The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is radiation?  (Read 10009 times)

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #25 on: 12/02/2010 01:47:28 »
Ah, right! However, "propagation" is typically used to describe the action of energy transfer within a medium of some sort. Might it not be a little misleading to use the term in this context?
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #26 on: 12/02/2010 03:17:41 »
You may be right. I won't quibble but the changing field lines of the particle would act as though they were propagating in a medium and that medium being the original position of the field lines.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #27 on: 12/02/2010 14:55:55 »
It would all be good if we wasn't made of matter, explaining that we are waves, well knowing the difference as we connect our eyes to our screens via our computers wireless network :)

I have to draw the line somewhere in my thread. No one gets away with disallowing matter without proving how we doesn't exist and how the two slit experiments are disallowed. Who want to start, Ron perhaps, from hereon our road can only lead to a Nobel prize :)
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #28 on: 12/02/2010 17:29:12 »
That's funny yor. I am pretty sure all the members know by now my love for the standard model is somewhat lacking the enthusiasm necessary to carry on it's flame. If a theory's ability to stand up to scrutiny requires the invention of hypothetical mechanisms (graviton, Higgs, virtual particles, dark energy and dark matter) then I think we should question it's tenants. I am also of the opinion the members at this forum, who have an interest in physics, have the brain power to at least look outside the standard model for possible new answers. If my idea of how the photon is created is correct, and I strongly suspect it to be true, then from the electron positron pair production in the 1997 beam collision experiment at the Stanford linear accelerator, we should try to figure out how collisions between these ripples in the field lines can be turned into matter. Farsight has at least made a stab at some ideas and may be someplace around truth.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #29 on: 13/02/2010 08:44:06 »
Okay Ron, do you have an alternative view of the two slit experiment then?
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #30 on: 13/02/2010 15:06:40 »
To be quite frank, I have not as yet looked at a correlation between the two since I just came up with it. Your question is valid and I will give it some thought.
« Last Edit: 13/02/2010 15:10:38 by Ron Hughes »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #31 on: 13/02/2010 17:51:15 »
Yoron: Are you saying the two slit experiment confirms the "particle" nature of EM radiation? If so, I don't believe it does.

Here's my explanation for what's going on:

I think the two slit experiment confirms that there is a minimum quantum of EM radiation energy (at a given frequency) that can propagate through space. I believe it propagates in all directions in a wavelike fashion. However, as soon as any of the energy in the wave is removed, the wave is no longer detectable because it has less energy than a quantum. The wave may collapse entirely at that point, but there is no way to tell.

I'm not sure I really believe the above (and I certainly can't prove it), but I think it's worth stating to see if we can blow a big hole in it.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #32 on: 14/02/2010 07:07:26 »
Geezer, there might be a slight problem with your description (depending on what you mean by "wavelike").  Light with a single photon can't be described in terms of classical waves, so that model doesn't hold up for describing what one photon might do.  I think your description is fairly good if you're thinking about the wave representing the quantum state of light.
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #33 on: 15/02/2010 15:07:03 »
I will post an explanation of the double slit experiment, both the photon and the electron sometime this afternoon or tonight here,  http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=28667.msg299038#msg299038
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #34 on: 16/02/2010 00:05:27 »
To me there can't be any radiation in a vacuum. All radiation are from a particle perspective interactions, and as I understand it the same is true from a wave perspective too. If you look at the explanations we use for the transmitting of 'energy' in those interactions (a.k.a energy carriers) we call them 'photons'.

Photons on the other hand, as far as I know, does not radiate in themselves, even though they are what we can see as f.ex. sunlight.

So how do they do it? What is radiation?
I know what electromagnetic radiation is. There is radiation in a vacuum. Photons aren't "billiard ball" particles. And while "field excitations" is a better term, it still doesn't deliver conceptual grasp. IMHO it's all quite simple once it clicks, and absolutely robust, with a pedigree that goes back through Minkowski all the way to Maxwell.

First of all, you have to understand the electromagnetic field. And to understand that, you have to appreciate that's it's one field, not two. Yes, you can experience two different forces and people talk about two different vector fields, but a "magnetic field" is not actually something different to an "electric field". It's just how you see it when you move through it. Motion is of course relative, so it doesn't matter whether it's you moving or the charged particle.

OK, you'll be familiar with the right-hand-rule, where electrons are travelling up a wire:



Imagine that it's you moving down instead of the electrons moving up. You're moving down through an electric field that has a somewhat cylindrical disposition, and yet there's the curl or "rot" that results in rotational motion. Now think of your toolbox, and think of something in there that offers an analogy of this field. You'll probably have a set of them, with a range of diameters.   

Can anybody volunteer a response?

That's probably enough for now. We need to take this step by step.
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #35 on: 16/02/2010 00:23:49 »
I've given an explanation of the "The Photon", any response?
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #36 on: 16/02/2010 06:08:14 »
Some of us are not that quick. Hang in there.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #37 on: 18/02/2010 04:20:19 »
Okay, a weird proposition.

We think we know, at least theoretically, that depending on uniform acceleration we will perceive a vacuum differently. A higher uniform velocity will give us a 'heat bath' (radiation).

If I now stopped talking about velocities :) and instead differed SpaceTime in two parts. One where we look at so called uniform acceleration like 'Rindler observers' where the effect observed is indistinguishable from gravity, as seen from inside that 'black box' without windows, and the other being 'gravity' (hang with me now:)

Then, where will I observe 'virtual particles' becoming 'real', consistently existing in times arrow?

Is there any correlation between gravity and uniform acceleration in that motto?
Like a certain distance from a EV (event horizon) of a Black Hole is equivalent to a uniform acceleration at ??? G. By which I mean the idea of observing those virtual particles becoming 'real' a.k. a. our 'heat bath'.

And then we have the case with 'free falling', like matter orbiting each other in SpaceTime. As i understands it a free falling object, no matter its velocity, won't be able to see this 'Rindler effect' (virtual particles becoming 'real particles')?

Is that correct?

So then there might be a correlation between uniform acceleration and gravity, right? But no such correlation with uniform motion (planets orbits f.ex) no matter their velocity as measured against another frame?

In the first case, uniform acceleration and gravity I might argue that a vacuum then just seems empty to us because we (& SpaceTime) as a whole are in a 'free fall' and that we therefore won't be able to measure any energy.

And then 'energy' or photons/particles will be a representation of states where we, or SpaceTime itself, disturb/manipulate that equilibrium somehow?

Weird ain't it :)
==

But we will still have 'blue shifts' at a higher uniform motion/velocity, won't we?
So, how to reconcile that?
==

But it might give me a tool to see how 'photons' can exist as 'interactions' in a vacuum.

« Last Edit: 18/02/2010 07:10:06 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #38 on: 18/02/2010 09:09:37 »
Take a look at this and tell me what you think?

"6.1.3 Radiation from event horizons"
« Last Edit: 18/02/2010 09:15:34 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #39 on: 18/02/2010 11:14:27 »
Okay, now for the next crazy notion :)

If it was this way, would I be allowed to see those variables existent in our SpaceTime as 'emergences'? If you consider that you can have an 'unlimited' amount of 'Rindler observers' at different uniform acceleration, wouldn't that mean that we also had a simultaneous amount of SpaceTimes coexisting, observed differently by different observers?

And if so, is there anything 'fractal' to this pattern?
Like it resembles itself, but differently?
Don't know how to express that one.

And how does it treat 'times arrow'?

It's like we had simultaneous 'boxes' if so, each one containing a part of what we can observe, each one a 'whole' in itself, consistent and organized and each one with its own 'arrow of time' depending on gravity/uniform acceleration.

We can't see them simultaneously, therefore we will find inconsistencies when trying to puzzle SpaceTime together from that frame we rest in. Like the idea about how much energy 'space', as a vacuum, is thought to contain from the 'SpaceTime frame' we measure it from. It doesn't make sense when looking at it from our 'SpaceTime frame', does it?

What happens with that vacuum energy when a Rindler observer sees it as 'real'? Will there still be the same amount of 'energy' waiting for him in form of virtual particles under that 'heat bath' or will the 'heat bath' represent all energy there is, and so nulify 'virtual photons'?

That one doesn't seem reasonable, does it?
So, if we assume that there still will be a field of 'virtual particles' for our Rindler observer, how can that be? If it is those we can observe directly in our uniform acceleration?

And what brings it together as one consistent 'frame' is us. No matter what 'frame of reference' we will be in, the time measured by us clocking our heartbeats against a time device will be the same as I understands it.

So in that motto our universe is a very Copernican one :) We are all as 'observers' the 'center of the universe'

But I still don't see how and where and why 'times arrow' comes into it. There has to be something very special with it, considering how it constantly treat us as a 'whole' giving us the same treatment no matter our 'motion' of whatever kind we experience?

And there are more things to it too :)

Awh, they're coming for me now..
Gotta go.

Weird ain't I :)
===

You could also see it as the 'times arrow' you have never change. As related to the frame you exist in the only changes you will observe are those of the phenomena you compare your 'frame of reference' to, right? How can that be?

Try to see it my way, it's like you can transform a whole universe just by expending a very finite amount of energy. So, have you? Is there a 'null frame' of universe, a gold standard from where we can relate? As I see it there is :)

Your own frame won't change, will it. The relations you observe and compare your frame against will but your frame will always 'internally' be the same time wise. The only thing you will notice is the 'gravitational impact' as I see it? And you can at any given point stop accelerating and then come back to a 'free fall' no matter your velocity, right?

Assume that you are falling from a very high mountain, now you turn on your rockets to get that extra speed kick :) When you stop those rockets, having accelerated to the double speed of what one Gravity crave for you on Earth. Will you still be weightless? Can you differ that 'free fall' from the one you would have 'naturally'? This is a 'black box scenario' btw :)

Otherwise you can, but enclosed in that black box you can't, as I understands it.
Or? Dropping a ball inside it, do you expect it to 'slow down'?
As there only is one G 'working' on it?

You can say that you have expended some energy to to gain that 'speed & momentum', but inside that box there is no way you can measure that energy 'gained', is there? So where is the 'energy gained'?

In the interaction, right?
And only there.

==

Yep, I definitely need to get some sleep now :)





« Last Edit: 18/02/2010 12:08:59 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #40 on: 22/02/2010 13:18:32 »
Thinking of how photons waves wavepackets 'bounce' 'propagate' through space aka a perfect vacuum :)

How about this. They are time less intrinsically, right?
Why, then nothing takes time for them, does it?
So what we see as their distance becomes from their own frame, null.

And that explains it :)
Yep.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

What is radiation?
« Reply #40 on: 22/02/2010 13:18:32 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums