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
1 registered (1 invisible), 226 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
24 minutes 21 seconds ago
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 1
True 1
Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#56225 - 07/06/16 12:41 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: paul
believe it or not this has spurned an interest that I
now need to explore.

No worries his biography gives a brief outline of him.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1918/planck-bio.html

You will see he was lead to the problem you are dealing with when he was studying radiation. The question of why is the suns spectrum broad and smooth.

He formalized your vibrations into a resonant element and when you do so the energy exchanges can only be in discrete packet or quanta.

Quote:
revolutionary idea that the energy emitted by a resonator could only take on discrete values or quanta. The energy for a resonator of frequency v is hv where h is a universal constant, now called Planck's constant.

So when your vibrating molecules try to unload their kinetic energy they can only do so in discrete packets and that is the origin of photons but having a broad frequency range representing the broad range of kinetic energies in the molecules.

In effect old blacksmiths already knew this because they had worked white hot metal and the composition of the metal didn't change the color it always has the same distinctive color.

This is the emission curve you get using the theory for different temperatures 5000K, 4000K, 3000K

So heat any material to 5000K and you get visible light and that explains the incandescent light bulb.

When you look at molten lava you can tell the temperature just by looking at the color you don't have to know the composition at all.

Compare your suns emission graph to the 5000K curve developed by Max from theory smile

Here lets make in simple and put on the same post:


Shame I can't get them scaled the same ... but do you see the two graphs match (your image has the 5250 deg C planck graph in black). I can tell the sun is around 5000K in temperature just from the graph. What I don't have is a clue what the sun is made of that requires a different technique and different data. Our theory says it doesn't matter what the material is the heat of 5000K will produce that curve.

So Max was the first person that could explain that emission curve of the sun and it's profound implications. Yes he was religious and we don't hold that against him. His spiritual vibrations are the foundations of QM.

Anyhow that is the scientific origin of that emission curve for the sun, which I and almost all scientists believe. I think Bill G believes something else but he can argue that.

*************************************************************

WE ARE NOT SURE ABOVE GRAPH !!!

ROTATION = DOPPLER

WE PEOPLE MAKING ROTATION IN UNIVERSE !!!
PLEASE LOOK BELOW OLD DOPPLER !!!

STUDY PLEASE BELOW PROBLEM
Distance " d " exist because sensor is making rotation CW or CCW
(below model please confirm in books - physics .
I showing here only to help You understand problem it is not new information )




REAL Hz are totaly different !!!
we are registering colours that YOU SHOWED ON ABOVE GRAPHS

BUT BUT we see this colours because we are moving in universe !!!

we making rotation ( LABORATORY where THEY READ THIS Hz is making rotation )

( notice that exist distance "d"
"+ "or "– "direction )



DOPPLER IS CHANGING REAL Hz !


Right now is 2016 and we are not sure how colour is sending atoms !
to evaluate absolute colour we must evaluate and add to physics ABSOLUTE rotation !!!



INSIDE MICHELSON MORLEY WE HAVE DOPPLER !!!
VERY GENTEL DOPPLER but not ZERO !!! I'm sure !!!

PLEASE COMPARE LEFT/RIGHT SIDE below ilustration
it is NOT ZERO !!!



EINSTEIN and LORENZ ignored ! IGNORED famous Pi !!!!!!




DOPPLER inside ATOM = FUTURE FOR PHYSICS !!!
right now I'm sure that in short time we people will start very fast
trip ( VERY VERY FAST !!!)

PLESE LOOK HOW EASY DYNAMICA IS SOLVING THREE BROTHERS PARADOXE!!!

TERMODYNAMICA inside ATOM
left mouse and right mouse is eating the same food
how works methabolism ?
how many energy atoms need to comomunicate with electrons ?
how heavy are electrons ?






WITHOUT BELOW INFORMATION WE CAN NOT SPEAK ABOUT COLOURS !!!
person inside box is able measure ALL 3D directions to look OMEGA
after he will have his OMEGA he will be sure WHAT HE SEE and WHAT COLOUR HE SEE WHEN HE LOOKING ON THE SUN !!!!





INTERNAL force !
the same problem is registering EACH ATOM

how big force is ( tension ) is registering beam ?
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i0QAJkwDUfU/VBGtJcwO_PI/AAAAAAAAB90/GgkSTBMgMDQ/s1600/CIMG3319.JPG[/img]

ABOVE I SHOWED CLASSIC METHOD HOW TO SOLVE
FAMOUS GALILEO's PROBLEM !
WE CAN SOLVE THIS PROBLEM ALSO WE CAN USE LIGH or CLASSICA

[img]https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-u4PJ98sWLZA/V...-Q/s1600/ws.jpg[/img]


FUKO's pendulum ! MY OWN MODERNISATION
ropes are the same !!!
ropes are not moving with EARTH in space ( SIMILAR LIKE FUKO's pendulum !!!)

WE ARE ABLE READ DOPPLER !!!!

[img]https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G2_gSCpMsa8/V...cB/s1600/33.jpg[/img]

ROPES = MATHERIAL

MATHERIAL "is DANCING" and feel dynamica !!

Air in box ( material )
is like Girl that dancing ( narow /wide arm problem)
FILM inside dark box will not register the same ENERGY
Em radiation is pusshing Air and losting Joules
( the same brightness is impossible for all 3D directions )
we can use bulb or special hydrogen portion (FLASH EXPLOSION )

[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pf0vOT4PC_4/VGmOcWetogI/AAAAAAAACII/fHj1l3ZdWd8/s1600/3.jpg[/img]


Edited by newton (07/06/16 01:03 PM)

Top
.
#56226 - 07/06/16 01:07 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: newton]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209



1600 Galilean relativity -----Maxwell 1861 ------- Marosz 2012


Top
#56227 - 07/06/16 01:14 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
ABOUT QUANTUM PHYSICS and PLANCK ?

YOU NO NEED LOOK ON PHOTON TO EVALUATE photon's P=mv

( when you looking on photon you changing resoults )

PLEASE MEASURE WHAT PHOTON DID !! effecte his work not
look on photon !! ( please measure effecte of his work )




physics's history...
" Galilean relativity states that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames. Galileo Galilei first described this principle in 1632 in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems using the example of a ship travelling at constant velocity, without rocking, on a smooth sea; any observer doing experiments below the deck would not be able to tell whether the ship was moving or "

1861 J. C. Maxwell, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation,which shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.

2011 Grover Swartzlander first began to examine a revolutionary concept in optical physics after studying the flight of a moth. He watched the animal use its wings to create lift..... ( find more in google)


Top
#56228 - 07/06/16 01:17 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: newton]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Dancing around another long spam series post by Marosz.

Paul, I am having trouble with your English, it could mean several things to me so let me try and phrase what the graph shows.

The graph is the wavelength along the bottom x axis and the power/energy density on the y axis in layman terms how bright that wavelength of color is seen (assuming we are in the visible spectrum).

So lets turn this into kinetic energy (motion of your molecules) with temperature.

So at 3000K most of your molecules contain an energy which equates to energy of a photon at 1um wavelength. Some are higher some are lower but the most are at 1um, not every molecule has exactly the same temperature. So the graph shows the spectrum intensity you would expect if the sun was at 3000K in temperature.

Similarly the 5000K shows the intensity for each wavelength you would expect to measure in a sun at that temperature.

The reason for the sharp cutoff to the left is you need a lot of kinetic energy in a single molecule to release those wavelengths which are way up in the ultra violent and heading up to x-rays. You don't have any molecules with enough kinetic energy to do that at these low temperatures.

If you want to have more energy to the left you need a hotter temperature you need 7000K to get up into the mid blues.

Let me see if I can get a color reference for you ... ok got one from an LED light manufacturer which is quite good.


Basically the hotter the temperature of your sun or light element the more left on that graph your cutoff will be.

Lets add a hotter sun on the graph the blue one here is 15000K it also adds the radiation of a human body. You can do this for any body at a temperature in a lab and measure the spectrum


It all conforms to Plancks formula which is why everyone uses it in all sorts of industries.

Most engineers and all physics graduates will have done labs and learn the trick because it is widely used for contactless temperature measurement. You also need to take care if you aren't dealing with an emission but you are sending in a EM beam to create a reading off a surface as the surface emissivity has an effect and so you need graduates to know that.

Hopefully AR2 will deal with Marosz and we won't be dodging in and out of the wall of spam.


Edited by Orac (07/06/16 01:51 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56229 - 07/06/16 01:20 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
during first OLD cars moving only 20 km/h nobody ask about aerodynamica !!!

nobody feel this problem !!!

problem that we not see exist !


Top
#56230 - 07/06/16 01:28 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
Czerenkow
each body that moving is generating EM wave

Marosz
Each body that is moving is generating EM vacuum ( cavitation)


to describe cavitation please use ideal GAS model
to help You I prepared simple example
two empty balls Under Water ! ( water = EM preasure from stars )

each ball drinking energy ( inside balls we have holes ! ) water is going inside ball




IF IF EMPTY BALL WILL START VERY VERY fast rotation respect to own
axis !!! WATER ( energy will not go inside BALL )

ROTATION = photons will not able GO INSIDE BALL !!!
WATER can not WIN with F= m*V*V/ R

ROTATION = WE LOSTING MASS !!!

Top
#56237 - 07/08/16 05:09 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: newton]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Paul this took me a bit to find because incandescent globe manufacture is not high these days.

Here is the graph of an halogen incandescent globe filament running at different temperatures from a manufacturer, they will have done it by controlling the voltage to the globe.



As you can see it does a good impression of looking like the suns emission the hotter it gets smile

So there isn't much difference between the sun and the light bulb really all that has changed is the source of the heat, electricity for the light and nuclear for the sun.

The interesting part for you is there is a cycle in a halogen light very different to the sun and a normal incandescent bulb but it shows the process can have subcycles and the emission remains the same


The process simply increases the efficiency of generating heat and it's still the heat that produces the light.

Here are the emission spectrum of common lighting .. excluding LED's which will sidetrack us. The LED's looks something like the fluorescent lamp and you can see there emission looks very different to the sun and incandescent light because they aren't based on heat. If you see a broad sloped bell shape like that with a left side cutoff, it's always a thermal emission unless it's man made and trying to imitate a thermal emission.



So you could ask whatever you were trying to understand about the spectrum using an incandescent bulb if you like it's essentially the same emission process and something data will exist for.

The bottom line is unless the sun is man made its light emission is thermal smile


Edited by Orac (07/08/16 05:48 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56238 - 07/08/16 11:14 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
SPECTRUM ???

HOW BIG FORCE IS PUSHING EARTH
( WHY GRAPH THAT YOU SHOWED NOT CONTAIN SPEED ???!!!)
speed is changing force ??
( changing colour ) changing Hz ???



Distance D = constant !
/SUN's power = constant !
/ L1 , L2 , L3 ?



SPECTRUM ??? left/right situation








Edited by newton (07/08/16 11:32 AM)

Top
#56239 - 07/08/16 12:16 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: newton]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
AR2 can you remove the Marosz spam its getting annoying. Just random unintelligent rantings that no one can understand and we have seen 50 times.


Edited by Orac (07/08/16 01:36 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56243 - 07/08/16 03:27 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
What Im saying is the below.

when an atom on the sun cools.

the cooling atom releases energy.

the energy that the atom releases is not instantaneously released
it is released over a period of time as the atom cools.

if you could view the atom in slow motion as the atom cools
then you would see the electrons of the atom changing their
orbit around the nucleus from a higher orbit to a lower orbit
and a energy release is a result.

Im not certain but I would think that the energy release
would occur first followed by the electrons reducing their
orbits.

but it may be a simultaneous balance that occurs in the
atoms excess energy as the atom cools.

the energy that is released can be matched to the
energy that would be required to cause the electrons to
move to their former higher orbit.

and the energy that is radiated away from the atom is at the
specific energy that the electrons had in their former higher orbits minus the energy that they have in their present lower orbits.

each successive energy release would be lower than the previous
energy release.

which corresponds with all of the graphs so far that
represent frequency and magnitude.

each color in the graph starts along the x line at the bottom
of the graph and it is this frequency in the graph that represent the time that the specific frequency (energy) is released from the atom.

so pretty much the entire spectrum is released from each
atom as it cools.

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

Top
#56244 - 07/09/16 02:53 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Ok lets say I buy that then how does the shape come about some sort of probability formula embedded in the atomic structure?

Your example above sort of assumes the orbitals are empty. The filament of an incandescent bulb Tungsten has around 74 electrons for example. You basically have 74 electrons rattling around is the same as one electron in hydrogen rattling around between levels. The problem is if you divid the heat energy by 74 into each electron based on energy the emission will be much lower than the single atom case.

What I am getting at is, an atom with one electron, is behaving the same as one with 13 or 33 or 74 or 98. It can't be just the outer electrons involved because you need all the frequencies so the larger atoms with more electrons have to push other electrons out causing multiple emissions yet the emission shape stays the same matching a formula?

I think you might want to read the formula of that graph that Planck derived about the energy relationship regardless of if you except the reason there is a ratio between the energy and the spectrum which you need to account for.

However at this forum level I am not sure it matters how you want to think of the process so long as you recognize the strange graph shape as a thermal signature it will do. So the sun emission of light is thermal and we can stop there.

The extension is are you happy the surface of the sun doing the emission is around 5000K even though we will never be able to go there and measure directly.


Edited by Orac (07/09/16 06:11 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56245 - 07/09/16 02:20 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: paul



the graph shows how the atom is releasing its energy
from looking at the way that the energy is released in
the graph as the atoms cool, they slowly begin to release
tiny amounts of energy @ 0 um then there is a progressively
larger amount of energy release that begins @ apx 0.2 um
that builds to the 5000 K curve in the graph.

each of the energy releases is a separate frequency in
the spectrum.

the graph only shows the blue , green and red lines

would I be wrong if I said that each of the colored lines
in the graph represented a single energy release from the
same atom as it cools and streams energy?

would I be wrong if I said that the entire spectrum of
frequencies is a continuous stream of separate energy releases
as single atoms stream the excess energy as they cool.

so that as each atom cools it is following a precise order
of energy releases that can be considered a packet of all
frequencies.
...it sounds like you're thinking of the unique electronic transitions, that are a characteristic of each element,
which create the emission and absorption "line spectra" such as the lower two spectra below:

...so first, yes, and then no, (but see below) on your two questions from above.
===

Paul, I think (but will defer to Orac for clarity or corrections) that your graph
is a graph representing (the spectrum from)
a lot of atoms (such as the sun)
...though I suppose you could think of it as the graph of one atom, over a lot of time, cooling from the high frequencies down to the lower frequencies. wink

The point though, should be that the graph represents the collective emissions from,
all the many atoms of, a blackbody (defined as a good absorber and emitter).

Most of the emissions are at the peak of the curve, and very few of the emissions are out at the tiny tail (or head) of the curve.

The height of the curve, directly above any particular frequency listed on the x axis,
tells you how much Intensity comes from that particular frequency.

Compared with the large number of atoms that are radiating at the frequency of the peak,
if just a few atoms are radiating (or if many atoms rarely radiate) at some other frequencies,
then the curve will be proportionally lower at those other frequencies.
===

There is more to the story, I think, about how photons are propagated ...as they convey and distribute energy about,
but this different perspective may help you better understand Orac's answers.

And, as Orac mentioned (on the difference between the theories)
here is something to consider ...in the long run:


~
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#56246 - 07/10/16 12:34 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
how does the shape come about


ok, as the extremely hot atoms move closer to the surface
they are in the process of cooling , yet there is still
a way to go until they reach the surface so a portion of
the energy or heat that the atoms release is transfered into
the cooler atoms above them.

this continues as the atoms stream energy while being
transported to the surface very fast.

this causes the curve that you see in the graph.

perhaps.

think about holding a water hose under water and pointing
the water stream upwards , now slowly move the hose upwards
you will see the stream of water lengthens as the nozzle
gets closer to the surface of the water.

kind of like that anyway.

I think that a hydrogen atom would work just fine
it could store energy really well simply by increasing
its size ( electron orbit ).

and I dont think that there is any absorption or emission
occurring so it can only be thermal energy that is released.

the more I think about it the more I like the idea of single
atoms streaming the full spectrum.

and what I mean above is that a single atom streams the
entire spectrum of frequencies as it cools.

like this...

a1 streams the entire spectrum
followed by
a2 streams the entire spectrum
followed by
a3 streams the entire spectrum
followed by
a4 streams the entire spectrum
followed by
a5 streams the entire spectrum
etc...

so basically the highest intensity energy release is the
first to go then each successive energy release is lower
that the previous energy release.

this way we would get tightly packaged packets
of frequencies ( vibrations ) and these are
what we call photons.

ok ,think about the atoms being strobe lights that
are powered by a battery that is quickly consumed
... each flash of light being dimmer than the previous
flash of light.

only the atom is releasing its energy as vibrations.

that we call thermal energy.



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

Top
#56247 - 07/10/16 02:36 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
For a layman that is close enough and you have got it that the process is atomic/molecule level.

It has to be because in classical physics when you measure temperature (heat) with a thermometer etc it is translated as the kinetic energy of movement speed of the molecules/atoms in the gas/solid/liquid not the speed of the electrons around the orbitals (energy levels of the electrons) in the atom/molecule.

In classical physics the explaination involved with thermal radiation is that if you take a gas of atoms/molecules and confine it to a region of space (solids and liquids do that automatically) containing some radiation field with some characteristic temperature, the atoms and the radiation will eventually come to some equilibrium in which the kinetic energy distribution of the atoms and the frequency spectrum of the radiation will have the same characteristic temperature.

In that explaination lies the fact the radiation and the kinetic energy are both forms of energy and are actively connected.

The problem for classical physics is there exist no formula and no explaination for the connection and hence no reason for the shape of the spectrum. If you assume they are connected your mathematics will fail as that shape is very strange it has some very strange properties.

What Planck did was work out that if one makes a premise of a resonant vibration that has distinct steps (quantization) the mathematics gives you that shape of emission. So his logic was there must be a resonant connection between the molecule/atom kinetic energy and the thermal spectrum (AKA light) and that set the stage to then try and measure and quantify that connection, what it is and how it works.

Planck had removed a foundation stone of classical physics and it largely went unnoticed for another twenty-five years until classical physics would ultimately collapse as it would be connected to other inconsistencies that were found.


Edited by Orac (07/10/16 03:14 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56248 - 07/10/16 08:05 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
What Planck did was work out that if one makes a premise of a resonant vibration that has distinct steps


carry that a little further and you can have distinct lines
that can be translated into distinct frequencies / vibrations
as in hyperfine lines of electron orbits.

we should recognize that as the electron drops to a lower
orbit it would not follow a precisely calculated change
in energy level ... it simply changes its energy level
as the atom cools and releases thermal energy ( vibrations ).

so instead of the electron dropping to a energy level
that corresponds with known observations over a period
of time , the electron is dropping to that known energy level
but not all at one time.

the electron is going through many energy level changes
in order to reach that known energy level in that period of time.

and each time the electron drops slightly there is a
corresponding energy release of thermal energy ( vibrations)
that are each lower than the previous energy release.

and the energy level changes are due to the cooling of
the atom.


and this is how the full spectrum is emitted from the sun
and enters the earths atmosphere.

and this is why co2 absorbs inbound radiation from the sun.

causing the earth to cool.

by blocking the thermal heat from the sun.

the more co2 there is in the atmosphere the cooler
the earth will become.

sam wont like this ... oh well.

neither will the tens of thousands of people who depend
on the climate change due to co2 = warming + scam money
funding opportunities that supply them with a income.

oh well.

thats where I was going with this.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56249 - 07/11/16 02:41 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I don't do politics and conspiracy theories ... I will leave that to someone who may be interested to discuss.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56250 - 07/11/16 03:34 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
it would be nice if science wasnt involved in politics
or conspiracy theories but the facts are the facts and
when the funding money is mostly granted to those who
promote climate change and warming due to co2 and when
politics also is geared to accept the findings that co2
is causing warming and mostly demanding those findings
by mostly funding the applications that are seeking to study
the effects of co2 as a reason for the warming
(that isnt happening) then it sets up the conspiracy through politics.

the government funding should not be biased and should be
seeking actual effects not wanted effects.

the fact that we pretty much hashed this out in a few days
sort of tells the whole story about the deception within
the climate change due to co2 causing warming cartel.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56251 - 07/12/16 03:21 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: paul
"What Planck did was work out that if one makes a premise of a resonant
vibration that has distinct steps" -Orac


carry that a little further and you can have distinct lines
that can be translated into distinct frequencies / vibrations
as in hyperfine lines of electron orbits.

we should recognize that as the electron drops to a lower
orbit it would not follow a precisely calculated change
in energy level ... it simply changes its energy level
as the atom cools and releases thermal energy ( vibrations ).

so instead of the electron dropping to a energy level
that corresponds with known observations over a period
of time , the electron is dropping to that known energy level
but not all at one time.

the electron is going through many energy level changes
in order to reach that known energy level in that period of time.

and each time the electron drops slightly there is a
corresponding energy release of thermal energy ( vibrations)
that are each lower than the previous energy release.

and the energy level changes are due to the cooling of
the atom.

and this is how the full spectrum is emitted from the sun
and enters the earths atmosphere.

and this is why co2 absorbs inbound radiation from the sun.

causing the earth to cool.

by blocking the thermal heat from the sun.

the more co2 there is in the atmosphere the cooler
the earth will become.

sam wont like this ... oh well.

neither will the tens of thousands of people who depend
on the climate change due to co2 = warming + scam money
funding opportunities that supply them with a income.

oh well.

thats where I was going with this.
...methinks thou doth protest so much, Paul, that your agenda is obvious!

Your efforts to deny or overlook the validity of the sciences in general,
and to also contrive your own "just so" stories of science, must have a purpose; shocked
because your stories seem to always support your agenda—wherever you are "going with this."

===

Paul, it is nice you can see, in whatever way, that an “atom is releasing its energy” in a process we observe
as thermal energy, or “we call thermal energy,” in the form of electromagnetic radiation we call photons.

Perhaps it is just easier for you to think of one atom, cooling progressively, but I think that logic doesn’t work.
If an atom emitted that “highest energy” photon to begin with, it would then become a cooler, low energy atom.
Where would the energy to emit the next “almost highest energy,” or “next-highest energy,” photon come from?

The picture should work better, if you see how, for any large group of atoms (at some average temperature),
at any given time the group will consist of some atoms that are hotter than average and others that are cooler than average.

Those hotter and cooler atoms radiate at frequencies that create the head and tail of the curve/spectrum,
while most of the atoms (the peak intensity for the curve) will be radiating at (or nearer to) the frequency
for that average temperature.
===

But it's good you seem to better understand thermal radiation now, and whatever story you need to tell yourself
(however inaccurate it may be), at least we can agree on the nature of the spectrum it generates.

Though Paul, even if we accept your ideas about "hyperfine lines" your logic still doesn't follow.
How does your explanation, about atoms radiating heat, suddenly relate to the topic of CO2?
And what does your point about how "co2 absorbs inbound radiation from the sun" have to do with anything
that I might not like about greenhouse warming?

The greenhouse effect is driven by the "upgoing" long-wave heat,
but not by the "downgoing" short-wave heat. What is your point?



We've been over this before, several times, but maybe this new picture will help
you see why the incoming heat, in sunlight, isn't relevant as you had suggested above.
~ wink

===
And thank you Orac, for your most interesting and informative post:
Originally Posted By: Orac
For a layman that is close enough and you have got it that the process is atomic/molecule level.

It has to be because in classical physics when you measure temperature (heat) with a thermometer etc it is translated as the kinetic energy of movement speed of the molecules/atoms in the gas/solid/liquid not the speed of the electrons around the orbitals (energy levels of the electrons) in the atom/molecule.

In classical physics the explaination involved with thermal radiation is that if you take a gas of atoms/molecules and confine it to a region of space (solids and liquids do that automatically) containing some radiation field with some characteristic temperature, the atoms and the radiation will eventually come to some equilibrium in which the kinetic energy distribution of the atoms and the frequency spectrum of the radiation will have the same characteristic temperature.

In that explaination lies the fact the radiation and the kinetic energy are both forms of energy and are actively connected.

The problem for classical physics is there exist no formula and no explaination for the connection and hence no reason for the shape of the spectrum. If you assume they are connected your mathematics will fail as that shape is very strange it has some very strange properties.

What Planck did was work out that if one makes a premise of a resonant vibration that has distinct steps (quantization) the mathematics gives you that shape of emission. So his logic was there must be a resonant connection between the molecule/atom kinetic energy and the thermal spectrum (AKA light) and that set the stage to then try and measure and quantify that connection, what it is and how it works.

Planck had removed a foundation stone of classical physics and it largely went unnoticed for another twenty-five years until classical physics would ultimately collapse as it would be connected to other inconsistencies that were found.
good, on topic, sunlight ...certainly worthy of repeating.
~ cool
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#56252 - 07/13/16 03:04 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Where would the energy to emit the next “almost highest energy,” or “next-highest energy,” photon come from?


the same place !!!

the atom continues to release its excess energy.

Quote:
Those hotter and cooler atoms radiate at frequencies that create the head and tail of the curve/spectrum,
while most of the atoms (the peak intensity for the curve) will be radiating at (or nearer to) the frequency
for that average temperature.


what would be the difference between examining one atom as it
cools and examining a group of atoms as they cool.

I would think that the one would represent the group.

by examining a group of atoms all your going to do is
make the examination more difficult and harder to understand.

not that you would intentionally do anything like that.

Quote:
Though Paul, even if we accept your ideas about "hyperfine lines" your logic still doesn't follow.


its not mine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_structure

Quote:
In atomic physics, hyperfine structure is the different effects leading to small shifts and splittings in the energy levels of atoms, molecules and ions.


the atoms we are discussing were not super heated by photon
absorption that caused the electron to increase its orbit
they were slowly heated after they cooled enough to hold
an electron.

and photon emission from the atom is due to a continuous
cooling.

the atoms in its proximity are also cooling from a
super heated / energized state and most likely cannot absorb
a photon so the photon is radiated away from the atom/atoms.

Quote:
And what does your point about how "co2 absorbs inbound radiation from the sun" have to do with anything
that I might not like about greenhouse warming?


I was just thinking that you wouldnt like it because it
isnt in line with your beliefs because the inbound
radiation causes the co2 in the atmosphere
to become saturated as they become energized and that
isnt what is being preached by the global warming cartel .

so all day long ( daylight ) the normal state (non energized)
co2 molecules in the atmosphere will be blocking the inbound photons from the sun that they absorb.

and the energized co2 in the atmosphere cannot
absorb another photon until they emit a photon.

but as soon as co2 in the atmosphere emits
a photon in the daytime it is re-energized by inbound
radiation from the sun.

Quote:
The greenhouse effect is driven by the "upgoing" long-wave heat,
but not by the "downgoing" short-wave heat. What is your point?


my point is that this pretty much removes your entire greenhouse effect during daylight hours.

but if its any consolation to you and yours the co2 will
warm the planet at night if it emits a photon towards the
earth.

but all day long the co2 pretty much just blocks the radiation
from the sun.

so in order to debunk this the global warming due to co2 cartel
will need to show that the sun does not emit the full spectrum
and that it only emits photons from individual
atoms in all the required modes to produce all the required frequencies from the available atoms that actually are on the
sun that just so happen to only have the frequencies that would allow the greenhouse effect to work the way that they believe
or want it to work.

because if the sun emits the full spectrum then the co2 in
the atmosphere will absorb the emitted photons that are in
the required frequency.

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

Top
#56254 - 07/13/16 09:23 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Where would the energy to emit the next “almost highest energy,” or “next-highest energy,” photon come from?


the same place !!!

the atom continues to release its excess energy.
What place? Is your single atom isolated and cooling only, or is it being constantly supplied with excess energy?
Some of your deductions make sense from only one perspective,
but then different conclusions you post only make sense from the other perspective.


Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Those hotter and cooler atoms radiate at frequencies that create the head and tail of the curve/spectrum,
while most of the atoms (the peak intensity for the curve) will be radiating at (or nearer to) the frequency
for that average temperature.


what would be the difference between examining one atom as it
cools and examining a group of atoms as they cool.

I would think that the one would represent the group.
Because the “group of atoms” isn’t cooling, is it?
Is the sun cooling? I think over the past few billion years the sun has been increasing its temperature.
If I recall correctly, paleoclimatology shows that the “solar constant” is still steadily increasing.

So how do you get that continuous spectrum, covering a broad range of frequencies (and temperatures),
if you must wait for each single atom to cool enough to have lost all the energy that we see in every snapshot of the solar spectrum.


Originally Posted By: paul
by examining a group of atoms all your going to do is
make the examination more difficult and harder to understand.

not that you would intentionally do anything like that.
Well....
It is the difference between examining reality,
or examining your speculations, based on oversimplified thought experiments, on how you see reality operating.


Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Though Paul, even if we accept your ideas about "hyperfine lines" your logic still doesn't follow.


its not mine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_structure

Quote:
In atomic physics, hyperfine structure is the different effects leading to small shifts and splittings in the energy levels of atoms, molecules and ions.
Congratulations Paul!
It’s good to see you’re doing some real research.
That sounds like good information, and it seems like that might help explain a lot.

But do you think every atom goes through every possible combination of hyperfine divisions, as it cools, or just the isolated atom you’d be measuring?
I don’t think you can get the full solar spectrum from just one atom, even if you wait long enough for it to cool all the way to absolute zero.


Originally Posted By: paul
the atoms we are discussing were not super heated by photon
absorption that caused the electron to increase its orbit
they were slowly heated after they cooled enough to hold
an electron.

and photon emission from the atom is due to a continuous
cooling.

the atoms in its proximity are also cooling from a
super heated / energized state and most likely cannot absorb
a photon so the photon is radiated away from the atom/atoms.
Well, I’m glad to see you’re maybe starting to see the need for a group of atoms,
if you want to describe what is really creating the solar spectrum.


Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
And what does your point about how "co2 absorbs inbound radiation from the sun" have to do with anything
that I might not like about greenhouse warming?

I was just thinking that you wouldnt like it because it
isnt in line with your beliefs because the inbound
radiation causes the co2 in the atmosphere
to become saturated as they become energized and that
isnt what is being preached by the global warming cartel .

so all day long ( daylight ) the normal state (non energized)
co2 molecules in the atmosphere will be blocking the inbound photons from the sun that they absorb.

and the energized co2 in the atmosphere cannot
absorb another photon until they emit a photon.

but as soon as co2 in the atmosphere emits
a photon in the daytime it is re-energized by inbound
radiation from the sun.

Quote:
The greenhouse effect is driven by the "upgoing" long-wave heat,
but not by the "downgoing" short-wave heat. What is your point?

my point is that this pretty much removes your entire greenhouse effect during daylight hours.

but if its any consolation to you and yours the co2 will
warm the planet at night if it emits a photon towards the
earth.

but all day long the co2 pretty much just blocks the radiation
from the sun.

so in order to debunk this the global warming due to co2 cartel
will need to show that the sun does not emit the full spectrum
and that it only emits photons from individual
atoms in all the required modes to produce all the required frequencies from the available atoms that actually are on the
sun that just so happen to only have the frequencies that would allow the greenhouse effect to work the way that they believe
or want it to work.
Well, that is a relief!
So I don’t need to worry,
since your latest “just so” story is as flawed as most of your “interpretations” of how reality works.

By your logic here, a greenhouse shouldn’t work either, since it is blocking all that heat coming from the sun. wink


Originally Posted By: paul
because if the sun emits the full spectrum then the co2 in
the atmosphere will absorb the emitted photons that are in
the required frequency.
I know that speaking theoretically about blackbody radiation,
we’ve talked about how “the full spectrum” is emitted, at least perhaps at some minimal intensity.


But Paul, did you look at that spectrum of the sun you posted?
Do you see what those pictures posted on this thread show?

The only solar energy that is blocked by CO2 is shorter than (to the left of) 3 microns.
And there is very little “Intensity,” coming from the sun, at those wavelengths where CO2 would block any incoming part of the spectrum.

The planet cools by radiating away the longer-wave heat (to the right of 3 microns) from the planet, as the graph I posted above shows.

It is this longer-wave heat loss that is relevant to the greenhouse effect, as the graph above shows,
since that outgoing heat is being blocked more and more by higher CO2 levels.

Do you not see the huge difference, on that graph above, between the left (incoming) and right (outgoing) sides?
~

p.s. It is good to hear you admit that "the co2 will warm the planet at night," at least.
Even if the warming occurred for just an hour, it apparently is enough to be warming the oceans and the crust,
as well as warming the air and melting our planet's ice reserves, on average, 24/7/365 globally.


Edited by samwik (07/13/16 10:31 AM)
Edit Reason: add p.s.
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
Page 3 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.