Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: neilep on 12/12/2006 22:50:55
-
Light is like ...well fast!!..not even a cheetah or a Peregrine falcon can catch up with it.
Not even my sons scalextric Porsche Turbo !!
...but...what makes light move in the first place !!...?
-
It moves because it wouldnt exist if it stood still. :-)
-
It moves because it wouldnt exist if it stood still. :-)
LOL...no cryptic answer there then.
Light is a thing is it not ?
Is it possible to have a Universe without light ?...I gather one day that will happen.
-
Good question.. I still don't get what makes light move? I Am Dense!
-
It depents how restrictive you are on the definition of light. If you mean electromagnetic radiation that is in the visible region of the spectrum for humans it is quite possible that the universe will not have tist restricted range of radiation in it in the future as it has in the past during what are known a the dark ages sometime afte the cosmic microwave background was generated in the visible spevctrum and before the first satars lit up.
If you mean all electromagnetic radiation unlikely because as things cool down the radiation will move into the infra red microwave, radio and even audio frequencies
-
Karen, nailep's question was facetious and got a matching answer. for you I will give the full story. light is a form of electromagnetic radiation.
A changing electric field creates a magnetic field.
A changing magnetic field creates an electric field.
A changing electric field creates a magnetic field.
A changing magnetic field creates an electric field.
and so on
The process is one of continuous change and movement and has to be because
a static electric field does not create a magnetic field and
a static magnetic field does not create an electric field
-
You can make light move by throwing a torch at a wall [:D]
-
LOL!! Thanks soul surfer! I have to contemplate that a bit!
-
Light is like ...well fast!!..not even a cheetah or a Peregrine falcon can catch up with it.
Not even my sons scalextric Porsche Turbo !!
...but...what makes light move in the first place !!...?
How about I break a rule and share the direction that most just simply cannot fathom.
Light is a form of energy that is part of a much bigger family called the
electromagnetic spectrum.
All matter is made from molecules or elements that have associated. Even to move or assemble is because they have energy, gravity is much less of an effect then the models perform and why Dark Matter and Dark Energy were ‘created.’ Molecules are made from charged particles (elements with energy) and it is the movement and resonance of these particles that causes interactions and assemblies into molecules. As these molecules interact the hamonics of the structures must align yet if the amplitude or angular momentum (torgue) is too high for the structure a release is caused; a pulse of energy with its own magnetic field propagating at perpendicular planes. A changing electric field induces a changing magnetic field in the adjacent space; an electromagnetic disturbance moves through the space from one place to another, even if the space is a vacuum. Thus released energy propagating is light/energy disturbances of space/time.
The disturbance acts as if it was a wave, transferring energy from originating structures into space until captured by any mass eventually of interaction, with a wavelength associating each mass object in the neighborhood of disturbance. Like a splash on a pond yet without a medium of mass the propagation is of space within a time period.
The wavelength of the wave depends on how frequently the moving charge is vibrating. An energetic or hot molecule vibrates more frequently and therefore produces a wave of smaller wavelength than a cool or close to rest molecule. However, all electromagnetic waves move at the same velocity in a given medium yet variances do affects certain wave lengths in different ways. When energy is released from one molecule to propagate, the real question is;
What causes energy to propagate? And what theorem will describe this?
I suggest another look into the box…. The ‘black box’ and find why the ‘mistakes’ since the constant is the cause by planck.
Amplitude of the wave must be accounted for; no particle/no spin!
Finish this and get yourself a Nobel but if you claim to be the brain, I own you!
But be certain the model is correct. Use it in evolution; it is how environment affect mass.
Life abuses entropy. And it is because energy is actually light… you can name the wave length but planck did an oops!
-
The answer would be same as why matter exists .
Energy and Matter are the basic concepts . The answer of your would be metaphysical rather then physics related.
-
The answer would be same as why matter exists .
Energy and Matter are the basic concepts . The answer of your would be metaphysical rather then physics related.
Nope! ..... If you would like to know what is peer reviewed look into QED or the 'jewel of physics.'
Enjoy
-
Karen, nailep's question was facetious and got a matching answer. for you I will give the full story. light is a form of electromagnetic radiation.
A changing electric field creates a magnetic field.
A changing magnetic field creates an electric field.
A changing electric field creates a magnetic field.
A changing magnetic field creates an electric field.
and so on
The process is one of continuous change and movement and has to be because
a static electric field does not create a magnetic field and
a static magnetic field does not create an electric field
I'm visualising something here and I'd like your view.
Start with a static and empty universe. Don't worry about the whys for the moment, all I need is a clean test bed.
Entire universe is permiated by a static magnetic field and a static electric field.
Now introduce a change in one place such that the magnetic field varies for an instant.
This creates a changing electric field which perpetuates the changing magnetic field etc...
I assume that this now self perpetuating disturbance would be perceived as a photon.
I'm wondering what determines the direction of the perceived photon. Would it perhaps depend upon the initial direction of the disturbance or be at 90 degrees to it ?
Or is it something else ?
I'm really wondering if photons aren't separate things at all and really are just localised disturbances in the universal fields.
-
I'm wondering what determines the direction of the perceived photon. Would it perhaps depend upon the initial direction of the disturbance or be at 90 degrees to it ?
Or is it something else ?
It depends on the kind of EM wave: for a plane wave the direction is fixed in one dimension (perpendicular to the plane); for a cylindrical wave all directions in a plane are equivalent, that is, photons starts from the center of the circumference (obtained cutting the cylinder with a plane perpendicular to its axis) and move away in every direction in that plane; for a spherical wave all directions in space are equivalent...ecc..
I'm really wondering if photons aren't separate things at all and really are just localised disturbances in the universal fields.
Photons can be considered separated when they are detected with a time separation greater than the time nedeed from light to go from source to detector.
-
This creates a changing electric field which perpetuates the changing magnetic field etc...
I assume that this now self perpetuating disturbance would be perceived as a photon.
If that is how light is created, then how does nuclear fusion create the changing electric and/or magnetic field? Or does fusion release light that has been trapped in the matter?
-
This creates a changing electric field which perpetuates the changing magnetic field etc...
I assume that this now self perpetuating disturbance would be perceived as a photon.
If that is how light is created, then how does nuclear fusion create the changing electric and/or magnetic field? Or does fusion release light that has been trapped in the matter?
Why the need to think about nuclear fusion? You can simply think about a piece of hot metal, e.g.
Energy excites electrons in the atoms, so they go up to a more energetic quantum state; then they go down. While they go down, they emit electromagnetic radiation. You can imagine the electronic cloud as vibrating in this process and so emitting an EM wave in the same way as oscillating electrons in an aerial emit radio waves.
-
Photons can be considered separated when they are detected with a time separation greater than the time nedeed from light to go from source to detector.
Had a bit more time to think about it and what I was really getting at was this :
Is there any way to tell if photons are localised disturbances in universal static fields ?
If not then they would be localised magnetic and electric fields moving through empty space and therefore not part of a universal field.
Which one ?
I'm also wondering if they're actually mathematically equivalent and it doesn't matter.
-
It depends on the kind of EM wave: for a plane wave the direction is fixed in one dimension (perpendicular to the plane); for a cylindrical wave all directions in a plane are equivalent, that is, photons starts from the center of the circumference (obtained cutting the cylinder with a plane perpendicular to its axis) and move away in every direction in that plane; for a spherical wave all directions in space are equivalent...ecc..
Gotcha.
I think I can answer my own question above.
If photons were localised disturbances in a universal field then any movement would cause ripples and the generation of more photons until the entire universe was awash with varying energies of them. And each would go on to engender more.
If they are not disturbances in a universal field and are separate localised fields then we would observe them as they are now. ie. discretely.
A photon does not emit photons as it moves and it does not cause more photons to be generated as a consequence of it's movement.
Or do they ?
-
I think there is a cutoff at about 10^20 ev of cosmic rays due their interaction with the CMBR but this may refer to particles
-
Photons can be considered separated when they are detected with a time separation greater than the time nedeed from light to go from source to detector.
Had a bit more time to think about it and what I was really getting at was this :
Is there any way to tell if photons are localised disturbances in universal static fields ?
If not then they would be localised magnetic and electric fields moving through empty space and therefore not part of a universal field.
Which one ?
I'm also wondering if they're actually mathematically equivalent and it doesn't matter.
You need someone who knows QED (quantum electrdynamics); I don't know it. I would say there is no difference, but I'm not sure. Furthermore, talking about preexisting fields in the void should have to do with the void's energy, wich is a controversial subject.
-
A photon does not emit photons as it moves and it does not cause more photons to be generated as a consequence of it's movement. Or do they ?
Not in the void. They can do it in lasers (e.g.).
-
Aye, I remember the laser stuff. Cascading effects and localised plasma mirrors etc... A laser within a laser.
QED.
Hmmmm.
Better get my textbooks out again. Been a long time.
Thanks.
-
deleted as inapproprate
-
energy is not light, light and heat are by-products of energy there is some energy with in light and heat by its tiny in comparison to the energy which creates it. light is very very fast alot faster than einstien said which has already been proven.
What are you talking about?
-
deleted as inapproprate
-
I think that you posted in the wrong section.
-
deleted as inapproprate
-
My belief is that light, a photon, is propagated by a gravity wave and travels along with the wave.
The same goes for all forms of radiation, they just hitch a ride!
As soon as a photon comes into existence it moves at the speed of gravity and as the photon can be seen its speed can be measured.
Mebe........... [;D]
-
deleted as inapproprate
-
Einstein predicted that gravity acts on all mass at the speed of light!
Something which the 21st century has only recently proven/observed
Be careful with the black hole idea: as of yet no one knows really what they are or what they consist of. Just because a black hole emits no visible light don't automatically assume that it has a dense mass at its core stopping the light from exiting. It could just as well have nothing at its core and be just as stated, a hole.
In the other related sciences: The Brane, Hawkings radiation and Higgs bosons so far have never been detected and exist only in guesswork theory.
TMM
-
No its my view of why light moves.
Exactly. This means you should have posted in "New Theories" section. Probably you don't have understood exactly which is the difference between "scientific" and "non-scientific". You can have your personal view of a subject in Literature, for example, but not in Science, unless you call it "your theory". Science CANNOT be "interpreted".
-
What you think is a theory to. Its your best guess or someone elses and your going along with it.
-
Jolly
Lightarrows theories or best guesses as you incorrectly put it are completely different to yours. Lightarrows theory's may not be his but they are classed as scientific theories as they can be backed up by experimental evidence and mathematical models .They are theories that have mostly stood the test of time due to the fact that no has as of yet been able to scientifically discredit them, and believe people have tried.
Your theories are nothing more that your theories. Their nothing more than your best or worst guesses and can only be backed up by you. You have no experimental evidence to prove your theories and probably wouldn't know where to start if someone asked you to supply a mathematical model.
-
Interesting question, "What makes light move",..; Consider the following:
As we all know, light propagates at the speed of 186,282 miles per second. According to theory, anything traveling at that speed would experience no passage of time. Also known as time dilation, this principal of physics has been established and prov-en to be factual. Now, just for the sake of argument, let's imagine it were possible for us to hitch a ride on this wave we refer to as the photon. From the time of it's creation, whether in one of our nearest stars or at the big bang itself, until this wave falls upon a solid object, it would have experienced no passage of any time whatsoever. Assuming that it were possible to ride along with this photon, we would have arrived at our destination instantly. Now that I've proposed this little thought experiment for your entertainment, ask yourself this not so simple question:
If no time has elapsed, have we really moved at all?
This in reality is not so simple a question is it?
It all boils down to the main point that I'm driving at. What does it really mean when we say "light moved"?.......................Infy
-
Interesting question, "What makes light move",..; Consider the following:
As we all know, light propagates at the speed of 186,282 miles per second. According to theory, anything traveling at that speed would experience no passage of time.
Not exactly. No body with rest mass ≠ 0 can reach light's speed, and how time passes for light no theory can tell you. What SR (special relativity) says is that if a body approaches light's speed, his proper time becomes infinitely smaller than a rest body's proper time.
-
What do you mean by "light moving"?
Light is an electromagnetic wave, which according to SR is simply a manifestation of a moving electrical charge - thus, if I understand this, light does not move in any real sense, but what we perceive is merely a time delay before we can perceive the movement of the electrical field.
-
deleted as inapproprate
-
deleted as inapproprate
-
"if you make a vaccum the things inside will become timeless."
Do you have any semblance of evidence for that?
I only ask because it's quie commonplace to observe things in (pretty good) vacua and I think that if time changed people would have noticed by now.