of where your comprehension struggles.

(electron 1) ----------------> (electron 2)


When they collide, it is said the result is that photon can be detected in some direction surrounding the collision event.

After the collision; electron 1 and electron 2 still exist; yet you would like to tell me, a new quanta of 'something' also exists (something cannot be created from nothing).

There must exist something real, besides electron 1 and electron 2, which really exists, that when electron 1 collides with electron 2 their collision, vibrates that something real which exists, and the result of which is that vibration vibrating onward, detectably as photon.

You would like to say; Yes, E and H field exist prior to the collision.

But then I say; In what way do they exist? They must be real, like the electron is real. There must really be something there.




One might also ask (albeit not accurately in terms of a visualization) where the ripples were before you chucked the rock into the pond.


There can be no ripples without the pond.

There can be no creation of quanta, without the quanta it is created from.

Either Photon is a real quanta which moves from point A to Z, like a ball or worm moves from point A to Z.

Or, a Photon is a real quanta, of pure energy (and aha, now we finally may have solved it for myself, as I suspected the past few days, that you have finally conceded this point, but you and arb have been devilishly misleading, by so sternly declaring photon was nothing like sound), in the sense that sound is pure energy. That there exists real quanta that are relatively touching one another, and when a single area of them are disturbed, the disturbance is translated on down the line. The E and H field might be this real single grouping of real quanta, which react in some vibratory way when locally disturbed, there could be much more about them, like their own binding energy, relative density, real angular momentum etc. and it could be any number of those qualities, which result in the fact that different approaching quantas, react in ways which would cause one to suggest that this singular field of quanta, has 2 components, an E and M component.





Not really. If you set aside temporarily your unwillingness to consider that the photon is actually being created ab initio by the acceleration, your need for an aether will vanish.


This is an extreme intellectual cop out on your part; "if you set aside your temporarily unwillingness to consider the world is round your belief that the earth is round will vanish".

This is why I (or reality) makes the ultimate distinction between something and nothing. You cannot create something from nothing. That is an absolute fact. You cannot take two somethings. Two electrons. And result in Two electrons and something else, and say the something else, was created from nothing. Try again, because you are wrong if you believe that.

The only way it works is if photon is like sound: So like, you can just have the medium of air, and you can take two cymbals and collide them, and result in a wave of air energy, but still 'something' is not created... only the movement of something is generated.

So yes, you just convinced the world of light aether theory, kudos.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Man I guess I gotta throw that scheme out. My calculations were for Brown or Auburn at best. Damn!



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
After the collision; electron 1 and electron 2 still exist; yet you would like to tell me, a new quanta of 'something' also exists (something cannot be created from nothing).


Sure it can. All you need's enough energy and a charge gradient, if you want to do it yourself. It also happens spontaneously during particle decay and the like.

Eros's entire field of study sort of rotates around that one.



There must exist something real, besides electron 1 and electron 2, which really exists, that when electron 1 collides with electron 2 their collision, vibrates that something real which exists, and the result of which is that vibration vibrating onward, detectably as photon.


Or not. Enough energy, a charge, they get together in that special way and a little bit of matter is formed! There are apparent rules about charge, parity etc, and you have to have enough energy to balance out the long form of E=mc2, and voila! It's 'you can make just about anything from nothing' day! As long as you're making elementary particles, that is, and a photon is about the easiest thing to make there is. You can make other things that way, too, like electrons.



You would like to say; Yes, E and H field exist prior to the collision.

But then I say; In what way do they exist? They must be real, like the electron is real. There must really be something there.


They are really there. And they are the conditions that a test charge will accelerate or curve, if moving, a certain amount in that volume.





There can be no ripples without the pond.


But there can be photons without an aether.



There can be no creation of quanta, without the quanta it is created from.


Quantum of what? That's a bit like tossing around 'frequency'.



Either Photon is a real quanta which moves from point A to Z, like a ball or worm moves from point A to Z.


It propagates as a wave, which is composed of coupled time-varying E and H fields. And in that wave, somewhere you can't see or determine accurately due to Heisenberg, is the photon.



Or, a Photon is a real quanta, of pure energy (and aha, now we finally may have solved it for myself, as I suspected the past few days, that you have finally conceded this point, but you and arb have been devilishly misleading, by so sternly declaring photon was nothing like sound), in the sense that sound is pure energy.


It IS nothing like sound.





This is why I (or reality) makes the ultimate distinction between something and nothing. You cannot create something from nothing. That is an absolute fact.


Particle production is going to be a real trial for you here.



So yes, you just convinced the world of light aether theory, kudos.


You're chasing your tail in verbage, wherein you're patting yourself for your own postulate and then stating that your proof proves itself. Hogwash. There. Is. Nothing. There. To. Wave. Up. And. Down.

BTW, look at your LCD. Works, dunnit? There goes your aether theory.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: geezlouise
I haven't finished reading but really quick tho, the speed of light does in fact vary. But it's not really dramatic in nature but like it does slow down in water and through glass and stuff. However I have read that light has been managed to be captured and frozen in some kind of crystal for seconds at a time?

Anyway carrying on.


If light slows down a bit when it goes through glass, why doesn't it stay at the same speed when it exits said medium?



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: geezlouise
I haven't finished reading but really quick tho, the speed of light does in fact vary. But it's not really dramatic in nature but like it does slow down in water and through glass and stuff. However I have read that light has been managed to be captured and frozen in some kind of crystal for seconds at a time?

Anyway carrying on.


If light slows down a bit when it goes through glass, why doesn't it stay at the same speed when it exits said medium?


Because it always travels at c.

In the glass, c is lower, because the values of permittivity and permeability are different. So the little photon has to take a tiny bit longer to push its E and H fields into space there.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

lol I like you.

But honestly, particles can just pop into existence? Like... bam, something from nothing?
Or is the nothing possibly the electronic and magnetic fields?

Light does return to it's normal speed when it leaves glass, yeah. But guys, I'm honestly just hearing about these fields for the very first time and I love you all a lot right now. Thank you for being gentle with me. I'm just curious.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: geezlouise
a reply to: Bedlam

lol I like you.

But honestly, particles can just pop into existence? Like... bam, something from nothing?
Or is the nothing possibly the electronic and magnetic fields?


Sure they can. You just need enough energy and, I'm pretty sure although this isn't something I diddle with often, a charge or charge gradient.

This is where the long form of E=MC2 comes in. You can swap energy for matter (and momentum, in the long form) as long as you got equal or more E to match the M you want to concoct.

In the case of a photon, you don't have a lot of extra boundary conditions to satisfy, so it's pretty likely you'll get photons. But, consider the annihilation of matter and antimatter. You get a wad of photons, and possibly other particle production as well just due to the energy density. And the matter and antimatter go bye bye.

But you can make more than photons that way. If you have enough energy, you can create an electron and a positron simultaneously, or a proton and an antiproton, etc.

This isn't something pie-in-the-sky, it happens all the time, if you like fiddling around with cloud chambers at home (and who doesn't) you can do it yourself.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: geezlouise
I haven't finished reading but really quick tho, the speed of light does in fact vary. But it's not really dramatic in nature but like it does slow down in water and through glass and stuff. However I have read that light has been managed to be captured and frozen in some kind of crystal for seconds at a time?

Anyway carrying on.


If light slows down a bit when it goes through glass, why doesn't it stay at the same speed when it exits said medium?


Because it always travels at c.

In the glass, c is lower, because the values of permittivity and permeability are different. So the little photon has to take a tiny bit longer to push its E and H fields into space there.


So a photon enters a glass medium, collides with a silicon atom, the silicon atom because of the energy gain pushes out a silicon photon, this goes on until the energy , not the original photon exits the glass at the speed of light. Then then the slow down is caused by the time delay the original energy takes to transit the atoms, is this the permeability?



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
So a photon enters a glass medium, collides with a silicon atom, the silicon atom because of the energy gain pushes out a silicon photon, this goes on until the energy , not the original photon exits the glass at the speed of light. Then then the slow down is caused by the time delay the original energy takes to transit the atoms, is this the permeability?


If it were re-emission, everything would be translucent. Re-emission by electron transition is random in phase and direction. And it can only happen at very specific energies.

Permeability and permittivity are characteristics of materials, and have to do with the behavior of E and H fields in that material. Empty vacuum has values for them, and they're not zero or infinity, as you might expect. Thus c isn't infinite.

eta - well, non-stimulated emission by electron transition is random.
edit on 7-1-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
So a photon enters a glass medium, collides with a silicon atom, the silicon atom because of the energy gain pushes out a silicon photon, this goes on until the energy , not the original photon exits the glass at the speed of light. Then then the slow down is caused by the time delay the original energy takes to transit the atoms, is this the permeability?
We are quite sure that's NOT what happens because the light coming out would have different properties, but that's a popular misconception. The photon doesn't collide with a single silicon atom to slow it down, it's interacting with the structure of the glass which physicists call a phonon.


phonon is a collective excitation in a periodic, elastic arrangement of atoms or molecules in condensed matter, like solids and some liquids.



edit on 201617 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 234  235  236    238  239  240 >>

log in

join