Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 251 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Do we have a moderator?
by paul
10/23/19 12:30 AM
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
10/23/19 12:22 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 13
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#44989 - 08/25/12 01:18 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul

you do realize that the atom slows dont you?
so wouldn't the atom's frequency also slow...

and that is the reason that he must lower the frequency of the laser...

and that is the reason the photon will pass through the atom
if he does not lower the frequency...

or did you expect that the atom somehow magically maintains the same exact frequency
after the photon is absorbed and the atom is slowed.

have you questioned your logic about that?


NO Paul I have no idea why that would happen I am not allowed to talk about QM.

So you tell me in your non QM world why would that happen whats the underlying reason that happens please .... besides some man on a youtube video told you.

Your long answer is sort of a 12 year old kiddy answer it is factually bending the truth to make it understandable and its full of simplifications that are actually a lie and can lead to wrong conclussions one of which is in your answer.

3) the atom slows due to its increase in mass.


It is factually wrong infact you guy in the video never spoke about that you have taken mass equivalence law imposed it on his silly simplification and come up with this.

I understand your logic and it is correct but his simplification leads to the problem. I do get why you think this but its not really a factor in what is happening in this case.

He never dealt with and discussed the re-emission of the photon and that has lead to this problem as well as the second error his simplification leads to.

Which is .... you can not simply keep absorbing photon in an atom and exciting it thousand upon thousands of times.

You haven't addressed this issue I have explained it to you and gave you the link to read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_state)

You have also strangely quoted a funny thing

4) the atom cools due to its lower frequency

I am intrigued by this statement can you elaborate and explain it to me please.

And a small but minor correction

BTW: random direction is not the desired direction.

The direction is RANDOM ... sometimes the random direction will be desired sometimes not. A random direction can not always be not desired BY DEFINITION OF RANDOM.


Edited by Orac (08/25/12 01:40 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
.
#44990 - 08/25/12 02:48 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
3) the atom slows due to its increase in mass.


any increase in mass require's an increase in momentum to maintain speed.

are you saying that when the atom absorbs the photon its mass does not increase?

Quote:
4) the atom cools due to its lower frequency


when the atom absorbs the photon its frequency lowers
ie...it slows down = it cools.

Quote:
BTW: random direction is not the desired direction.


there are probably a billion different directions in random direction.

that is not the desired direction.

I want to hear your reason why you think the below is true.

Quote:
you can not simply keep absorbing photon in an atom and exciting it thousand upon thousands of times.


why not?


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#44991 - 08/25/12 05:15 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul

are you saying that when the atom absorbs the photon its mass does not increase?


Oh it does but it's fractional and it loses that extra mass when it re-emits the photon as it must eventually.

I realise from your answer below you don't accept that.


Originally Posted By: paul

I want to hear your reason why you think the below is true.

you can not simply keep absorbing photon in an atom and exciting it thousand upon thousands of times.


It's a fact you can't I have linked it twice but you choose to ignore it.

You can explain it all so lets stick with your explaination not worry about what I think because I am wrong remember.

So my question is there a limit to how many photons an atom can absorb I mean it must start getting really really heavy eventually and that leads to the question

How much does the atom weight at absolute zero then?

You still have not addressed this issue for me

"4) the atom cools due to its lower frequency."


Explain what the deal with the lower frequency is sorry it's not obvious to me.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#45000 - 08/26/12 03:42 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00285799.pdf

Quote:
This phenomenon, multiple-photon excitation, is the absorption of many infrared
photons of the same frequency by a single
molecule. Observation of this phenomenon
was only possible with the high light intensities typical of lasers. It was a surprising
effect because multiple-photon excitation did
not fit the established theoretical pictures of
how molecules absorb radiation. While considerable experimental and theoretical work
has now been directed toward understanding
this phenomenon, much remains to be explained.


how do you think a microwave heats up atoms?

if atoms must emit a photon for every photon they absorb
then the electrons would not need several energy levels
(higher or lower orbits) for the electrons to move to or move from as they gain or lose energy.

you would never even get past room temperature.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#45001 - 08/26/12 07:08 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Stop worry anout my answers I got it that you don't accept QM.

Microwave heating is a very different kettle of fish the water molecule is bent it has an electrical dipole and thats how microwave heating works on the dipole moment.

Perhaps read up and tell me if you want to make microwave heating the same as laser cooling.

Can I also suggest you read up on multiple-photon absorption that you linked. Why was it surprising and clarify to me what exactly multiple-photon absorption means because I am confused.

For now since it needs no reading lets just follow your story it's far more interesting ... infact I find it fascinating.

Answer your two questions.


Edited by Orac (08/26/12 07:19 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#45002 - 08/26/12 04:40 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
thats strange orac, the dipole just heats water.

so in microwave heating there is no photon absorbed by atoms?

I was thinking that there are thousands upon thousands of photons
absorbed.

and that is the reason that the molecules heat up.
they retain the heat energy of the wave.

even though that energy is given to the molecules as photons.

oh wait a minute , you only think that atoms can absorb 1 photon and then they spontaneously spit 1 out.

so there is never more than 1 photon absorbed by an atom.

I find that facinating , orac.

does it work like this?

1) a photon in the microwave strikes a molecules atom.
2) that atom becomes excited.
3) a electron moves out to a higher orbit because it has been charged to a higher level.
4) then that electron moves inward because it emits a photon
and the atom stabilizes.

and it emits a photon with the same energy that the photon had when it was absorbed.

how do the molecule's ever get hot?
where does the heat come from?
will they return?


I suppose the dipole borrows energy from the quantum illusion
and renames it or disguises it so that no one will ever find out.

heres a few people who for some strange reason seem to think
that water molecules ( molecules are a group of atoms ) absorb photons in a microwave oven.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110926080055AA4b2aK

these guys havent ever hear you explain that either orac maybe you should let them in on the secret you must be keeping to yourself.

http://www.jiskha.com/search/index.cgi?q...ter+in+the+soup

gosh it seems that everybody except you think's that crazy stuff.


teach me more oh great divine keeper of knowledge.





_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#45003 - 08/26/12 06:22 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_heating

Quote:

At higher frequencies, this heating is caused by molecular dipole rotation within the dielectric.


Note the image on right
Quote:

A microwave oven, which uses dielectric heating to cook food


Sorry my physics doesn't match yours genius cause I am pretty sure thats how a microwave oven works as I said DIPOLE HEATING.

See nothing like laser cooling but obviously me and everyone else got it wrong so please explain away if you think we got it wrong.

Now back to your laser cooling.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS

1. How heavy do the atoms get at absolute zero I mean they are absorbing thousands of photons an gaining weight aren't they. I am fasincated by these heavy atoms got a link?

2. Quote => the atom cools due to its lower frequency. Still can't for the life of me work out how you think that comes about.

You said ... ie...it slows down = it cools but what the hell has that got to do with frequency??????


Edited by Orac (08/26/12 06:27 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#45004 - 08/26/12 07:01 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
OMG , my bad

the word photon isnt even on the page you linked to.

it does say that it uses electromagnetic wave's!!

maybe the word photon is in the wiki microwave article!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave

thats odd , theres not much there either!
but it does mention a magnetron.

lets try the wiki magnatron page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetron

my my , this is getting stranger by the moment!
but the page does mention a magnetic field.

lets look on the wiki magnetic field page !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

ah ha , there it is.

yep , photons are exchanged in magnetic fields.

Quote:
Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin. In special relativity, electric and magnetic fields are two interrelated aspects of a single object, called the electromagnetic tensor; the split of this tensor into electric and magnetic fields depends on the relative velocity of the observer and charge. In quantum physics, the electromagnetic field is quantized and electromagnetic interactions result from the exchange of photons.


I would have figured that you knew that.

so I guess that without photons exchanging none of the stuff
you use in the discussion even comes into play.

yeaaa photons...

Quote:
How heavy do the atoms get at absolute zero I mean they are absorbing thousands of photons an gaining weight aren't they.


how heavy are they before the laser beam?

how many photons are absorbed before the doppler effect is no longer in play?

how much does a photon weigh?

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#45007 - 08/27/12 01:08 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Yep I would like answers to all those as well they were going to be my next questions and ANSWER the two questions.

You know why you can't I can tell by your trying to avoid it because you are TRAPPED by your own logic.

This is called a FALSIFICATION in science Paul.

I am quite quite certain because of the stupidity you are engaged in you have worked it out.


Edited by Orac (08/27/12 01:11 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#45009 - 08/27/12 01:59 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
just trying to show you that atoms can absorb photons without emitting photons.

but thats ok orac , you seem to have stopped dead in your tracks

all you want now it seems is for me to answer your stupid questions that never end.

so I guess theres no discussion left as you are no longer participating.

have fun.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#45010 - 08/27/12 02:07 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
HAHA no Paul I just refuse to let the conversation get dragged into side issues, I know your trapped you know your trapped.

Your whole universe slowing ends at the two questions the two questions you refuse to answer because you know they both end in dead ends and the whole idea is FALSIFIED BY SCIENCE LOGIC.

So yes unless you can answer the two questions the discussion does end indeed.


Edited by Orac (08/27/12 02:08 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#45014 - 08/27/12 04:50 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
socratus Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/20/08
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Orac
Yep I would like answers to all those as well they were going to be my next questions and ANSWER the two questions.

You know why you can't I can tell by your trying to avoid it because you are TRAPPED by your own logic.

This is called a FALSIFICATION in science Paul.

I am quite quite certain because of the stupidity you are engaged in you have worked it out.


About FALSIFICATION in Science.

One example.
Somebody says: The law of energy conservation
There isnít such law in physics. There is
' The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass.'
If somebody takes only one part of the whole law and
ignore the second part of it then he is falsifier.
=.

Top
#45015 - 08/27/12 08:46 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: socratus]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Energy is mass via E=MC2 Socratus so doubling the statement is not necessary.

Here rewrite the equation

E=MC2
M=E/C2

It all means the same thing see.

If you are going to nitt pick be accurate and after all the discussion thats all you have to say on the subject you are pretty pathetic at least Paul had the guts to put his belief out there.


Edited by Orac (08/27/12 08:51 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#45016 - 08/27/12 01:50 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
I know your trapped you know your trapped.


LOL, its more like your the one who trapped himself.

you claim that microwaves dont resemble lasers...

from the wiki page on microwaves...

under the section ((( Sources Of Microwaves )))

Quote:
A maser is a device similar to a laser, which amplifies light energy by stimulating photons. The maser, rather than amplifying visible light energy, amplifies the lower-frequency, longer-wavelength microwaves and radio frequency emissions.


I dont know how you translate english into the language that your brain operates on , but to me the above tells me that microwaves
do produce light waves similar to the way that a laser produces light waves.

Quote:
I just refuse to let the conversation get dragged into side issues


I can fully understand why you wouldnt want to let the conversation get dragged into an area that covers the specifics or the underlying methods of how microwaves are produced.

and if matter is heated then its obvious that matter has gained energy , and by gaining energy matter has also gained mass.

you dont need for the conversation to go into any direction where
your side would be forced to admit that you were in error.

when someone ask you how does a automobile move just by turning the key and pressing the gas pedal , I would expect your answer to be something like.

because I put gas in it.

in the end , when you remove all the parts and set them on the table , it is the part or parts that generate photons that interact with atoms that makes a laser or a microwave work.

my take on your logic , is that you lost it somewhere down the road while you were getting to where you are today.

your foundation is weak , thats why your so easy to tumble over.

and I dont have anything against QM , I have already said it can be usefull in its own realm , you want to take everything into the realm of QM , even when its not needed.

its almost as if you bypassed everything that supports QM
and that is your main problem.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#45017 - 08/27/12 01:59 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Paul I am not going to get sidetracked into a different argument my answer for the moment it is matters not to your two questions we need resolved.

I view what you are doing is nothing more than an attempt to avoid discussing the two questions and I won't take the bait.

Answer the two very specfic questions or stop arguing your choice.

I am very certain you are just trolling and I have no intention of letting it just roll on and hence I have no intention of discussing other side issues.

I have given you credit at least you and conduct a logical argument for infinite universe poor old socratus just tries to look smart firing what he thinks is smart inconsistancies in the form of often undecipherable quotes from the side, only his whole infinity god went up in smoke and he can't even argue a single point.

I have to say of all you religious guys Rev's religion makes the most sense to me as a scientist. He doesn't get all involved in the physical rubbish he realises religion is about alot more than what science says and I also give him his dues.

BTW what religion do you follow Paul I believe Rev is United Church (Apology ahead if I got it wrong Rev... had to correct it once already).


Edited by Orac (08/27/12 02:21 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#45018 - 08/27/12 02:41 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
orac

I see your playing the religion card again , its really pathetic
the way you dont want to get dragged into side issues that concern the physical realm yet your always trying to drag the discussion into the spiritual realm.

I think in our question answering session you should stick to the physical world orac , dont try to puff up your pathetic image by trying to downgrade others.

Quote:
I have given you credit


I dont want it , I dont need it , what good would it be.



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#45033 - 08/28/12 04:32 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
socratus Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/20/08
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Orac
Energy is mass via E=MC2 Socratus so doubling the statement is not necessary.

Here rewrite the equation

E=MC2
M=E/C2

It all means the same thing see.

If you are going to nitt pick be accurate and after all the discussion thats all you have to say on the subject you are pretty pathetic at least Paul had the guts to put his belief out there.


1
Doubling is necessary because there is situation
where a mass is not exactly an energy.
2
E=Mc^2 or M=Ec^2
Where is here law of conservation ?
Where is here law of transformation ?
3.
If somebody takes only one part of the whole law
(conservation ) and ignore the second part of it
(transformation ) then he is falsifier.
=.


Edited by socratus (08/28/12 04:37 AM)

Top
#45034 - 08/28/12 04:43 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: socratus]
socratus Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/20/08
Posts: 415
Fact number one:
According to WMAP the universe as whole is flat.
Fact number two:
According to the critical density
(even incorporating a dark mass and dark energy )
the universe as whole is flat.

All another assumptions are speculations .
===..

Top
#45036 - 08/28/12 05:42 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: socratus]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Do you practice dribbling garbage Socratus.

ENERGY = MASS x constant

Get it they equal each other with a constant multiplier so lets try it with say money instead.


$1 Dollar = 100 cents ... get it 1 dollar = cents x a constant

So if I tell you something costs 1000 cents do I need to make up any special sort of law or changover.

NO IT'S IMPLICIT 1000 cents = $10.

Seriously not a hard concept to grasp and I did politely point that out the first time and most children manage it with money from a very young age.

So stop with the absolute garbage the law of conservation of energy requires no qualification unless you are mentally retarded which may be true in your case.

As for you other stupid comment wow the universe is flat I am sure thats going to rock science they only knew that from 1917.

In that whole discussion thats your whole comment ??????

See I am not a falsifier I am the devil, remember you told me science and I are or have your forgotten? And guess what science and I made your god disappear just like that and that is fact one for you socratus ... oh but I taunt and tease :-)


Edited by Orac (08/28/12 05:57 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#45063 - 08/28/12 11:52 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: socratus]
Amaranth Rose II Offline

Superstar

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 962
Loc: Southeast Nebraska, USA
Orac,
Please stop with the insults. It is unbecoming to this forum. Calling someone mentally retarded and stupid is not nice.
_________________________
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose


Top
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.