BanterinBoson Posted September 20, 2017 Author Report Posted September 20, 2017 Apologies for the late reply. Oh dear. Now you seem to be coming out of the closet as a crank. All this "I believe" stuff. What a pity. Perhaps I have been wasting my time. "a crank"? You're throwing mud already??? I say "believe" because it's hard to have "faith" in a science that can't decide whether light is a wave or particle, whether gamma rays should be defined as source-specific or some arbitrary frequency, and an endless list of hypotheses and speculation that should prevent any reasonable person from being cocksure in his declarations. Other folks have expressed appreciation for my saying "I believe" because it leaves the possibility on the table that I could be wrong. If you say "I believe" that the only difference between sound and light waves is that one is longitudinal and the other transverse, and then you go on to claim that CO2 must reflect visible light, can't you see how silly that is? Firstly, you paraphrased wrong. "I believe that the only difference between sound and light waves is that one is longitudinal and the other transverse, and then you go on to claim suspect that CO2 must reflect visible light." Secondly, it's less silly than dark matter which is straightly pulled out someone's bunghole with no empirical evidence for its existence whatsoever, yet everyone "believes" it exists. At least I am not being that silly lol It is the work of a moment to get a glass tube, fill it with CO2 gas and observe that you can see straight through it. So your model is obviously wrong. Fill it with humidity and see my model is obviously wrong as well; therefore, clouds must warm the earth and cloudy days are hotter than sunny. Oversimplifications lead to silly conclusions. Glass is clear, right? So put a sheet of glass between a light bulb and a thermometer then see if the meter reads higher with the glass in place or without. Use an led bulb so you get very little IR emission that the glass would block. Even though the glass is transparent, it still reflects and therefore the thermometer will read cooler with the glass in place. The test tube clarity example doesn't hold water (a pun I couldn't resist). All I can do is explain the model we have for all this in chemistry. Our model, unlike yours, works - it agrees with observation and experiment. If you want to explore other, non-quantum, explanations, they may be a fun game but they won't work. That is why quantum theory was invented, you see. Because scientists found that without it, they could not account for what they found in nature. If you are interested in learning more about chemistry and chemical physics I am here to help. If you want to indulge a naive alternative that is demonstrably wrong, you will have to find someone else to discuss it with. Over to you. "Our model, unlike yours, works." Are we kids here??? That post appears to be mainly a display of insistence that I bow to your authority. I don't want to take things on authority. I'm not looking for religion. Don't tell me 2+2=4, but show me why and then it won't be by your authority, but on the authority of reason. Anyway, let's just move forward. Regarding your other post: 1) EM radiation is quantised, and consists of undivisible "packets" of radiation called photons. So if I accelerate a charge up n down an antenna, then packets come out? How big are the packets? If they are packets, then they have dimensions. If they don't have dimensions, then they aren't packets. I don't want to eternally wrestle with that dissonance. And how does one pack those quantised photons closely enough as they leave a distant star to appear continuous to an observer on Earth without having packets occupying the same space? If you choose to think of photons as quantum particles, that's fine so long as you realize they are not in reality. If I apply a progressively larger force to an object until static friction is overcome and it falls from the table, the fall is a quantum event but the force that achieved it was continuous. There cannot be discontinuities in the structure of reality and neither can there be an infinity of smaller and smaller particles, therefore the fundamental structure of reality must be energy waves. 2) Rotation and vibration in molecules is quantised. They cannot vibrate or rotate as much or as little as they want, but can only do so in set, fixed increments or steps. Diagrammatically this is often shown by a series of permitted "energy levels", rising up in energy from a bottom level which is called the "ground state". The quantization you're seeing are resonances, but like wine glasses that only vibrate at resonance when rubbed, they can vibrate at other frequencies when a tone is played. See "forced vibrations". Molecules can vibrate at any frequency, but will only resonate at certain frequencies. When resonance happens, the resonator absorbs the EM energy which kicks an electron up to a higher energy state. If the wave is not at resonance, the molecule will still vibrate, but will not siphon enough energy to kick the electron up. When an EM wave meets a charged particle, there is going to be a force involved. Moreover: Depending on the relative phase of the original driving wave and the waves radiated by the charge motion, there are several possibilities:If the electrons emit a light wave which is 90° out of phase with the light wave shaking them, it will cause the total light wave to travel slower. This is the normal refraction of transparent materials like glass or water, and corresponds to a refractive index which is real and greater than 1.[24]If the electrons emit a light wave which is 270° out of phase with the light wave shaking them, it will cause the wave to travel faster. This is called "anomalous refraction", and is observed close to absorption lines (typically in infrared spectra), with X-rays in ordinary materials, and with radio waves in Earth's ionosphere. It corresponds to a permittivity less than 1, which causes the refractive index to be also less than unity and the phase velocity of light greater than the speed of light in vacuum c (note that the signal velocity is still less than c, as discussed above). If the response is sufficiently strong and out-of-phase, the result is a negative value of permittivity and imaginary index of refraction, as observed in metals or plasma.[24]If the electrons emit a light wave which is 180° out of phase with the light wave shaking them, it will destructively interfere with the original light to reduce the total light intensity. This is light absorption in opaque materials and corresponds to an imaginary refractive index. For most materials at visible-light frequencies, the phase is somewhere between 90° and 180°, corresponding to a combination of both refraction and absorption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index#Microscopic_explanation Clearly, vibrations are continuous and not discrete. Resonances are discrete locations just like energy levels. 3) Absorption of a photon by a molecular rotation or vibration can only take place when the energy of the photon exactly corresponds to the energy difference between rotational or vibrational energy levels. E=hν will then give you the "resonance frequency", if you like. Yup, that's absorption. I am familiar with E=hv which is saying energy is a function of frequency. E=h(c/wavelength) = hf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy#Formula Since E=Mc^2, then Mc^2 = hf. Then M = f(h/c^2) or f = M(c^2/h). Therefore mass is a function of frequency and 2 constants. Therefore, mass has frequency and light has mass. IR and microwave are different regions of the EM spectrum. The references you have turned up are all about microwaves, not IR. And so they are referring to the EM oscillating electric field interacting with the dipole in a molecule (if there is one) to make it rotate. This is the basis of microwave heating. So the rotation bit at least should be becoming clear to you, I hope. Yes, I understand that microwaves rotate the molecules and I think what I was missing before was not seeing that microwaves do not resonate the molecule, but instead generate heat by "friction" (as it were) whereas IR light actually causes the atoms within the molecule to resonate as a function of their mass and the bond strengths. The kinetic energy from the microwave rotations translates to vibrations (resonances like rubbed wine glasses) in the molecules in the IR band. Here is an edited picture showing the bands where rotational transitions to vibrational and electronic: http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/Images/absorption-rhode.jpg Taken from this site https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/index.html He posits that the contribution of co2 is negligible compared to ozone because O3 blocks radiation that is 48 times hotter than IR... and he makes a lot of sense. Oh, btw, maybe you can help with this: Often molecules contain dipolar groups, but have no overall dipole moment. This occurs if there is symmetry within the molecule that causes the dipoles to cancel each other out. This occurs in molecules such as tetrachloromethane and carbon dioxide. The dipole-dipole interaction between two individual atoms is usually zero, since atoms rarely carry a permanent dipole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_force Does that mean co2 will not resonate with microwaves? I thought we established a dipole moment in co2, but that link is saying there isn't an overall moment. Does that mean a + - configuration (like water) will rotate while a - + - configuration will not? I suspect so, but request verification. But, in terms of your ball and spring model you are right: the mass of the atoms and and stiffness of the chemical bonds between them is what determines the spacing of the energy levels and consequently the "resonance frequencies" that will be absorbed. The dipole is the thing that the radiation is able to influence, in order to transfer energy to the molecule. Without a dipole change in the course of a vibration, this is not possible, as there is nothing for the electric field of the radiation to grab hold of. Well said! Resonance and molecular behavior has to be a function of frequency and the property of mass coupled with the balance of bonding/repulsive forces in various discrete combinations because there is nothing else that exists. Honestly, the talk of energy gaps and photons, while another path for arriving at the same conclusion, only serves to confuse me. It seems much easier, for the purpose of conceptualization, to simply imagine masses and springs and then tangentially imagine resonances moving an electron to a higher excited state by virtue of the exaggerated movements at resonance. Anyway, I've studied more and realize that you are right about reflection not being a real thing. It's better said as "re-radiation" and I'm going to have to think about how this applies to sound as well. But in the case of an EM wave and glass, the wave excites the charges causing an acceleration which cause a re-emission of an EM wave at a later point in time which causes a phase shift from the original wave. The summation of the two waves causes refraction through the glass and the reflection is simply the re-radiated wave traveling in the opposite direction that isn't completely cancelled by the incident wave. In the case of opaque objects, the EM wave causes resonances which absorb the wave and hinder further propagation. The re-emission of EM waves from the excited charged particles are shifted 180 degrees out of phase and cancel the incoming wave completely. If the object is not a black body and it has a color, then the color is from light that was not cancelled by the phase shift and is re-radiated at the frequency of the color (that is why grass is green). So now, how does this apply to co2? Well, any molecule that does not absorb will reflect and refract due to the acceleration of charges produced by the force from the electric fields interacting. Since we know for sure that co2 does not absorb in the visible light band, then we know for sure that it reflects in that band. What we don't know is the amount of the reflection. So the problem has now been reduced to determining the amount of reflected 10^14 light in comparison to the amount of 10^13 light that is absorbed and re-radiated. 10^14 light has 10x more energy than 10^13 so the breakeven point would be at 1/10 reflection; therefore, if 1/10 of visible light is reflected, then it's a wash. But if we consider that the cone of IR re-emission towards earth is roughly 90 degrees, then only 1/4 of the IR re-radiation from co2 will strike earth (360/90=4). So, does that mean 1/40 of visible light needs to be reflected for it to break even? What is confusing me is energy being solely a function of frequency and dividing light in half does not halve the energy just like cutting a cake in half does not reduce its temperature, but it must have an effect on something. Someone will have to show me what that means. That's the last piece to the puzzle. Incidentally, I thought this was an illuminating video: Quote
exchemist Posted September 21, 2017 Report Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) [snip] "a crank"? [snip]Exactly. I cannot stop you "believing" your own made-up version of science, designed to support the agenda you have now revealed. But given your selective contempt for science when it does not fit the conclusions you prefer, it would be a waste of my time to discuss it with you. You are not prepared to learn, that much is plain. Edited September 21, 2017 by exchemist Quote
scherado Posted September 21, 2017 Report Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) ... I say "believe" because it's hard to have "faith" in a science that can't decide whether light is a wave or particle, whether gamma rays should be defined as source-specific or some arbitrary frequency, and an endless list of hypotheses and speculation that should prevent any reasonable person from being cocksure in his declarations. Other folks have expressed appreciation for my saying "I believe" because it leaves the possibility on the table that I could be wrong. .... That's the most sensible thing I've read since I've been posting here--except, possibly, my own content. Edited September 21, 2017 by scherado Quote
BanterinBoson Posted September 24, 2017 Author Report Posted September 24, 2017 Exactly. I cannot stop you "believing" your own made-up version of science, designed to support the agenda you have now revealed. But given your selective contempt for science when it does not fit the conclusions you prefer, it would be a waste of my time to discuss it with you. You are not prepared to learn, that much is plain. I'm learning just fine on the other science sites; therefore the problem must be you. You were the one who decided to throw mud and when someone resorts to chucking mudballs, it can only mean they are out of ammo. But that's ok... it was getting overwhelming attending to so many replies and discovering your limits frees time to expand mine. Learn from this experience and it won't be a total loss. The email associated with this account is not checked and further replies will not be observed since, even with an electron microscope, you could not find my interest in reading the 3rd installment of your unconstructive and ill-natured ad homs in lieu of respectful and educative counterpoint criticism. scherado 1 Quote
exchemist Posted September 27, 2017 Report Posted September 27, 2017 (edited) I'm learning just fine on the other science sites; therefore the problem must be you. You were the one who decided to throw mud and when someone resorts to chucking mudballs, it can only mean they are out of ammo. But that's ok... it was getting overwhelming attending to so many replies and discovering your limits frees time to expand mine. Learn from this experience and it won't be a total loss. The email associated with this account is not checked and further replies will not be observed since, even with an electron microscope, you could not find my interest in reading the 3rd installment of your unconstructive and ill-natured ad homs in lieu of respectful and educative counterpoint criticism.But now, I see, you are finding that on this other site: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/109814-vibrational-frequency-co2-global-warming/?page=3 the people that know some science are getting just as fed up with your pig-headed insistence that CO2 must reflect light from the atmosphere as I did. It has taken them longer, as you have avoided revealing your ideological agenda to them, as you did here. (I'm sure some will have guessed, but they will have been giving you the benefit of the doubt until now.) So, in the words of Joss Ackland's character in Lethal Weapon 2, "Whiew is the dickhid naow?" Better go off to a 3rd site, hadn't you? Or perhaps you already have. But you will get to the same point there too, because the science I have been expounding is the same as that of the people on scienceforums.net, and will be the same wherever you go. Edited September 27, 2017 by exchemist Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.