Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What would happen if a single photon hit one of those single snowflakes?

I'm going to keep pounding TRVTH into your head until it hurts so maybe someday you'll stop asking the wrong questions. This is a PERFECT example of the statistics I was talking about before where understanding what happens to ONE photon doesn't give you a fundamental understanding of the way Nature works.

So you have two choices as I see it.
1. Keep asking the wrong questions about what happens to ONE photon, and never understand how nature really works, or,
2. Stop asking what happens to one photon and maybe get some understanding of how nature really works.

The phenomena involved with light striking snowflakes are very similar to light striking glass with partial reflection and partial transmission, with the main difference in snow being that you have many facets on the snow crystals. So this is another reason why considering one photon limits your understanding, because there are so many photons striking so many different facets at different angles in snowflakes.

As Richard Feynman explains in this lecture, when photons strike glass about 4% get reflected and the other 96% don't, so again you're asking the WRONG question about one photon because it will either reflect or not reflect, 96% of the time, the latter. So then you see the one photon doesn't reflect, and conclude what, that reflection off a glass surface doesn't exist? Because it didn't happen with your "One photon"? This is a stupid approach, sorry to be so blunt. The smart approach to understanding nature is:
1. Observe how nature behaves
2. Try to figure how why she behaves the way she does.
There's not one photon striking the snowflake in nature, there are many.

a reply to: ErosA433

Haha..I don't argue about that absorption scattering thing. I was amused at some one who while explaining to me double slit experiment said something along the lines that slits are smaller than photon wave function value. I said it is like having no slit at all)))


cheers

originally posted by: greenreflections
I was amused at some one who while explaining to me double slit experiment said something along the lines that slits are smaller than photon wave function value. I said it is like having no slit at all)))

If the slits were smaller than your own personal wave function, then what you said about them being like no slits at all would make sense.

But, Joel wasn't talking about your own personal wave function, he was talking about the wave function of photons. In that case slits can be smaller but I wouldn't say they are like having no slit at all.

abyss.uoregon.edu...

Your personal wave function is much smaller than any currently measurable sizes.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
But, Joel wasn't talking about your own personal wave function, he was talking about the wave function of photons. In that case slits can be smaller but I wouldn't say they are like having no slit at all.

It certainly is if the photons are big and mushy. If you have a radio wave, it won't go through an opening that the wave can't fit through. I'm pretty sure that light acts the same way.

originally posted by: Bedlam
It certainly is if the photons are big and mushy. If you have a radio wave, it won't go through an opening that the wave can't fit through. I'm pretty sure that light acts the same way.

Let's take radio wave example. The reason I'm arguing it's not like no slit at all, is I can look through the little openings in the front of my microwave oven to see how the cooking is progressing inside. If they were like no slits at all, then I wouldn't be able to see inside the microwave.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Bedlam
It certainly is if the photons are big and mushy. If you have a radio wave, it won't go through an opening that the wave can't fit through. I'm pretty sure that light acts the same way.

Let's take radio wave example. The reason I'm arguing it's not like no slit at all, is I can look through the little openings in the front of my microwave oven to see how the cooking is progressing inside. If they were like no slits at all, then I wouldn't be able to see inside the microwave.

Are the way Em radiation spectrum is generally split up regarding qualitative characteristics of the wave function? Like is the gap between one spectrum and a neighboring one or even non neighboring one is it a human arbitrary cut off line, or is there an objective universal qualitative difference; or is it all relative to humans like; "goes through bones... a, class", "makes eye see...b class", "makes radio work.... c class", "makes dinner warm.... d class";

Or is it like there is a cut off line between spectrums, like how a triangle is different from a square is different from a circle;

If humans eyes and brains were adapted to interpret the subtitles of the frequencies of micro waves instead of visible light spectrum, would you see similar as if it were light and your bran and eye were adapted to utilize light frequency to see;...

Or no, because its relative to the entire nature of physical matter, and the spectrums of em radiation, in at least one sense, represents some information regarding the physical world, what frequencies interact with what types of matter why and how;

a reply to: ImaFungi

Or is it like there is a cut off line between spectrums, like how a triangle is different from a square is different from a circle;

When it comes to electromagnetic radiation, there is one spectrum. If you're referring to subdivisions of that spectrum, yes, in many ways it is arbitrary. When does UV become x-ray? What wavelength and why? On the other hand, the visible portion is pretty specific.

Or are you asking something along the lines of, "how is sound different from light?"

What is space made out of? I mean physical space, because even nothing is something...

I was wondering if all the dark matter/dark energy in the universe is stored in the empty space, can space be a particle?

a reply to: ImaFungi
I like this graphic which shows the relative opacity/transparency of Earth's atmosphere to various ranges of the EM spectrum:

Atmospheric EM opacity


Of course other materials will interact differently with EM and who can speculate what other frequencies would "look like"? I'm not sure if even the colors we see are how nature really is and even those perceptions can vary from person to person.

a reply to: ATSAlex
Good question. We know some properties of space but we can't model dark energy well, in fact the so-called "vacuum catastrophe" is the worst prediction in theoretical physics because it's so far off in predicting vacuum energy. So we need a better theory to predict why vacuum energy is what we believe to be the amount observed in "dark energy" observations.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Bedlam
It certainly is if the photons are big and mushy. If you have a radio wave, it won't go through an opening that the wave can't fit through. I'm pretty sure that light acts the same way.

Let's take radio wave example. The reason I'm arguing it's not like no slit at all, is I can look through the little openings in the front of my microwave oven to see how the cooking is progressing inside. If they were like no slits at all, then I wouldn't be able to see inside the microwave.

That's because the photons are smaller than the holes. You'll note, however, that the MICROWAVES can't fit through, thus your face doesn't become crispy.

Again, if the wave function of the photon is larger than the opening, the photon won't pass through.

a reply to: ImaFungi

One definite dividing line is ionizing/non-ionizing. That's an effect, though, and not really an attribute.

originally posted by: ATSAlex
What is space made out of?

Empty.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What kind of Particles are Quantum Foam comprised of ?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Or no, because its relative to the entire nature of physical matter, and the spectrums of em radiation, in at least one sense, represents some information regarding the physical world, what frequencies interact with what types of matter why and how;

Right. You get different types of interactions with different types of matter as you go up and down the energy levels of EM.

You have this really useful property of some types of matter that causes delays in light passing through, and thus you can focus light with a lens. You don't have that same type of interaction with either lower energy (say, radio) or much higher energy (say, gamma rays). So you can't see microwaves, even if you had a dye for it, which probably can't exist.

Part of that (maybe most of it) is due to EM wanting not to interact with things that are far out of scale in relation to the wavelength. Thus you can get a dye for red light, as the wavelength is somewhat proportional to the size of an opsin. But something with a wavelength of, say, 3cm isn't going to interact well with a single molecule, and any effect you get is likely to be very nonspecific, mostly heating.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur



Of course other materials will interact differently with EM and who can speculate what other frequencies would "look like"?

I was wondering, are microwaves exactly like visible light waves, the only difference being size, I was wondering is it the same concept just different scales , is what the EM spectrum is, like how there can be congruent triangles, same concept, same shape, same form, different size/scale, is that how the EM spectrum is, or is there more differences as one alters through the EM spectrums;

(And yes, as phage messaged, I suppose part of my thinking about this was inspired by thinking about an interesting aspect of sound, related to music, the idea of different parts of the spectrum, having different relationships to other different parts, in terms of frequency and scale, (the concept of harmony, dissonance; that a wave can have a common characteristic in its class, such as size, but also things in commons with waves of other classes, such as its frequency characteristics, and if these can potentially have novel results of interaction; but with what I was asking here I was more so wondering, on an alien planet, could a life form potentially use microwaves as their visible light spectrum? And then I saw yes, its related to matter, like some animals may be able to use infrared, so that answers my question already kind of, we can just imaging it being less likely for natural creatures to relay on Em radiation from the edges of the spectrum, the extremes, because a natural creature would be formed of many stable interactions which create a medium, mean, middle, ground, which is the classical baryonic world, and the subtleties and potential frequencies and wave lengths of the EM spectrum, in scale is higher and lower than matter )

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Bedlam
It certainly is if the photons are big and mushy. If you have a radio wave, it won't go through an opening that the wave can't fit through. I'm pretty sure that light acts the same way.

Let's take radio wave example. The reason I'm arguing it's not like no slit at all, is I can look through the little openings in the front of my microwave oven to see how the cooking is progressing inside. If they were like no slits at all, then I wouldn't be able to see inside the microwave.

That's because the photons are smaller than the holes. You'll note, however, that the MICROWAVES can't fit through, thus your face doesn't become crispy.

Again, if the wave function of the photon is larger than the opening, the photon won't pass through.

This is a joke right, you are a joke right;

What is a MICROWAVE, besides a photon?

Let me guess; Photon...s

So photon is smaller than the hole, so we would think it could fit; but microwaves are larger than the hole; and a microwave is photons, or fake imaginary wave function;

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: ImaFungi

One definite dividing line is ionizing/non-ionizing. That's an effect, though, and not really an attribute.

Yes, I think I got it now, the classes of EM spectrum appear to be human and material centric; though also there might be some absoluteness in regards to the extreme edges of the spectrum; which I asked you about before regarding wave length 0; and there is intriguing mystery regarding that, as what is the longest possible wavelength, what is the shortest possible wavelength, and what exactly determines why that answer would be what it would be; and then also would be interesting to think, not considering matter but considering pure math, pure geometry, pure curves and line and wave functions; what the tightest theoretical frequency is, in terms of possible space and possible slimness of line etc.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Or no, because its relative to the entire nature of physical matter, and the spectrums of em radiation, in at least one sense, represents some information regarding the physical world, what frequencies interact with what types of matter why and how;

Right. You get different types of interactions with different types of matter as you go up and down the energy levels of EM.

You have this really useful property of some types of matter that causes delays in light passing through, and thus you can focus light with a lens. You don't have that same type of interaction with either lower energy (say, radio) or much higher energy (say, gamma rays). So you can't see microwaves, even if you had a dye for it, which probably can't exist.

Part of that (maybe most of it) is due to EM wanting not to interact with things that are far out of scale in relation to the wavelength. Thus you can get a dye for red light, as the wavelength is somewhat proportional to the size of an opsin. But something with a wavelength of, say, 3cm isn't going to interact well with a single molecule, and any effect you get is likely to be very nonspecific, mostly heating.

But I dont even know what a wavelength means because you have said nothing about EM radiation, nothing about light, nothing about photon, is 'up and down wave like';

So what you really mean by wave length, is frequency; which is just like,

I throw 10 balls at the wall in a minute

I throw 20 balls at the wall in a minute

I throw 10 balls at the wall with a force of x in a minute

I throw 20 balls at the wall with a force of y in a minute

That is your 'wave'

Or there is a medium that exists at all points in space, and charge particle acceleration is a splashing of the medium, and then there is real wave action;

A microwave oven waves the medium or shoots balls x amount of times with z amount of accelerative force in a amount of time

A flash light waves the medium or shoots balls y amount of time with w amount of accelerative force in b amount of time

The variables are the size and strength and speed of the mechanism which accelerates charged particles; part of my difficulty with these subjects is the circular logic of the human activity, using charge particles and EM radiation to try to fundamentally describe explain and know charge particles and EM radiation;

So the holes on the microwave;

Is one saying, the photons do not leave the microwave oven chamber, they just reflect off, even though visible light can enter and exit?

And this is said because the material acts in a sense like a black object to light, a black object to microwave, in that it does not allow the microwave to pass through it, it either absorbs, or reflects, or scatters, and scattered microwaves quickly lose their power

originally posted by: ImaFungi

This is a joke right, you are a joke right;

What is a MICROWAVE, besides a photon?

Let me guess; Photon...s

So photon is smaller than the hole, so we would think it could fit; but microwaves are larger than the hole; and a microwave is photons, or fake imaginary wave function;

Nope, it's absolutely true.

The lower the energy level of the photon, the less localized it is, effectively, it's bigger and mushier.

And the wave function is larger. It's not "fake". It's real, it's measureable, it's why you have different wavelengths of EM. Where do you think the 'wavelength' part comes from?

And there before you, as evidenced by the fact you can see inside and yet not have your face cooked, is your microwave oven, a testament to the thing.

eta: if you think about it a bit, you will realize that you see examples of this all the time. Consider a radio telescope. It focuses the radio wavelengths it's designed for like a parabolic mirror (if it's that sort), yet, it isn't a perfect optical mirror finish like, say, Keck or Palomar's mirror. Why should they have to be different? After all, both are photons, no?

You've also seen radar dishes that are mesh. How can that be??!! After all, microwaves are photons! And yet, the thing works, unless it's all a big fake to fool you, personally.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

But I dont even know what a wavelength means because you have said nothing about EM radiation, nothing about light, nothing about photon, is 'up and down wave like';

And it isn't. Nothing, especially the photon itself, is "wiggling up and down".

The wavelength is the physical distance the wave will traverse whilst making one complete cycle of its E or H field oscillation. And that is dependent on the speed of light in the medium you're propagating in, and the frequency.

So what you really mean by wave length, is frequency; which is just like,

No. Frequency is a rate, wavelength is a distance, totally different units. Although wavelength is dependent on frequency.

I throw 10 balls at the wall with a force of x in a minute

I throw 20 balls at the wall with a force of y in a minute

That is your 'wave'

No. All photons have the same 'force', although they may have different energy levels. The "wave" is the wave of E and H fields that are the components of the EM wave.

Or there is a medium that exists at all points in space, and charge particle acceleration is a splashing of the medium, and then there is real wave action;

There is no aether. You don't need one, it's self propagating. It's immediately obvious that EM is not like sound propagating in water, as your LCD works just fine.

A microwave oven waves the medium or shoots balls x amount of times with z amount of accelerative force in a amount of time

A flash light waves the medium or shoots balls y amount of time with w amount of accelerative force in b amount of time

If you want to look at photons as balls (I know you do!) then the number of balls per unit time is the EM energy density, but the size or maybe the weight of each ball is the individual photon energy. The metaphor is a bit strained. But a really high power microwave beam will have more photons per second but not as high an energy per photon as a small flashlight. That probably won't make sense to you if you're stuck with visualizing little yellow balls.

The variables are the size and strength and speed of the mechanism which accelerates charged particles; part of my difficulty with these subjects is the circular logic of the human activity, using charge particles and EM radiation to try to fundamentally describe explain and know charge particles and EM radiation

A lot of that circularity is coming with you trying to visualize it or describe it in English without really understanding what's going on.

So the holes on the microwave;

Is one saying, the photons do not leave the microwave oven chamber, they just reflect off, even though visible light can enter and exit?

One is indeed saying that. And it's true, as evidenced by you testing the thing in real life. A microwave energy level photon has a larger wavelength than the holes, and thus can't pass through. It will reflect as though the holes were not there.

And this is said because the material acts in a sense like a black object to light, a black object to microwave, in that it does not allow the microwave to pass through it...

No, this is said because it appears as a mirror to the microwave photons. The visible light photons are smaller, and will fit through the holes easily.

Consider radio telescopes and radar dishes in contrast to their optical counterparts. Why must optical surfaces be so precise? Shiny and smooth, a testament to their artisans? Because you need the surface to be exact to something like a quarter lambda. But radar dishes and radio telescopes are NOT shiny smooth. Hell, some are MESH. How can that be? Is it all a fake to taunt imafungi?

Hint - radio frequencies have larger lambdas.