My qestions.

[GAHD]

lol, we are a result of a google search. That's the purpose of our forums: to help people, and to discuss theory & fact.

[cwes99_03]

I understand that, but the questions he is asking are so simplistic that several other google results would be clear concise and much faster than waiting for an answer here that might come from someone who knows nothing on the subject (though arguably if you don't look at several sites you might find one out there that similarly is placed by someone who knows nothing about what they are talking about.)

[arkain101]

Through some of my questions I was trying to state a point through a question to have a discussion about some of those things.

[arkain101]

You should really read this.

I had a bit of a theory go through my mind last night that seems to describe the electromagnetic spectrum.

If we assume light is particles firing out of attoms that are moving from the impacting with its other atoms causing a particle of light to be ejected at C and only C an interesting model can be developed.

First we ask, what is light, and or electromagnetic radiation. Well to us it is a frequency that hits the molecules on our eyes to create an image. But to space or a blind person it is an energy form that travels very quickly from one place to another untill it interacts with matter, which it then puts the energy where it came from into the energy of where it interacts next. So this particle we call light appears to be the reason for why heat energy is lost, as molecules hit eachother they continually fire off photons. The evidence here is that thermal energy or rather thermal photons are as visual as light if you learn to pick up the freqency. So light acts like a particle yet a wave, and is supposed to always be the same speed. If we imagine a tightly packed group of atoms in a peice of gold for example. They are locked into there chemical bond spots, but vibrate at super high occilations. Now if you focus on one atom for a moment and imagine it firing off photons in the same direction. So we picture an atom on paper shooting photons strait downwards. So this atom is virbrating around at a pretty constant speed, which we assume is the vibration of 30degrees celcius. so now we see that the photons leaving this atom are being fired from different posistions making it look like a wave of particles, but the wave length is narrow and long, because the atom is not that excited and is not firing off that many particles / sec, so the wave length is weak and long. Now as we start heating up the attom which really means bump if faster. Particles likewise get fired out more frequently in less time which makes it look like a denser wave with a shorter wavelength. Now we heat up the gold even more and now the gold begins shooting these particles at a freqency and wave length which is determined as infrared and is strong enough that the photons will be concentrated enough to affect the attoms on our skin and heat them up that we feel as heat. Now we heat up the atom even more yet and it fires off at an even higher frequency with a more concentrated wave of particles. At this point the material begins to look red to the eye. The material is excited enough that it can fire off photons frequently enough to become the first color on the spectrum red. So the atom is shooting more photons per second, but is also firing them with a higher ocillation, that at this point looks like a stream of water that someone is waving back and forth. Each time we heat the material the frequency and wave length becomes higher and shorter. (or otherwise thicker, more intense). So the color of the metal starts to appear to change to a more yellow color and that yellow frequency/wavelength causes even more exchange of energy to the matter around it (making us feel more heat emmit form this). So we keep following this pattern and notice that everytime we heat up the material more it follows the next spot on the spectrum. If we imagine a rocket engine, that is extreeemly hot, it emmits a frequency,wavelength of particles that looks blue to us.. So red is the coldest of photons, and blue is the hottest or, red is the less frequent /less concentrated / longer distance between photons and right up to blue which is the most frequent / more concentrated / shorter distance between photons. Next up is undetectable to the human eye but is the same thing. It is ultra violet. An even more intense frequency and shorter wave length that has the ability to transfer more energy to matter than the rest mentioned. We keep going up the spectrum and notice that the more we heat up this atom the more intense its photons become. The higher rate of fire the atom has with its ammo being photons. So All this energy you put into the material is used as the expelling of photons, So the energy you put into the material is radiated out to the matter around it. Eventually we excite this matterial so greatly that it starts virbrating near the speed of light and basically fires of a beam of photons where the wave length is almost non existant and the frequency it fires these photons is almost constant. Causing it to create nearly a wall around the material that pushes outwards heating up the matter around it to extreme tempetures. If you apply this thinking ot the nuclearbomb it shows how you can take this tightly woven material like uranium and squish the particles in it so intesntly that it heats up, or the atoms become more excited to the point that they begin to emmit photons so intensely that the material itself is blown to obliveration and the wall of energy expands blowing apart the housing of the bomb then right into the atmosphere expanding all the atoms in the air away from where the bomb occured, sending a shockwave through the atmosphere. Eventually these photons which are at the intestity we call gamma are soaked up in the atoms around it and passed on and on untill the frequency dies down to light then just heat. Then what is left of the uranium flies all over the place as single molecules, which are unstable, and the photon in the world around it overflow it and break apart the nucleus.

So I thought about this and said well what about microwaves. You put electricity (aka electrons) into a matterial that is at a cirtain tempeture and it causes even more electrons to be released at the freqency the material is virbrating at making an intense mircrowave that is able to heat water, cause electric charges to build up on conductive material. So light appears to be electrons, or forced out from an increase of electrons.

This would explain why redshift can occur. If you travel away from light at higher and higher speeds the freqency of the photons or the speed in which they enter your eye slows down enough to be interpreted as a difference frequency.

When you get an intense blast of light on your eyes, it can remain in your vision for some time as a false image. So the atoms in that part of your eye are "full" so to speak of electrons so when you look around it can not take on anymore electrons so the image in that spot appears black. Though when you close your eyes it is a faint signal to the brain that there is still some extra energy going in the molecules of that part of your eye.

[arkain101]

This theory I just came up with seems to explain light or the electromagnetic spectrum better than anything I have ever known.

What do you think.

[arkain101]

Would this explain why it takes 4 times the energy to double your speed?

 

Lets look at a rocket for example: You Fire out matter at an extreme speed but half of the energy or mass of the matter is ejected as photons/electrons. So you want to speed up half your energry is always being lost, so if you want to do the work you need to use 4 times the energy to get there.

1/2+1/2+1/2+1/2 = 2x

This would explain energy for everything. Everytime you want to do something photons will always released (which is the transfer of energy or heat loss) so the mass of your energy will be lost. Which would explain why 4 times the energy is required for anything you want to double because half of it is lost.

[CraigD]

I think I got it.

 

With the equation 1/2(M*Vsquared)

 

The energy is said to be increased 4 times on an object if you double its velocity.

 

Is this energy assumed to come from an increase of mass? What is the explanation for why your energy will increase if you double your speed, because I just performed an experiment that explains that it has nothing do with mass of the moving object, it is quit interesting.

I, too, think you’ve “got” the relationship between the equation Etotal=Mcurrent*c^2 and Ekinetic=Mrest*V^2

 

Consider an object with Mrest=1 kg and V=1 m/s.

Ekinetic=(1 kg)*(1 m/s)^2 =1 j

c= ~ 3*10^8 m/s

(“~” is a common symbol for “approximately”)

Erest= (1 kg)*(3*10^8 m/s)^2 =9*10^16 j

Etotal= ~ Erest + Ekinetic = 9*10^16 + 1 j

Mcurrent = Etotal/((3*10^8 m/s)^2) = ~ 1.000000000000000011 kg

 

Now, compare this to the Lorentz transformation for mass predicted by Special Relativity, Mcurrent=Mrest/(1-(V/C)^2)^.5

 

Mcurrent=(1 kg)/(1-(1/(3*10^8))^2)^.5 = ~ 1.000000000000000011 kg

 

With the precision of the calculator I used, they agree!

 

You’ll find this true until you try it for a velocity that’s an appreciable fraction of c, such as .5*c.

The Lorentz transform gives Mcurrent= ~ 3.4 kg

The previous equations gives Mcurrent= ~ 1.25 kg

 

You can’t use classical Newtonian mechanics for high velocities. Using Relativity, you’ll discover that nothing with non-zero mass can be accelerated to c, though, with arbitrary amounts of energy, it can be accelerated to an arbitrarily close velocity.

 

Many beginning Physics students find the physical law “nothing with non-zero mass can be accelerated to c” an offense to their common sense. I believe this stems from lack of understanding of Special Relativity, and the common classical definition

V=Distance/Time.

 

Provided that “Distance” and “Time” are as measured by the observer being accelerated, the classical definition remains accurate and useful. With enough energy (and a solution to such engineering issues as avoiding catastrophic collisions with interstellar matter and withstanding high acceleration), an object – “the ship” - can move as great a distance in as little time as one wishes. The time and velocity as observed by an unaccelerated observer, however, does not measure the ship as exceeding c, only getting asymptotically close to it.

 

Study classical mechanics until you can make numeric calculation with it with confidence and ease. Then study Relativity. When done, you should be able to prove the claim I make in the previous paragraph.

 

;) Imagination and creativity are valuable tools of science, but without sound technical foundations, will lead you in many unproductive (and outright silly) directions. Best wishes in your studies.

[arkain101]

I, too, think you’ve “got” the relationship between the equation Etotal=Mcurrent*c^2 and Ekinetic=Mrest*V^2

 

Consider an object with Mrest=1 kg and V=1 m/s.

Ekinetic=(1 kg)*(1 m/s)^2 =1 j

c= ~ 3*10^8 m/s

^^

Ekinetic = 1/2(M*V^2)

 

I understand.

I still have to dissagree. Because the high speed traveler can be considered the one at rest. Or split the velocity between the traveler and the universe and they both carry the same time dimension.

The extra energy in any kind of accelerating object is lost through electromagnetic energy. I can not see it going into the mass. The acceleration force drops do to coservation of momentum.

Say you hold a rocket in your hand and it can only shoot gas out at mach 10. That means that is 100% the speed the rocket can shoot gas.

Now preted to hold the gas the rocket shoots out and allow the rocket to take off, as it speeds up the force decreases from opposites of velocity. The rocket would max out at mach 10, and never go faster because you can not give the fuel positive momentum. So even if you had a powerful gamma ray engine, your acceleration force would decrease overtime untill you reach C, then you stop accelerating.

[CraigD]

^^

Ekinetic = 1/2(M*V^2)

Interestingly enough, my omission of the .5 factor doesn’t have much impact on the approximations. I should correct it though, and will when I have a bit of spare time.

I still have to dissagree. Because the high speed traveler can be considered the one at rest.

Actually, there’s a very good reason that the ship must be considered in motion, not at rest. It is possible to measure the force produced by its acceleration. The unaccelerated frame measures no such force. This force is not a matter of arbitrary choice of frames of observation – it exists in the accelerated frame, but not in the unaccelerated one, an essential distinction.

 

Please, read to the point of understanding Relativity (link to an English translation of the original 1906 book – others might be able to recommend a more readable and effective document, though I think this one is pretty good). It’s ineffective to disagree with the conclusion of a theory you don’t understand well, and with which most people agree.

[arkain101]

I thought about that actually, that only one frame is affected by force, but once it has stopped accelerating all is the same. Our galaxy may be coasting through space at a hefty 0.5c for all we know.

causing us to see the rest of the universe in fast forward according to relavity.

[cwes99_03]

i couldn't read your entire post, because you didn't break it up. There is a way in which we write/type so that others don't have to strain their eyes to see. It involves breaking things up into coherent subject specific paragraphs.

 

Having read the first part of that monstrous post up there, I don't believe you understand the interaction between two atoms/molecules in the atmosphere, nor in how light is produced as currently understood.

 

Two particles interacting/colliding in the atmosphere, collide completely elastically. That is to say that the energy going into the collision is equal to the energy leaving the collision. One molecule may slow down or change direction, but the other molecule also changes velocity and energy is maintained. Temperature is measured by the velocity of these atoms, and heat is energy transfered, not energy measured.

 

As for light: Light is caused by the excitation and subsequent de-excitation of an outer layer electron surrounding the atom.

 

Again, I suggest to you. Take a couple of courses in physics before you spend a couple more hours of your life theorizing about something you don't understand. Even buying a simple text book for introductory physics will teach you all this, if you are the type of person that can teach yourself, which you seem to be.

[arkain101]

Thanks.

 

I dont mean to put anything down. But wouldnt you agree it doesnt make much sense that if an electron adjusts its fantasized orbit, cirtain types of light are released.

I understand the evidence behind such ideas.

Although, there isnt much explanation as to where the light comes from, if its a wave or a particle, how the "nucleus" as we have disigned stays together, and how electrons maintain perfect orbits around larger clumps of matter that it is attracted to.

It all makes sense when you put it on paper sure, but at an atomic level there is alot of questioning that I have to put to mind.

 

Lets pretend for a moment that our diagram of the atom is wrong and speical relativity has flaws. Lets say for 200 years we continually try to understand and understand but never get anywhere with gravity and light and time and high speed travel (those types of things). If everyone accepts everything as of today as 100% and never question the possibility of other explanations then wouldnt that be a huge mistake.

We might be on the right track and we might not, so it would seem to me that a good scientist would not exclude one single logical possiblity.

[GAHD]

arkain: on the model of the atom, I hope you know the nucleus is not divided into neat little spheres of positrons & neutrons: it's more like a not-so solid blob...Same for electrons: valence layers arn't really clear-cut and their orbits are approximate. Electrons really act more like a feild than a particle when 'orbiting', but the model taught in highschool does work for basic chemistry & physics. It's when you get into fission & fusion and have to start worrying about alpha and beta decay that you need to learn all the fun stuff like spin, Up/Down/Top/Bottom/Charm/Strange, and exactly what a Gluon does in Hadron.

 

These waters still might hold a few dragons, but we've explored them quite well in the last 50 years.

[cwes99_03]

Well, since we're doing thought experiments let's suppose you've taken some classes on the subject beyond 8th grade science.

 

I could suppose, but most people here would think I was wrong based on your posts. However, I might be right, you may have taken such courses.

 

The idea would be though, that before I make such huge and unfounded claims, I would get a background on you.

 

1) The "shells" that electrons exist in are not perfect, nor are they two dimensional.

2) Electrons only emit light when they move from one energy level to another. ( I may be wrong here, do electrons emit some light when changing between orbital types in the same energy level?)

3) Checkout the theory behind the orbital circumference being equal to some sort of natural wavelength multiple for the electron.

[GAHD]

2a) Electrons emit photons when 'dropping' energy.

[cwes99_03]

Yes thank you, they absorb light when they increase in energy level, and release light when they drop in energy levels.

[arkain101]

So when matter cools down, it is from the emission of light? Someone explained that atoms interact with perfect elasticity. Though matter cool down quite dramatically when placed in a vacume because it loses so much "energy" so quickly, so it must be always emitting photons.

or what? not making statements just thinking aloud