Hendricus G Loos, Master of Mind Control

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Arbitrageur

i know, if we had metallic sodium in our bodies we would burst into flames, but im tryin here.
But the link i posted about the animal trials indicate a cause and effect relationship between low frequency em fields and the nervous system

I looked at the animal trials link. The EM field strength was stated as 10000-14000 Volts per meter. That's a lot.

The old CRT monitors were supposed to have less than 614 volts per meter outside the monitor, and I never saw data that an ordinary monitor exceeded that. So that seems like a stretch to say 600 volts per meter (usually far less) can have the same effect as 14000 volts per meter, which your question would infer.

I think the typical modern LCD monitors and TVs put out far less EM. Here are some measurements showing less than 30 volts per meter (pdf) as measured half a meter away from the monitor in various directions.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I am not saying that the photon would have to knock an electron off a sodium atom.
I am saying it would deionize the sodium ions briefly, on the nerves and cause it to fire.
Would that work?

You need an electron to deionize the sodium ion, not a photon.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Arbitrageur


I am not saying that the photon would have to knock an electron off a sodium atom.
I am saying it would deionize the sodium ions briefly, on the nerves and cause it to fire.
Would that work?

No. Photons don't carry charge. They can knock an electron loose, if they have enough energy, but they can't create one or carry one.

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: Bedlam

The question came up for me because I was imagining, "What if the monitor were used as a sort of "location mat"?

There's always TEMPEST emissions. CRTs are renowned for that sort of thing. LCDs are a bit chancier.

People still watch TV ? I gave up mine years ago. More concerning is the addiction to the Internet and the illusion it creates of making you feel smarter, just because you have access to more information. There was a paper published in the APA about this www.apa.org...
a reply to: dashen

a reply to: Bedlam

Nay i say, photon absorption would cause an electron to jump to its next highest energy level until the photon is emitted and the electron drops back down to its unexcited state.
In a sodium ion, since it is cation missing one electron, wouldn't absorbing a photon cause it to become temporarily neutrally charged?
I think it would

a reply to: thejeremybenthem

So youre calling me dumb?

Because I have evidence for and against

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Bedlam
In a sodium ion, since it is cation missing one electron, wouldn't absorbing a photon cause it to become temporarily neutrally charged?
I think it would

Photons do not, cannot, carry charge. Ever. Nothing with net charge can have zero rest mass. It's sort of a requirement.

Thus, you can't squirt photons at something and cause the system's charge balance to change. You can knock an electron loose, if you've got enough energy. Heck, with energetic enough photons you can cause nuclear fragmentation.

But what you CAN'T do is cause a net charge to be conveyed. So, no, absorbing a photon doesn't cause a net charge change, either at an atomic scale or at a macro. Because photons travel at the speed of light, and have no rest mass. This obviates charge transport.

a reply to: Bedlam

see you keep saying that except,

Photoionization is a real thing

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Bedlam

see you keep saying that except,

Photoionization is a real thing

When you understand what photoionization is a little better, you won't continue thinking it involves conveying charge to an ion.

We've gone over this about three or four loops now, and everyone's telling you that yes, you can knock an electron off of a neutral atom with a photon of a high enough energy. And maybe knock another off with a photon of MUCH higher energy and so on. But you can't reduce ions with more photons, because you can't "un-knock off" something.

A visual: a kid can knock a teeball off the stand with a bat. But no amount of putting the bat by the stand and swinging BACKWARDS will pop the ball back on. Nor will pounding the stand with the bat make a new ball pop out. Because, man, that ball is GONE.

a reply to: dashen

and electron excitation would take the electrons to their next highest bound state, one electron away. yes?

Wait a second here - I am fairly certain that colliding photons, particularly gamma rays, does indeed create an electron and a positron.

Strangely enough, yet in natural order, the reverse of this, annihilating an electron and a positron, will create gamma rays.

I'm not sure how relevant this may be to your posts, but I thought it may bring some helpful perspective.

originally posted by: IlTuoFratello
Wait a second here - I am fairly certain that colliding photons, particularly gamma rays, does indeed create an electron and a positron.

Strangely enough, yet in natural order, the reverse of this, annihilating an electron and a positron, will create gamma rays.

I'm not sure how relevant this may be to your posts, but I thought it may bring some helpful perspective.

Not so much, what you're talking about is pair production, which requires a charge gradient and a very VERY energetic photon. And you'll get the production of an electron and a positron. Which have a total net charge of zero. So again, no, the photon didn't carry charge at all.

Also, if your Benq monitor is causing pair production in the area around the monitor, you have a very special monitor indeed, one that's set up to emit moderately hard gamma rays.

eta:
hint: keyword searching without reading and understanding what you're posting often causes the posting of totally irrelevant information. Just because you googled 'electron' and 'photon', the magic of Google isn't going to necessarily cough you up a topic that's not a total nonsequitur. Like just now. Oh, and it's not "particularly gamma rays", it's ONLY gamma rays, and then only if they've got more than about a MeV, IIRC. Less will not do.

a reply to: Bedlam

bedlaaaam, according to photoexcitation wouldnt a photon give enough energy to knock an electron into the next valence shell?

a reply to: Bedlam

I am not deeply versed in physics, though I did notice that there was another experiment/calculation carried out recently stating that photons (including, but not limited to Gamma Rays) would do the same.

Though I did just search this, it was on Yahoo and not Goggle, and it was knowledge that I had already previously possessed, but just wanted to search for it and verify that my memory still served me correctly.

I have made no assertions regarding the charge of the particles involved. So, your accusations of my intents and implications are wrong, but I don't really want to get into this with you. Have a god one. I'm just gonna read.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Bedlam

bedlaaaam, according to photoexcitation wouldnt a photon give enough energy to knock an electron into the next valence shell?

If you have a photon of sufficient energy, it can indeed. But in this case, the atom doesn't become ionized, it has a slightly higher energy state.

Photons of less than enough energy have no effect at all. And this was one of the ways Einstein figured out the photoelectric effect.

By placing an electron in a higher orbital, you don't gain or lose charge, though. So if something's ionized, and you excite it, it will still be as ionized as before. It won't become non-ionic. Nor will it increase its ionization level. Because that photon has no charge and can't carry any.

originally posted by: IlTuoFratello
a reply to: Bedlam

I am not deeply versed in physics, though I did notice that there was another experiment/calculation carried out recently stating that photons (including, but not limited to Gamma Rays) would do the same.

If you want pair production to occur, the photon that's about to be traded for a particle pair MUST have as much equivalent energy as the mass of an electron and a positron. If you want them to go tearing out of there with some momentum, the photon has to have some extra to contribute to it. A photon with less energy than that needed to form a pair will NEVER form a pair.

Though I did just search this, it was on Yahoo and not Goggle, and it was knowledge that I had already previously possessed, but just wanted to search for it and verify that my memory still served me correctly.

It did not. Your input energy has to be sufficient to form the particle(s).

I have made no assertions regarding the charge of the particles involved.

The conversation is about whether light from a monitor can stimulate nerves directly. The question at hand from Dashen is whether/how a photon can alter ionic states of metal atoms in/near a neuron, and the last few posts before yours are related to whether a photon can reduce an ion to a metallic state (it can't). You popped up with the interesting observation that pair production could create an electron.

That's true, but it produces a positron as well. And it requires gamma rays. That's not optional. So it seems obvious that your comment was aimed at implying that a photon could cause charge transport. Not only is that wrong, it requires a photon of majestic energy levels. One you won't get from a monitor. Or much of anything else lying about the house, really.

a reply to: Bedlam

from here

The electrons in the outermost occupied shell (or shells) determine the chemical properties of the atom; it is called the valence shell.

an excited electron pushed up into the next valence shell to give it one electron in the P shell would change its chemical property briefly until the photon was emitted?

a reply to: Bedlam

excited state

Isnt it exciting?

Reaction[edit]
A further consequence is reaction of the atom in the excited state, as in photochemistry. Excited states give rise to chemical reaction.

i feel a eureka coming on

originally posted by: dashen
an excited electron pushed up into the next valence shell to give it one electron in the P shell would change its chemical property briefly until the photon was emitted?

Now you're getting into physical chemistry, where I would like to comment but am not as versed.

In fact, I have a couple of stalled personal projects where I need a really good, yet essentially free, physical chemist to resolve my questions. In times past, you could get those by contracting work from Russian physical chemists, who would do you some major brain work for a mere pittance. You'd be amazed at the sort of stuff you can get for a couple of thousand bucks.

Alas, the two projects I need the physical chemistry on are DOE designs. I think they would be annoyed if I used Russian physical chemists. More than they usually are with me/us anyway.

But to your question, in some cases, it's a given - silver chemistry for photos works that way, and photosynthesis, and the rhodopsin reactions that power your eyesight. But you don't see it happening everywhere, or you'd melt in the sun like the Wicked witch of the West. Or a lot more chemistries would exist for photo work that aren't silver based.

Looked at another way, if neurons reacted to light because of that, you wouldn't need rhodopsin in your retinal cells. And any exposure to light would cause you agonizing sensations of heat, pressure, pain etc. Because it can't really be both ways - if visible light is changing the chemical nature of common sodium and potassium compounds, you'd be toast the first dawn like a vampire.

a reply to: Bedlam

Proof?

..of an electron from a low-energy orbital to a more energetic orbital. This is synonymous with saying that the molecule (or atom) is promoted from its ground state (or lowest energy state) to an excited state (or higher energy state). This excited-state molecule often has drastically different properties from the ground-state molecule. In addition, a molecule’s excited state is short-lived...