Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: mbkennel



Protons certainly as they're charged. Neutrons, only indirectly through magnetic effects.

Now these atomic transitions, the wavelength of the photons are large enough that what's really happening is that it affects the relative relationship of electron and positively charged nucleus (where all the protons are). But since electrons are so much lighter than nuclei, it's a pretty good approximation that the electron will be doing almost all of the moving and changing.

So would you say that in some way, when EM wave interacts with an atom, the energetic essence of the EM is 'throbbing' between the excited electron and the nucleus?

EM radiation causing an electron to move up an energy level, really makes that electron physical travel at a greater velocity? Is it the electrons linear travel around or about the nucleus that is faster, and/or is it the electrons vibrational frequency that speeds up?

It's quantum mechanics so it isn't quite simple linear travel or 'vibrational frequency'. The total energy would be going up and that's a combination of potential energy (you had to expend energy to pull the electron further away from the nucleus on average) and kinetic energy (properties of the wavefunction of the electron).

The EM wave has a wavelength around the radius of the typical orbit/wavefunction of the electron around the nucleus. It is much much much larger than any reasonable definition of the electron's radius or the nucleus's radius.

EM wave length means measured 'length' wise huh. Is wave length just the assumed distance, made up of 'energy/velocity' of photons that according to their wave length, scatter to a (up and down directional) higher or lower point 'above and bellow' the middle. I guess what I am wondering, how do they know it is an actually 'longish' wave meaning 'tail'.

If you take an electron and wave it up and down, the force that goes into the acceleration of the electron upwards, and the force used to stop the electrons further travel, equals a 'photo'. But because there are multiple 'steps', from the grabbing electron, to moving it upwards process. Because the height you lift the electron up to, is not the closet number on the positive side of 1. It is thought that while lifting the electron up you are immediately making an imbalance in 'god somebody tell me what ever the heck is locally surrounding an electron at all times', and so as the electron comes up there is a forces doing something in an above motion right o the top of the electron where its headed, and at the same time the imbalance of that top action of unequalizing, effects the 'whatever the heck how it is' and causes that to start heading out.

but why a wave, why a trail, a tail. The idea of a particle is the idea of if you cut a wave into near infintesmal pieces, and then took one of those pieces you would have a particle. But the idea of a wave is like, some 'material' has to be 'fundamental' particles, 'glued together', (unless the contents of the EM Wave, are particles 'somehow bound together' that make up 1 single wave).


So an electron/atom never fully 'absorbs' 1 wave of EM radiation?

It isn't a picosecond. The timescale is roughly the time it takes light to traverse an atom. And it's spatially wide so it's pushing on the nucleus and the electrons, and in opposite directions because of their opposite charges.

You just ignored the essence of my question.

The essence of my question was: When 1 EM wave interacts with an atom, in the sense of exciting an electron, does the EM wave 'for a moment', cease to exist in any way! besides the 'increased speed' of the electron?

a reply to: dragonridr

Try to say what is wrong with this logic definition of what time is:

Stuff exists (stufness if you need me to say).

Stuff moves.

= Time.



When I say "moves", I mean AT ALL, the barest most truest purest, highest, absolute, strictest, definition of 'Moves'. As in, the exact opposite of, 'Does in NO way! move at all'.

The other side of the proof, which you cant prove wrong.

If stuff exists.

But did not move. Meaning, ever ever ever ever never ever for eternity, the truest sense of the term eternity.

If stuff, existed. But did not EVER move. Guaranteed. Not to have ever moved. And not to ever move.

But stuff existed.

Then, time would not exist. There would be no need or use, or concept, or function, or possibility, of the reality of what the term 'time' is made for, and the word 'time' it self, to exist.

originally posted by: [post=18309184]KrzYma
OK I have to add..
travelling trough distances at great speed has some effect, compressed Field in front and decompression behind...

Bravo. you are onto something there. Actually time compression takes place in front when the object moves from rest at any speed whatsoever. This is the reason for inertia, and this time field can also called higgs field.
This is the reason a higgs boson will never be found, for you will have to creates a particle out of time itself, though time is also intrinsically coupled with dark matter and both of them reside in the 4th dimension of time.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: KrzYma

If measured and you were travelling near the speed of light your yardstick would be longer. Meaning that your instruments would just tell you and object is closer than it is,Only when we compare it to another observers measurements would you notice the difference.So lets say we have a computer and it tells us Jupiter is 4.2 au from earth. But during your journey you plot your course youll find you didnt travel 4.2 au but considerably less like 90 percent or better depending on how close to speed of light. This is the same reason even moving near the speed of light a beam from a flash light can still go forward the distance it has to travel is shortened to make up for the time dilatation. If just one or the other occurs you would notice but together unless you have an outside observation to compare it to the effects are unnoticeable.

I understand, but how do you come to the conclusion ??
There is no experiment confirming that or is there one ?

All you say is a theory and mathematical equations and I myself have my own opinion.

I have seen a lot of explanations why relativity should be right, but non of those takes everything into account or just simplify things.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
This is the reason a higgs boson will never be found...

It was found in July 2012:
press.web.cern.ch...


...and the discovery was later confirmed by finding the particles into which the Higgs decayed:
www.nature.com...



Another article about the discovery of the Higgs Boson:
www.aps.org...

And another article about the confirmation of the discovery of the Higgs:
www.livescience.com...

A boson was found. If it was the higgs, why haven't they explained how a particle or body feels its mass.
There is also no explanation of gravity connected to the higgs.
So higgs was not found.
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

a reply to: Nochzwei
It behaves exactly as they expected and you'd think they'd be happy about that, but they're not.

www.extremetech.com...

At the Hadron Collider Physics symposium in Japan, CERN researchers have reported the latest Higgs boson-related findings from the LHC — and, much to their chagrin, that pesky little God particle is behaving exactly as expected. You’d think they’d be happy that the Standard Model of particle physics remains in tact, but no.

I really have no idea what you're talking about when you say it's not the Higgs boson they found. Maybe you have some sources you can post, though you usually don't.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
A boson was found. If it was the higgs, why haven't they explained how a particle or body feels its mass.
There is also no explanation of gravity connected to the higgs.
So higgs was not found.
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

But that's not what you said. You said the Higgs Boson will never be found. A particle that acts very much like the Higgs is supposed to act has been found, and has been confirmed to have been found...But you are right in saying that it has not yet been POSITIVELY shown if the Higgs gives mass to matter. As with any newly discovered particle, it will take years to identify the characteristics of the particle.

However, it is strange to say "it will never be found", considering the particle found in 2012 and confirmed in 2013-2014 has (as predicted for the Higgs) zero spin, positive parity, decays into fermions, and interacts as predicted with the W and Z bosons. Therefore, the particle found in 2012 and confirmed in 2013-2014 has the properties that was predicted for the Higgs.

Now, the next question would be this:
Is this Higgs Boson responsible for everything that the standard model says the Higgs Boson is responsible for? That has yet to be discovered. However, the Higgs is still the Higgs, whether it is responsible for the things it is predicted to be responsible for or not.


So far it seems that this particle is acting as predicted, and the next step is to see if this particle is responsible for imparting matter with mass as predicted, but early indications are that it is.

As described by the standard model, the interaction of the Higgs with other fundamental particles would impart mass on the particles:

The standard model also predicts that the Higgs field couples to fermions through a Yukawa interaction, giving rise to the masses of quarks and leptons. The structure of the Yukawa interaction is such that the coupling strength between the standard model Higgs boson and a fermion is proportional to the mass of that fermion. As the masses of many quarks and leptons are sufficiently well known from experiment, it is possible within the standard model to accurately predict the Higgs boson decay rates to these fermions. The existence of such decays and the corresponding rates remain to be established and measured by experiment. Indirect evidence for the Higgs coupling to the top quark, an up-type quark and the heaviest elementary particle known to date, is implied by an overall agreement of the gluon–gluon fusion production channel cross-section with the standard model prediction. However, the masses of down-type fermions may come about through different mechanisms in theories beyond the standard model19. Therefore, it is imperative to observe the direct decay of this new particle to down-type fermions to firmly establish its nature. As a consequence of the Yukawa interaction discussed above, the most abundant fermionic Higgs boson decays will be to third-generation quarks and leptons, namely the bottom quark and the τ lepton, as the decay of a Higgs boson with a mass around 125 GeV to top quarks is kinematically not allowed. Therefore, the most promising experimental avenue to explore the direct coupling of the standard model Higgs boson to fermions is in the study of the decay to bottom quark–antiquark pairs as well as to tau lepton–antilepton pairs.

So the next step was to devise experiments that measure the decay of the Higgs. Some of those latest experiments, whose findings were just published in the past month or two that was mentioned in my posts above, suggest that as the Higgs decays into fermions, mass is imparted through Yukawa interactions of the Higgs with the fermions (as is mentioned in the excerpt above as the prediction of the standard model).

Here is a paper describing one of those Higgs decay experiments:
Evidence for the direct decay of the 125 GeV Higgs boson to fermions

I realize that this is not yet a confirmation, and more experiments are required, but all indications at the moment show that the Higgs seems to be responsible for imparting mass. Every experiment so far has shown the Higgs to be acting as predicted. It is not unreasonable to believe that that the particle discovered in 2012 at CERN could be responsible for mass.

So, I suppose technically they are still confirming and re-confirming the particle found behaves like the Higgs in every way predicted, but in light of what has been continuously going on in that past two years -- and in the past few months -- it seems a bit odd to say "The Higgs Boson will never be found".

Can you explain why you say that? What is it about the particle identified as the Higgs in 2012 that specifically seems to (in your mind) preclude this as being the particle responsible for mass?

originally posted by: [post=18312850]Soylent Green Is People it seems a bit odd to say "The Higgs Boson will never be found".

Can you explain why you say that? What is it about the particle identified as the Higgs in 2012 that specifically seems to (in your mind) preclude this as being the particle responsible for mass?

It is very unlikely to create a particle out of time itself.
A body or particle at rest does not feel its mass. Only when the particle or body moves, it feels its mass purely due to time compression in front of it.

originally posted by: [post=18312729]Arbitrageur
Maybe you have some sources you can post, though you usually don't.

Source is me.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Nochzwei
This is the reason a higgs boson will never be found...

It was found in July 2012:
press.web.cern.ch...


...and the discovery was later confirmed by finding the particles into which the Higgs decayed:
www.nature.com...



Another article about the discovery of the Higgs Boson:
www.aps.org...

And another article about the confirmation of the discovery of the Higgs:
www.livescience.com...

you can watch the whole video for some history or start at 23:00
www.youtube.com...

starting at 29:00 is also very interesting

found is not really found but calculated and evidence for something is still just a guess

originally posted by: KrzYma
you can watch the whole video for some history or start at 23:00
www.youtube.com...

starting at 29:00 is also very interesting

I never made it to 29:00, I stopped at 27:30 after he said we give interesting names to things made out of quarks...electrons.

Some people might not know this, but nobody competent ever said electrons are made of quarks (Mr Larson wasn't competent in the subject he was speaking speaking about), in fact I'm not aware of any more fundamental particles comprising electrons. If there are any, they haven't been discovered. Why would you even listen to someone who isn't familiar with the most fundamental concepts, and how can he argue against electrons being composed of quarks, when nobody has ever claimed electrons are made of quarks? This is "not even wrong" and "not even fringe".

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Why would you even listen to someone who isn't even familiar with the most fundamental concepts, and how can he argue against something he doesn't even know or understand? He can't.

just to see different points of view...
and ...the most fundamental concepts... are still just concepts.

I'm digging

BTW> his theory, everything is just reciprocal interaction between space and movement comes closer to me as negative kinetic energy in QM for example.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

this one is good explaining how we see space time


but if you listen to what he says about 5:30 why speed of light is always the same, I see him talking about a universal point of reference.
Universe itself is an coordinate system, reference point to any movement, right?
It must be because anything that moves in Universe moves relative to everything else.

Einstein however talks about reference frames as they where disconnected from the Universe.
And they are NOT!

a reply to: KrzYma

I guess, the brief mention of 'tensor' is the attempt to answer my question.

But what I am asking is, what is the substance that makes up the tensor? Does it exist everywhere throughout the universe, and is a material? Can the substance of this tensor transform into other particles? Is it baryonic? Is it a quantity that never loses or gains, but just a material that warps?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: KrzYma

I guess, the brief mention of 'tensor' is the attempt to answer my question.

But what I am asking is, what is the substance that makes up the tensor? Does it exist everywhere throughout the universe, and is a material? Can the substance of this tensor transform into other particles? Is it baryonic? Is it a quantity that never loses or gains, but just a material that warps?

the Tensor is the density of an field (most used for gravity and space bending), and here is where I diverge from MS science.
I said before that if you put negative charge close to a positive charge the measured charge outside this system is zero, but the field is not zero at all. it's 2
QM talks about energy going down to zero and I think this is wrong.

if that density can be converted to matter ?
nothing speaks against it but who knows

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: KrzYma

I guess, the brief mention of 'tensor' is the attempt to answer my question.

But what I am asking is, what is the substance that makes up the tensor? Does it exist everywhere throughout the universe, and is a material? Can the substance of this tensor transform into other particles? Is it baryonic? Is it a quantity that never loses or gains, but just a material that warps?

the Tensor is the density of an field (most used for gravity and space bending), and here is where I diverge from MS science.
I said before that if you put negative charge close to a positive charge the measured charge outside this system is zero, but the field is not zero at all. it's 2
QM talks about energy going down to zero and I think this is wrong.

if that density can be converted to matter ?
nothing speaks against it but who knows

The density has to be matter. Well, it has to be something, and we call something, matter.

We call the movement of matter, energy.

Though yes, terms and definitions are sketchy.

What I meant is, what is the density ( not what is a number or unit of measurement of density, but what is it that is being referred to as something that exists as a density)? Its gravity matter right? Because Mass alone, does not create gravity, there needs to be another component. In comes, gravity field theory, and tensor talk. Meaning, Mass, and something else is responsible for gravity, that something else is the density of the gravity matter.

I was merely wondering, as there is talk of electrons and protons and quarks colliding and decaying into other particles.

If the gravity matter, can be transformed into other types of particles too.

Or, if there is an exact quantity of gravity matter, that never lessens or gains, but displaces/diminishes in local density, in the presence of mass.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

So would you say that in some way, when EM wave interacts with an atom, the energetic essence of the EM is 'throbbing' between the excited electron and the nucleus?

It's the electron and nucleus which are set in motion. And then the incoming EM photon disappears when it's all done. This doesn't mean the EM field goes away (it's always there), just that packet of energy & momentum which is a particular excitation of that field.

The EM wave has a wavelength around the radius of the typical orbit/wavefunction of the electron around the nucleus. It is much much much larger than any reasonable definition of the electron's radius or the nucleus's radius.

EM wave length means measured 'length' wise huh. Is wave length just the assumed distance, made up of 'energy/velocity' of photons that according to their wave length, scatter to a (up and down directional) higher or lower point 'above and bellow' the middle. I guess what I am wondering, how do they know it is an actually 'longish' wave meaning 'tail'.


The wavelength is the only length in a photon.

If you take an electron and wave it up and down, the force that goes into the acceleration of the electron upwards, and the force used to stop the electrons further travel, equals a 'photo'. But because there are multiple 'steps', from the grabbing electron, to moving it upwards process. Because the height you lift the electron up to, is not the closet number on the positive side of 1. It is thought that while lifting the electron up you are immediately making an imbalance in 'god somebody tell me what ever the heck is locally surrounding an electron at all times', and so as the electron comes up there is a forces doing something in an above motion right o the top of the electron where its headed, and at the same time the imbalance of that top action of unequalizing, effects the 'whatever the heck how it is' and causes that to start heading out.

but why a wave, why a trail, a tail. The idea of a particle is the idea of if you cut a wave into near infintesmal pieces, and then took one of those pieces you would have a particle. But the idea of a wave is like, some 'material' has to be 'fundamental' particles, 'glued together', (unless the contents of the EM Wave, are particles 'somehow bound together' that make up 1 single wave).

A 'particle' in the EM field is a bump in the configuration of the field that happens to have simple propagation laws.

So an electron/atom never fully 'absorbs' 1 wave of EM radiation?

One photon, yes. It can fully absorb that. As I said, there is no conservation law on the number of photons.

You just ignored the essence of my question.

The essence of my question was: When 1 EM wave interacts with an atom, in the sense of exciting an electron, does the EM wave 'for a moment', cease to exist in any way! besides the 'increased speed' of the electron?

Hypothetically. Hydrogen atom sitting in the middle. A single photon at the proper energy (and hence wavelength) impacts the atom. There is a strong probability for the electron to go up to a higher level. If this happens, then sufficiently long after that transition, there will be no more propagating electromagnetic field. Yes, it's gone. It will stay that way. There is a probability for the electron to fall back down to its ground state, and when it does that, it will re-emit a new photon in a random direction. This is called 'spontaneous emission' and is the mechanism of flourescence.

So in practice, you will have incoming photon, hits atom. If atom is excited, then there is a random time period in which the atom is in a higher state and there is no propagating photon. Then the electron decays back to the ground state and a new photon is squirted out.

Electromagnetism never goes away, there is always a substrate in the universe which can support E and B fields, but the value can be such that there is no propagating EM wave.

Remember, a macroscopically large EM wave (like a laser) can be broken up (mathematically) into a sum of many many photons, actually a probability distribution over photon states. (This is just quantum mechanical representation of the problem).

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: KrzYma

I guess, the brief mention of 'tensor' is the attempt to answer my question.

But what I am asking is, what is the substance that makes up the tensor? Does it exist everywhere throughout the universe, and is a material? Can the substance of this tensor transform into other particles? Is it baryonic? Is it a quantity that never loses or gains, but just a material that warps?

Fungi, simply look at the tensor as the strain energy in the material ( of whatever description ) together with the fixing moment/s of a cantilever or beam as the case may be.
This energy, if transformed into matter is not baryonic.
This energy can increase or diminish but there is no warping of space if that is what you mean.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

An electron is vibrated up and down (I admit the physical elucidation of exactly how this occurs is extremely relevant to what I am asking, mainly what is the energy tha causes the electron to vibrate up and down, subsequently emitting a photon) and where does it come from, how is it traveling, how exactly does it interact with this electron to vibrate it up and down)

But anyway... A device can be created that by the push of a button, can emit photons/light.

In general terms, is it proper to say, in order to emit photons/create light, at least an electron must be vibrated (to be simple, lets focus on one electron, and its relationship to light... I am not sure if other particles create light, but that will be a side point if you wish to enlighten me).

So the force the causes the electron to vibrate, or accelerate, meaning if we imagine from the electrons reference frame, it is stationary, the force that causes it to accelerate must be coming from some direction surrounding it.

Is it proper to say, the emittence of EM radiation occurs perpendicular to the direction of the force applied onto the electron to cause its acceleration?

My question is, if we imagine 1 electron to be more similar to some local geometric object (like an apple is more similar to being a localized geometrical object/shape and a rock is and a ball is, than saying the apple is not a localized geometric shape but when you hold an apple in your hand you are not holding a 3d geometric object but you are holding the entire universe which can only be described as 1 complete object)...

if we imagine a single electron to have an objectness, that allows us to say, 'there is 1 electron there', and when pointing to it, or describing its behavior and attributes, we are not referring to the entire universe as a whole.

Then, from that position, along with agreeing that in order to accelerate the electron, and produce EM radiation, a force must be applied to the electron, I am wondering if the EM radiation that is the result of the electrons acceleration, is emitted entirely around the 'closest thing to a circumference'/equator perpendicular to the direction of force applied?

Like, when a rock is dropped in the water a circle propagates outwards.

When an electron is accelerated does a ring of EM radiation (that obviously 'grows in area' over time) propagate outwards?