What is radiation?

  • 40 Replies
  • 10253 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« on: 29/01/2010 13:56:01 »
This one will take some time to explain :)

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?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #1 on: 30/01/2010 01:42:49 »
This one will take some time to explain :)

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.
[???] Could you rephrase a little?

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la rÚsistance!"
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #2 on: 30/01/2010 02:28:37 »
I prefer to think of radiation simply as energy that propagates through space, although, I probably should not really say "propagates" because that suggests that "space" is an "aether" which seems to be a very unpopular concept, despite the fact that "space" has some very distinct properties. While "vacuum" suggests nothingness, I think it is misleading. Space is "somethingness". If it's "nothingness", how could it ever expand to create our Universe?

Photons seem to be the minimum quanta of energy that can be transmitted through space. Thinking of photons as particles, or waves, is likely to lead to confusion (as I have discovered.)

IMHO, Startrek was 100% right. "Space is the final frontier."  We continue to examine the consequences of energy in space (particles etc.) but we are finding it difficult to discern the nature of space itself. Once we figure that out, I am sure a lot more will be revealed.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force Šther.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #3 on: 30/01/2010 02:33:30 »
Exactly, Geezer.  "Vacuum" does not mean "nothing."  Vacuum means volumes of space with a minimal amount of stuff in it.  But that minimal amount allows radiation (and particles) to exist there.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #4 on: 30/01/2010 12:21:54 »
JP?

Does that mean that without that 'minimal amount' there wouldn't be any radiation?
Or do you see it differently?
===

And Geezer, if you see a vacuum as 'something', what do you see it as?
===

Lightarrow, you could say it's a discussion of EM in a vacuum if you like.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #5 on: 30/01/2010 13:05:55 »
Well, we first need to agree on what we mean by vacuum and what we mean by radiation.  By vacuum, what I mean is empty space, far from all matter.  By radiation, I'm assuming you mean particles (photons) emitted by something and absorbed by something else. 

Even there, because there is the potential for radiation to exist, the electromagnetic field exists there, and at its lowest energy it is non-zero energy, as I mentioned.  There entire universe is permeated by this field, so there is nowhere that doesn't have this tiny bit of vacuum energy.  I suppose if you wanted to think of a universe without any electromagnetism, you wouldn't have this field everywhere and you also wouldn't have the ability to have radiation anywhere.

So this energy is kind of a signature of the electromagnetic existing throughout the universe, even if there isn't radiation there yet.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #6 on: 30/01/2010 14:11:32 »
Yeah, the idea of the potential vacuum energy, but as I understand it it's only potential? How do you see that supporting a particle emitted from the sun f.ex.

Like it's coming to existence at it's path?
a trail of virtual particles supporting it.

Or no particles at all?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #7 on: 30/01/2010 14:22:10 »
The other posters must be smarter than me because I still don't understand what all this discussion is about. Could you please ask a precise question?

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #8 on: 30/01/2010 15:13:25 »
Well lightarrow, if you don't like the questions or find them too vague, that's cool with me.

EM in space (perfect vacuum), and me saying that you need an interaction for proving EM, is that too vague?


« Last Edit: 30/01/2010 15:40:58 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #9 on: 30/01/2010 16:51:48 »
The Fifth Dimension?

Plank units lead this novice to suspect a fifth dimension. Particles are forever jumping from place to place without existing in between those places, after all. If the fifth dimension has no time, then the particle just sort of gets temporarily parked there as the fourth dimension chugs away, plank unit by plank unit; particles hoping in and out of both it as time and 'distance' click past in our four dimensional world.

Sort of like a motion picture. Intuitively, this seems a reasonable way to approach relativity, and perhaps black holes. Black hole 'singularities' are not infinitely small and infinitely dense. Their centers might, however, crack the time barrier, or come very close. Time coming to a near complete stop in our fourth dimension.

Perhaps photons are nothing more then a ripple effect from this other dimension. Again, after all, they can be converted into particles that suddenly go slower then the speed of light, but these then begin popping in and out of existence according to QM.

Just me babbling.....



« Last Edit: 30/01/2010 16:58:13 by litespeed »

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #10 on: 30/01/2010 18:14:46 »
As for black holes and time I'm leaning toward your idea Litespeed, assuming that time stops at a singularity it seems very reasonable to assume a BH to be 'out'a this world:)'.

As for dimensions?

That's a possibility. Time is after all defined as a 'dimension' of its own, and don't we say that 'virtual particles' exist outside Planck time?

But can you call that a fifth?
I don't know.

But it's an idea.
==



"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #11 on: 30/01/2010 20:28:10 »
Well lightarrow, if you don't like the questions or find them too vague, that's cool with me.

EM in space (perfect vacuum), and me saying that you need an interaction for proving EM, is that too vague?
Ok, now I have understood the question, thank you.
I would say that it's correct, you need an interaction.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #12 on: 30/01/2010 21:31:21 »
Yes, and without that interaction does it exist, and if it exist, would it be a wave undefined in distance or a particle. Can it travel or does it just exist in its interaction.

Photon's doesn't 'radiate' which seems to make them the 'smallest' 'energy carriers' we know. And then the question might be if I should see them as geometric shapes 'traveling' in a universe defined by it's plastic abilities when it comes to mass, acceleration and 'times arrow?

And if light doesn't travel at all then its interactions as particles and the waves we describe becomes something else.

And what is then this radiation?

Anyone read this one?

How does it do it?
And yeah, I'm vague now :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la rÚsistance!"
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #13 on: 01/02/2010 18:56:21 »
"And Geezer, if you see a vacuum as 'something', what do you see it as?"

Well, going way out on a limb [:D], I think we all see it all the time. I think "matter" is simply a manifestation of space. Energy is encapsulated within space to produce the stuff we call matter. So, in a sense, there is nothing but space and energy. Matter is just a combination of the two.

And don't ask me to prove it, although I think this is the general concept behind String Theory, so I may not be alone.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force Šther.

*

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3931
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #14 on: 02/02/2010 21:06:58 »
Radiation is a term that is used rather loosly, it is often wrongly in my mind used to refer to particles emitted by radioactive substances I would like it to be used only to refer to electromagnetic radiation.
syhprum

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #15 on: 09/02/2010 22:58:46 »
"And Geezer, if you see a vacuum as 'something', what do you see it as?"

Well, going way out on a limb [:D], I think we all see it all the time. I think "matter" is simply a manifestation of space. Energy is encapsulated within space to produce the stuff we call matter. So, in a sense, there is nothing but space and energy. Matter is just a combination of the two.

And don't ask me to prove it, although I think this is the general concept behind String Theory, so I may not be alone.

Looking at what you wrote Geezer. If I assume our universe to be a 'closed bubble' then there should be a limited amount of energy to it. That energy may then be placed in two categories loosely speaking. Energy that can transform and 'do work' and energy that already have been 'used up' and therefore can't do any more work. We then have times arrow that points us in one direction macroscopically but seems to allow for more directions quantum mechanically.

If we look at it from a macroscopic point of view the idea of 'work done', as far as I understand, is a direct result of entropy, and in that motto our flow point to a position where no energy will be able to be transformed. When you introduce your idea you lift up the quantum mechanical aspects of SpaceTime and seem to place it at the same level as our macroscopic interactions?

If that is correct why do we see this arrow only as pointing one way?
And what does it do the concept of entropy as QM can describe events as going both backward and forward in 'time'?

To clarify :)
What I'm asking is, if there is no 'boundary' between QM and Macroscopic events (arrow of time) why doesn't we notice it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la rÚsistance!"
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #16 on: 10/02/2010 21:15:17 »
Looking at what you wrote Geezer. If I assume our universe to be a 'closed bubble' then there should be a limited amount of energy to it. That energy may then be placed in two categories loosely speaking. Energy that can transform and 'do work' and energy that already have been 'used up' and therefore can't do any more work. We then have times arrow that points us in one direction macroscopically but seems to allow for more directions quantum mechanically.

If we look at it from a macroscopic point of view the idea of 'work done', as far as I understand, is a direct result of entropy, and in that motto our flow point to a position where no energy will be able to be transformed. When you introduce your idea you lift up the quantum mechanical aspects of SpaceTime and seem to place it at the same level as our macroscopic interactions?

If that is correct why do we see this arrow only as pointing one way?
And what does it do the concept of entropy as QM can describe events as going both backward and forward in 'time'?

To clarify :)
What I'm asking is, if there is no 'boundary' between QM and Macroscopic events (arrow of time) why doesn't we notice it?

I dunno! Maybe it's simply a question of "resolution". As we go down to smaller scales, things might get a bit "jittery", including time maybe?

There is no denying quantum effects. It certainly seems as if electromagnetic radiation (I'd rather not use the P word) has a minimum quantum of energy (for a particular frequency).

As I am unencumbered with much training in this field, my observations are probably much more philosophical that scientific. It just seems to me that there are many "coincidences" that might be pointing us to a solution. Personally, I think the idea of trying to explain everything in terms of particles is a forced fit. Somewhere along the line, it became rather "untrendy" to describe space as "something", despite the fact that space has some very distinct properties.

Here are some of the things that may be leading me down the garden path:
Matter can be converted into energy, and energy can be converted into matter.
Matter distorts space (and space distorts matter).
Electromagnetic phenomena have very clear wavelike properties. Therefore, electromagnetic energy is propagating through something.
If space can transmit energy by means that we don't seem to understand, why can't it also encapsulate energy to form "particles" by means that we don't seem to understand?

Only sayin'
 
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force Šther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #17 on: 11/02/2010 10:25:19 »
Yeah it's weird. Thinking of 'free space' you either define it, as I do, as having no pressure at all, which to me seems logical :) or you can define it as having a pressure. It depends on how you look at space. I look at it as a 'emergence' without a pressure. But you can also look on it form of 'forces' (negative and positive energy) equalizing each other, a little like Lagrangian points 'equalize' gravitational 'forces'.

What you are doing here is to decide that light do travel in space, and from there try to reason out the properties needed for your definition to work, right?

To do that, the question seems to become under what circumstances can we say that light propagate. And the bottom line seems to me to become. Does it need a 'medium'?
« Last Edit: 11/02/2010 10:29:26 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #18 on: 11/02/2010 10:34:58 »
Here are some of the things that may be leading me down the garden path:
Matter can be converted into energy, and energy can be converted into matter.
Matter distorts space (and space distorts matter).
Electromagnetic phenomena have very clear wavelike properties. Therefore, electromagnetic energy is propagating through something.
If space can transmit energy by means that we don't seem to understand, why can't it also encapsulate energy to form "particles" by means that we don't seem to understand?

Only sayin'
 

We have very good mathematical models of particles being created from energy (the standard model), but I don't think people would claim to fundamentally understand "why."  That's the realm of a "theory of everything."

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #19 on: 11/02/2010 13:15:05 »
Electromagnetic phenomena have very clear wavelike properties. Therefore, electromagnetic energy is propagating through something.
False. Electromagnetic field can propagate in the void and the ether doesn't exist.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la rÚsistance!"
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #20 on: 11/02/2010 18:01:11 »
Electromagnetic phenomena have very clear wavelike properties. Therefore, electromagnetic energy is propagating through something.
False. Electromagnetic field can propagate in the void and the ether doesn't exist.

A bold statement Lightarrow. I prefer to keep an open mind.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force Šther.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la rÚsistance!"
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #21 on: 11/02/2010 18:29:52 »
To do that, the question seems to become under what circumstances can we say that light propagate. And the bottom line seems to me to become. Does it need a 'medium'?

I think we are a bit too focused on light (pretty good, eh  [;)]) perhaps because we have senses to detect it. We have to consider the entire EM spectrum. The further you move from the visible spectrum towards lower frequency "radio" spectrum, the more improbable the particulate nature of EM becomes and the more probable the wave nature of EM becomes, but it's all EM energy transmission nonetheless. To me, it seems far more likely that EM radiation is simply a wave.

We know about lots of other waves that can transmit energy through all sorts of mediums. Why not EM too? I find it interesting that, despite the fact that no one has ever observed a photon, a great many people have an unshakable belief that they have a discrete nature. In fact, the quantization of EM radiation seems (to me) to be a property of the underlying "transmission fabric" more than anything else.
 
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force Šther.

*

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 363
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #22 on: 11/02/2010 19:26:58 »
From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. Sherlock Holmes.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la rÚsistance!"
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #23 on: 12/02/2010 00:10:27 »
What can I say.  See,   http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=28667.msg299038#msg299038

Hi Ron: I noticed you used the term "propagates". Would that not suggest some sort of wave action?
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force Šther.

*

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 363
    • View Profile
From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. Sherlock Holmes.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la rÚsistance!"
    • 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?
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force Šther.

*

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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.
From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. Sherlock Holmes.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (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 :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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.
From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. Sherlock Holmes.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (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?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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 »
From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. Sherlock Holmes.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la rÚsistance!"
    • 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.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force Šther.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • 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
  • ****
  • 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
From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. Sherlock Holmes.

*

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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?
From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. Sherlock Holmes.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la rÚsistance!"
    • View Profile
What is radiation?
« Reply #36 on: 16/02/2010 06:08:14 »
Some of us are not that quick. Hang in there.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force Šther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."