Map Makers Show Greenland Sections As Ice Free To Please AGW Advocates

[wirebender]

lets look at the basis again. the earth radiates IR as a black body. agreed?

No. The earth does not radiate as a blackbody. That assumption is why the greenhouse effect had to be concocted in the first place. The energy budget models assume that the earth radiates like a black body and they divide energy in the form of P/4. That, in effect makes a flat plane of the earth that is receiving sunlight approximating twilight 24 hours a day. You can divide energy radiating from a blackboy in the form of P/4 because a blackbody is radiating approximately the same from anywhere on its surface. The earth is not a 360 degree self illuminated body as the climate modlers portray it to be. The earth is (as far as incoming energy is concerned) a 180 degree illuminated body and the energy input should be handled in the form of P/2. When a model represents the reality of earth, a fabricated greenhouse effect is not necessary to account for the temperature.

By the way Ian, I suggest that you look at this. It is only about 5 or 6 minutes and is an honest version of the famous greenhouse in a bottle experiment. Take not of how much warming CO2 is actually responsible for when one removes the heat of compression from the equation and places the CO2 in a more open atmosphere. You may as well face it Ian, you are the victim of a hoax. You might not have swallowed the whole thing hook line and sinker like rocks, thunder, konradv, et al, but you are most assuredly lip hooked. Giving up your faith in CO2's ability to warm the planet, to even a small degree, will be less embarassing now, than when the whole hoax is finally revealed as all hoaxes eventually are.

Greenhouse In A Bottle-Reconsidered

some of that IR is absorbed by CO2 and makes the molecule vibrate. agreed? the CO2 molecule then releases that IR in a random direction after some finite period of time. agreed? that slows the escape of energy even if the released photon then directly escapes into space. agreed? QED, CO2 warms the earth by slowing down the rate of heat loss.

Absorption and emission take place at, or very near the speed of light. The only molecule that effectively slows down the escape of heat energy from the atmosphere is water vapor as it is the only one that can actually retain energy.

but lets not stop there. H2O is a very good reflector of IR. it bounces IR right back at the earth at the speed of light (somewhat slower than in a vacuum because it is interacting with matter). therefore H2O also warms the earth by slowing the escape of earth's blackbod radiation although by a different mechanism.

H20 vapor is an absorber. It absorbs across the EM spectrum.

Research Highlight

 

[IanC]

lets look at the basis(edit- I meant to spell basics) again. the earth radiates IR as a black body. agreed?

No. The earth does not radiate as a blackbody. blackbody, greybody, it doesnt matter, the earth rasiates IR That assumption is why the greenhouse effect had to be concocted in the first place. The energy budget models assume that the earth radiates like a black body and they divide energy in the form of P/4. That, in effect makes a flat plane of the earth that is receiving sunlight approximating twilight 24 hours a day. You can divide energy radiating from a blackboy in the form of P/4 because a blackbody is radiating approximately the same from anywhere on its surface. The earth is not a 360 degree self illuminated body as the climate modlers portray it to be. The earth is (as far as incoming energy is concerned) a 180 degree illuminated body and the energy input should be handled in the form of P/2. When a model represents the reality of earth, a fabricated greenhouse effect is not necessary to account for the temperature.

By the way Ian, I suggest that you look at this. It is only about 5 or 6 minutes and is an honest version of the famous greenhouse in a bottle experiment. Take not of how much warming CO2 is actually responsible for when one removes the heat of compression from the equation and places the CO2 in a more open atmosphere. You may as well face it Ian, you are the victim of a hoax. You might not have swallowed the whole thing hook line and sinker like rocks, thunder, konradv, et al, but you are most assuredly lip hooked. Giving up your faith in CO2's ability to warm the planet, to even a small degree, will be less embarassing now, than when the whole hoax is finally revealed as all hoaxes eventually are. I have read that article and agree with much of it. I believe I was the first on this forum to post a link to it

Greenhouse In A Bottle-Reconsidered

some of that IR is absorbed by CO2 and makes the molecule vibrate. agreed? the CO2 molecule then releases that IR in a random direction after some finite period of time. agreed? that slows the escape of energy even if the released photon then directly escapes into space. agreed? QED, CO2 warms the earth by slowing down the rate of heat loss.

Absorption and emission take place at, or very near the speed of light. The only molecule that effectively slows down the escape of heat energy from the atmosphere is water vapor as it is the only one that can actually retain energy. relection and refraction happen at the speed of light for the medium. absorption of a photon and emission of a different photon happen at less than the speed of light usually

but lets not stop there. H2O is a very good reflector of IR. it bounces IR right back at the earth at the speed of light (somewhat slower than in a vacuum because it is interacting with matter). therefore H2O also warms the earth by slowing the escape of earth's blackbod radiation although by a different mechanism.

H20 vapor is an absorber. It absorbs across the EM spectrum. my apologies. in my haste to put something down last night I shortened water droplets in clouds to just H2O. water can also absorb IR as well as reflecting it. my statement "of course this is a very simplistic explanation and other things are happening but that doesnt change the fact that these two things do happen and they do help to warm the earth", would seem to cover this issue

Research Highlight

My point in this whole debate is that there is a physical mechanism that be described by the laws of physics which does show that CO2 contributes to the warming of the planet by slowing the escape of energy. People like konradv latch on to it because they can sort of understand it. there are no condtradictions to the thermodynamic laws because it is an open system, energy from the sun just flows in and flows out again. when you tell konradv that the only part of the system that he (sorta)understands is wrong by invoking bizarre and misguided personal versions of the laws of physics he is going to dismiss everything you say as the rantings of a denier crackpot. undecided people or moderate people who hear you saying that anyone who believes backradiation is part of the greenhouse effect are nothing but perpetual motion dupes are also going to tune you out. personally I agree with much of what you opine, but lose the crazy bender physics which is only giving the skeptical side a black eye.

 

[IanC]

gslack said-you aren't going to address the net energy being greater than that from its source? Ah ok then it must be what exactly? If radiation coming is absorbed and sent back out to the atmosphere as IR Radiation, where it interacts with greenhouse gases (in this case CO2) causing the molecules to vibrate which releases heat and much of that goes back down to the surface, and out into space, how in the hell do you explain all of that energy? If that where at all possible we could harness the IR vibrative properties of CO2 and create machines that power the entire planet using just a glass tube of CO2 gas and some conductors.. By endorsing this greenhouse theory as a climate driver rather than a response, you are in effect supporting perpetual motion machines.

what are you talking about? Trenberth's graphic of energy flow in and out of the planetary system? not that I agree necessarily with that graph but I thought you and wirebender were OK with fields cancelling out and leaving a net result? does it matter if there is an extra (10-10) or (1000-1000) as long as it balances in the end? you guys do realize that 1-1+1 still equals 1, right? or is it the vibration of the CO2 molecule that has you flustered? the molecule absorbs the photon and vibrates, until it emits a similar photon and stops vibrating. where is the extra energy that you are talking about?

you are the equivilent of Old Rock's lapdog konradv. you just serve a different master

 

[IanC]

I said wirebender was full of crap when he stated that EM fields could magically stop an IR photon emitted by a CO2 molecule from returning to earth. he then rambled about EM fields cancelling out each other.

You said it a great many times but it appears that you are completely unable to point to any error on my part either mathematically, or mis applied physical laws. And I did not ramble and it is dishonest of you to characterize my statments as rambling. Your need to poison the well tells your need to convince yourself that you are right in the face of information in whch you can find no error.

And there is no doubt that EM fields can cancel each other out.

photons only interact with matter.

False statement.

I asked him to give examples of photons interacting without matter. there should be lots of them, wirebender says it is an overwhelming effect going on around us all the time.

Which I did.

I dont mean to be crass, but is it possible for you to bump, quote or repost the comment or comments where you proved your points and did the math? I seemed to have missed it.

 

[gslack]

gslack said-you aren't going to address the net energy being greater than that from its source? Ah ok then it must be what exactly? If radiation coming is absorbed and sent back out to the atmosphere as IR Radiation, where it interacts with greenhouse gases (in this case CO2) causing the molecules to vibrate which releases heat and much of that goes back down to the surface, and out into space, how in the hell do you explain all of that energy? If that where at all possible we could harness the IR vibrative properties of CO2 and create machines that power the entire planet using just a glass tube of CO2 gas and some conductors.. By endorsing this greenhouse theory as a climate driver rather than a response, you are in effect supporting perpetual motion machines.

what are you talking about? Trenberth's graphic of energy flow in and out of the planetary system? not that I agree necessarily with that graph but I thought you and wirebender were OK with fields cancelling out and leaving a net result? does it matter if there is an extra (10-10) or (1000-1000) as long as it balances in the end? you guys do realize that 1-1+1 still equals 1, right? or is it the vibration of the CO2 molecule that has you flustered? the molecule absorbs the photon and vibrates, until it emits a similar photon and stops vibrating. where is the extra energy that you are talking about?

you are the equivilent of Old Rock's lapdog konradv. you just serve a different master

Ian if all you aren't going to address my point honestly why bother at all? I repeated it and you again try and play the dancing bear... Ok, I see... I think you are full of it Ian, completely full of it. When you want to grow up and get over your pride being hurt, let me know because I am done with your adolescent BS... You attack me for days and then try and pretend I attacked you. You lie about posts twice. You lie about what wirebender and I say, and you incessantly mince words and dance around the point like you are desperate to save face or in the least not say something that may be wrong again. Ian you just displayed the characteristics of oldsocks and his clone army.. Nice work...

 

[IanC]

[ QUOTE=gslack;4221636]

gslack said-you aren't going to address the net energy being greater than that from its source? Ah ok then it must be what exactly? If radiation coming is absorbed and sent back out to the atmosphere as IR Radiation, where it interacts with greenhouse gases (in this case CO2) causing the molecules to vibrate which releases heat and much of that goes back down to the surface, and out into space, how in the hell do you explain all of that energy? If that where at all possible we could harness the IR vibrative properties of CO2 and create machines that power the entire planet using just a glass tube of CO2 gas and some conductors.. By endorsing this greenhouse theory as a climate driver rather than a response, you are in effect supporting perpetual motion machines.

what are you talking about? Trenberth's graphic of energy flow in and out of the planetary system? not that I agree necessarily with that graph but I thought you and wirebender were OK with fields cancelling out and leaving a net result? does it matter if there is an extra (10-10) or (1000-1000) as long as it balances in the end? you guys do realize that 1-1+1 still equals 1, right? or is it the vibration of the CO2 molecule that has you flustered? the molecule absorbs the photon and vibrates, until it emits a similar photon and stops vibrating. where is the extra energy that you are talking about?

you are the equivilent of Old Rock's lapdog konradv. you just serve a different master

Ian if all you aren't going to address my point honestly why bother at all? I repeated it and you again try and play the dancing bear... Ok, I see... I think you are full of it Ian, completely full of it. When you want to grow up and get over your pride being hurt, let me know because I am done with your adolescent BS... You attack me for days and then try and pretend I attacked you. You lie about posts twice. You lie about what wirebender and I say, and you incessantly mince words and dance around the point like you are desperate to save face or in the least not say something that may be wrong again. Ian you just displayed the characteristics of oldsocks and his clone army.. Nice work...[/QUOTE]

I thought I did address your question. what part of my answer would you like me to expand upon? if you dont make your questions specific I can hardly be blamed for responding to what I thought you asked

 

[IanC]

quote from your first citation-

{photons} do not scatter off each other however since they can only exchange energy and momentum when in a medium.

Exchange energy and momentum when in a medium. Interesting phrase. I believe you stated earlier that photons go about at the speed of light till they hit something. If two photons exchange momentum, it would seem that one would end up at something less than the speed of light.

And that word medium. What do you think that word might mean Ian? You obviously didn't bother to take a look but lets turn to the "M's" in the science dictionary.

medium - A substance that makes possible the transfer of energy from one location to another, especially through waves. For example, matter of sufficient density can be a medium for sound waves, which transfer mechanical energy. See more at wave.

So now lets look at the information under wave:

wave - A disturbance, oscillation, or vibration, either of a medium and moving through that medium (such as water and sound waves), or of some quantity with different values at different points in space, moving through space (such as electromagnetic waves or a quantum mechanical wave described by the wave function). See also longitudinal wave, transverse wave, wave function. See Note at refraction.

It seems, Ian, that an EM field is a medium and as you so aptly pointed out from Gslack's post, that photons can exchange momentum and energy within a medium.

You are just grasping at straws at this point Ian, looking for anything that you might torture into conforming with your faith. It isn't going to happen. I wouldn't have taken this position in the first place without having done more research than I am willing to admit to. Unlike you Ian, I spent as much time looking for problems with my position as I did in forming the position. I am a chess player and it serves no purpose to develop a beautiful strategy in your mind if the guy you are sitting across takes your queen with a pawn. You have taken your position based on faith and a gross misunderstanding of the nature of electromagnetic waves.

I play chess too, and I have given up my queen for a pawn on many occasions. if you havent that suggests that you arent much of a chess player.

edit- using general definitions can lead to misunderstandings in specific cases. please give a citation that describes the actual annihilation of photons without matter as the intermediary under realistic conditions such as back radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere. I havent been able to find one even though you say it is happening around us all the time.

 

[wirebender]

edit- using general definitions can lead to misunderstandings in specific cases. please give a citation that describes the actual annihilation of photons without matter as the intermediary under realistic conditions such as back radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere. I havent been able to find one even though you say it is happening around us all the time.

I didn't use general definitions. All of the definitions I have provided have been from a scientific dictionary.

I have grown tired of playing with you Ian. You are wrong and simply refuse to acknowledge it. Here is a clue for you, refusing to acknowledge that you are wrong doesn't make you any less wrong.

When you subtract vectors when dealing with EM fields to determine the direction of propagation of the field, what exactly do you think you are subtracting since photons are the "stuff" that the EM field is composed of? You aren't going to find what you are looking for on the internet related to photons because it is too basic for anyone to bother putting on the internet.

It is well known that light waves can cancel each other out. That in and of itself is sufficient evidence that photons can cease to exist without the presence of matter. It is also well known and accepted that EM fields can diminish or cancel each other out and it is equally well known that photons are what EM fields are composed of.

Like it or not Ian, an EM field is a medium and it is also known that photons can exchange energy or momentum within a medium.

As to your request for the location of my mathematical proof to support my statement because you missed it, that is simply dishonest. You were right in the middle of it although you had no input into the conversation other than to say that I was barking at the moon or some such comment. You certainly had no comment on the mathematics being done or the physical laws being put to use. That being the case, find it yourself.

 

[gslack]

[ QUOTE=gslack;4221636]

gslack said-you aren't going to address the net energy being greater than that from its source? Ah ok then it must be what exactly? If radiation coming is absorbed and sent back out to the atmosphere as IR Radiation, where it interacts with greenhouse gases (in this case CO2) causing the molecules to vibrate which releases heat and much of that goes back down to the surface, and out into space, how in the hell do you explain all of that energy? If that where at all possible we could harness the IR vibrative properties of CO2 and create machines that power the entire planet using just a glass tube of CO2 gas and some conductors.. By endorsing this greenhouse theory as a climate driver rather than a response, you are in effect supporting perpetual motion machines.

what are you talking about? Trenberth's graphic of energy flow in and out of the planetary system? not that I agree necessarily with that graph but I thought you and wirebender were OK with fields cancelling out and leaving a net result? does it matter if there is an extra (10-10) or (1000-1000) as long as it balances in the end? you guys do realize that 1-1+1 still equals 1, right? or is it the vibration of the CO2 molecule that has you flustered? the molecule absorbs the photon and vibrates, until it emits a similar photon and stops vibrating. where is the extra energy that you are talking about?

you are the equivilent of Old Rock's lapdog konradv. you just serve a different master

Ian if all you aren't going to address my point honestly why bother at all? I repeated it and you again try and play the dancing bear... Ok, I see... I think you are full of it Ian, completely full of it. When you want to grow up and get over your pride being hurt, let me know because I am done with your adolescent BS... You attack me for days and then try and pretend I attacked you. You lie about posts twice. You lie about what wirebender and I say, and you incessantly mince words and dance around the point like you are desperate to save face or in the least not say something that may be wrong again. Ian you just displayed the characteristics of oldsocks and his clone army.. Nice work...

I thought I did address your question. what part of my answer would you like me to expand upon? if you dont make your questions specific I can hardly be blamed for responding to what I thought you asked[/QUOTE]

Ian you have shown yourself to be a tiresome bullshitter, and I for one am no longer amused by you.. You have been deliberately dancing around my points. You don't address them, you make a new or slightly altered version of that point and YOU answer it for yourself... Thats dishonest and shows your true nature. You won't address wirebenders math directly with honesty and integrity or even any real sincerity at all, and you won't even directly address the simplistic concept I gave you... Pathetic..

Either you have such a fear of being wrong you won't allow yourself to be, or you are just talking shit with a little bit of knowledge to make it seem believable. Either way you have shown you have no problem lying to save face, and that I cannot stand. Anyone can be afraid Ian, but to be so afraid of just being wrong you resort to this nonsense is something else... You go on bullshitting and posturing, now I know what type of person I am dealing with...

 

[IanC]

gslack said-you aren't going to address the net energy being greater than that from its source? Ah ok then it must be what exactly? If radiation coming is absorbed and sent back out to the atmosphere as IR Radiation, where it interacts with greenhouse gases (in this case CO2) causing the molecules to vibrate which releases heat and much of that goes back down to the surface, and out into space, how in the hell do you explain all of that energy? If that where at all possible we could harness the IR vibrative properties of CO2 and create machines that power the entire planet using just a glass tube of CO2 gas and some conductors.. By endorsing this greenhouse theory as a climate driver rather than a response, you are in effect supporting perpetual motion machines.

is this the direct quote you want me to respond to?

do you want to make any clarifications to it before I respond?

 

[IanC]

edit- using general definitions can lead to misunderstandings in specific cases. please give a citation that describes the actual annihilation of photons without matter as the intermediary under realistic conditions such as back radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere. I havent been able to find one even though you say it is happening around us all the time.

I didn't use general definitions. All of the definitions I have provided have been from a scientific dictionary.

I have grown tired of playing with you Ian. You are wrong and simply refuse to acknowledge it. Here is a clue for you, refusing to acknowledge that you are wrong doesn't make you any less wrong.

When you subtract vectors when dealing with EM fields to determine the direction of propagation of the field, what exactly do you think you are subtracting since photons are the "stuff" that the EM field is composed of? You aren't going to find what you are looking for on the internet related to photons because it is too basic for anyone to bother putting on the internet.

It is well known that light waves can cancel each other out. That in and of itself is sufficient evidence that photons can cease to exist without the presence of matter. It is also well known and accepted that EM fields can diminish or cancel each other out and it is equally well known that photons are what EM fields are composed of.

Like it or not Ian, an EM field is a medium and it is also known that photons can exchange energy or momentum within a medium.

As to your request for the location of my mathematical proof to support my statement because you missed it, that is simply dishonest. You were right in the middle of it although you had no input into the conversation other than to say that I was barking at the moon or some such comment. You certainly had no comment on the mathematics being done or the physical laws being put to use. That being the case, find it yourself.

I am truely sorry that you dont want to respond to my simple request. are you sure you cannot find even a blog or message board that nominally agrees with your theories?

 

[IanC]

Anthony Yeh, Ph.D. student in Optoelectronics

4 votes by Alex K. Chen, John Clover, Joshua Engel, and Joseph Quattrocchi
No, changes in the electromagnetic field do not affect photons in the absence of matter (under normal circumstances*).

When light propagates through matter, the matter can of course affect the photons. However, based on the description of your question, I assume you are asking about photons in some electromagnetic field in the absence of matter.

Changes in the electromagnetic field do not affect photons because photons are also merely changes in the electromagnetic field, and multiple contributions to the field will simply add together without affecting each other. This is known as linearity or the superposition principle. The following related question applies equally to any wavelength of EM waves:

Why don't electromagnetic signals all obscure each other?

When a traveling disturbance in the field (say, a photon) encounters a stationary one (say, a local, static electromagnetic field), it will simply pass through and then continue on as if they never met. This is part of the nature of wave propagation in general.

Consider a local field of uniform strength sitting still at some point. If a disturbance passes through, it will add together while it coincides with the stationary field, but after it passes, it will continue unaffected.



This also applies for disturbances passing through dynamic fields, or even multiple disturbances passing through one another (i.e. photons do not affect each other). No matter how complicated or ugly an electromagnetic field gets, photons will still pass through it unaffected as long as there is no matter around to get in their way.



What happens if there is matter present?

Pretty much anything can happen. That's the joy of optoelectronics.

* What are "normal circumstances"?

When energy densities become extremely high (such as might be found shortly after the Big Bang, or potentially in a particle accelerator), light can start to interact with itself in nonlinear ways (other than simply adding together). However, this is not a common occurance, so for the most part you can think of light as never interacting with itself (in the absence of matter) except by simple summation and superposition.
This answer .Please specify the necessary improvements. Edit Link Text Show answer summary preview when available. UpdateLink to Questions, Topics and PeopleAddFind Questions, Topics or PeopleCancelFlag Answer
Add CommentLoading... • 5:18 on Wed Jun 29 2011Cannot add comment if you are logged out. Jay Wacker, Faculty at Stanford/SLAC in theoreti...
3 votes by Joshua Engel, Anthony Yeh, and John Clover
Anthony Yeh is completely correct.

The way that an electromagnetic field can alter the propagation of a photon (the excitation of the electromagnetic field) is through non-linear effects in electrodynamics.

If electrodynamics was completely linear, then you could take any two field configurations and add them together and they would behave completely independently.

Electrodynamics is not completely linear and the non-linearity arises because the electromagnetic field alters charged matter and charged matter can alter the electromagnetic field. Typically these effects are very small but can appear in several circumstances.

The best studied non-linear electrodynamics effect arises through non-linear polarizable materials. If you look through an undergraduate electrodynamics text under polarizability, it will first define polarizability and then immediately make the linear approximation. However, this doesn't have to be the case and there are several highly non-linear polarizable materials. This is an active field of research in physics and applied physics.

At a more fundamental level, the vacuum of electrodynamics induces non-linear polarizability due to quantum fluctuations that cause photons to interact with themselves. The effects are well-approximated by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian which is the cubic approximation to the polarizability of the vacuum. In some astrophysical circumstances, the Euler-Heisenberg approximation isn't good enough and it is possible to resum this correction and get an all-orders approximation to the polarizability of the vacuum. The best known example of this are magnetar neutron stars that have magnetic fields that are of the order of .
This answer .Please specify the necessary improvements. Edit Link Text Show answer summary preview when available. UpdateLink to Questions, Topics and PeopleAddFind Questions, Topics or PeopleCancelFlag Answer
1 CommentLoading... • 9:47 on Wed Jun 29 2011Cannot add comment if you are logged out.
Joshua Engel > Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian

Man, Euler gets his name on EVERYTHING.

(Yes, I'm aware it's a different Euler. I wasn't aware until I looked it up that this one died in the Luftwaffe. Seems like the sort of thing that should have gotten a mention in the play Copenhagen.)Comment downvoted • 9:53 on Wed Jun 29 2011
Cannot add reply if you are logged out.9:53 on Wed Jun 29 2011 Debo Olaosebikan, Physics PhD. candidate at Cornell. Wo...
2 votes by Anthony Yeh and John Clover
While Anthony Yeh and Jay Wacker are correct in the aspects they have addressed, I believe an important source of confusion is the following assumption made by the OP:

"The matter photons travel through are electromagnetic fields"

The OP is first trying to understand

1) what a photon and an electromagnetic field really are

2) what medium the photon travels through

Before understanding

3) How a particular photon is affected when it travels through a medium... possibly in the presence of other photons.

3) Has been addressed pretty well, so I'd just talk about 1) and 2) in as simple a way as possible so as to keep things short.

1) A photon is the smallest packet of electromagnetic energy. Therefore a bunch of photons make up an electromagnetic field. Thus it is not always correct to think of a photon "travelling through" a field. A collection of photons give rise to a field.

2) Does the photon have to travel through a medium, in the same way that sound (or mechanical) waves do? You are actually not the first to wonder about this and the question was actually the source of a long drawn out debate in the 19th Century. It was thought that light travelled through something called the "Luminiferous aether" or "Aether" for short [1].

It turned out (via the Michelson-Morley Experiment) that as far as we know there was no such thing.

Light Waves/Photons/Electromagnetic fields do not need a separate medium to propagate in the same way that mechanical waves do.

They are fine propagating through vacuum.

The resolution of this issue is a cornerstone of the story of relativity.


[1] Lum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...
This answer .Please specify the necessary improvements. Edit Link Text Show answer summary preview when available. UpdateLink to Questions, Topics and PeopleAddFind Questions, Topics or PeopleCancelFlag Answer
Add CommentLoading... • 11:7 on Wed Jun 29 2011Cannot add comment if you are logged out. José Ignacio Merino, PhD on Plasma Physics a long time ago...

Really photons are the particles that transmits the electromagnetic force.

If you have a positive charged particle and a negative charged particle they attract because they exchange photons. Not true photons, instead "virtual photons". A true photon is a photon traveling from the space, but a "virtual photon" is a photon used to exchange between particles and only is used on the exchange.

Why a virtual photon and not a real photon? Think on a positive charged particle (for example a proton). The particle can't emit photons to the world saying "Hey, I'm here and I have a positive charge". If that happen, the photons steal energy to the particle. Then the photons are virtual. Really the photons only appears if a charged particle is on his neighbourhood. If there's no particle near, no photons are emmited.

Then if a change on the electromagnetic field happen, sure photons will be affected. How? Probably change the speed of light.

That's a interesting question. Was the speed of light the same on the early ages of the Universe? Will be the same on the future? Is the same on another part of the Universe? That's mean that the electromagnetic field was, will or is different.
This answer .Please specify the necessary improvements. Edit Link Text Show answer summary preview when available. UpdateLink to Questions, Topics and PeopleAddFind Questions, Topics or PeopleCancelFlag Answer
1+ CommentsLoading... • 5:25 on Tue Mar 8 2011Cannot add comment if you are logged out.
Shai Ki So it's not actually correct to say that the speed of light is constant, then?
Different electromagnetic fields can make a difference...
So if we take the example of sound again-sound travels faster through solid than through gas. Will fields that are stronger have an affect like a dense matter has on sounds? Would it mean a faster speed of light?Comment downvoted • 6:17 on Tue Mar 8 2011
Cannot add reply if you are logged out.6:17 on Tue Mar 8 2011
José Ignacio Merino No, it's correct to say that the speed of light is constant as it's correct to say that "all crowns are black".

If I say "all crowns are black" I mean "nobody has seen a non-black crown".

The speed of light is constant, but nobody knows if in other part of the Universe takes a different value or in the past/future was/will different.

It's only a speculation and there's physicist that try to investigate this (measuring the properties of light when pass through a distant interestelar plasma cloud) so theorize about a different speed of light isn't science fiction.

Why does physicist think speed of light could be different in early ages of Universe? Because speed of light depends on 2 properties of vacuum (electric permittivity of vacuum and magnetical permeability of vacuum). Then the vacuum has properties, then the vacuum isn't so vacuum...

Physicist suspect that there's something in the vacuum. Some physicist called to that thing "quantum foam". Has that "quantum foam" the same properties in the Universe? Was/Will the same properties in the past/future? Nobody knows... Even isn't proven that quantum foam exits.. It's only a suspect.Comment downvoted • 2:46 on Thu Mar 10 2011
Cannot add reply if you are logged out.2:46 on Thu Mar 10 2011Shai Ki: “So even though photons are waves in ...”José Ignacio Merino: “No, it's correct to say that the speed ...” Add Answer
BIU

@

Edit Link Text Show answer summary preview when available. UpdateLink to Questions, Topics and PeopleAddFind Questions, Topics or People

Do changes in the electromagnetic field affect photons? - Quora

here is one that agrees with me.

 

[wirebender]

I am truely sorry that you dont want to respond to my simple request. are you sure you cannot find even a blog or message board that nominally agrees with your theories?

This may come as a surprise to you Ian, but what I know generally comes from textbooks. Strange concept to you I guess, but there it is.

 

[wirebender]

here is one that agrees with me.

Seems more in agreement with me Ian. It states explicitly that photons are the stuff that EM fields are made of. If you diminish the mangnitude of an EM field, you are diminishing photons; it can't be any other way. I also note that your student didn't touch on interference, destructive or non destructive, or the subtraction of EM field vectors.

Again, I refer you to wave-particle duality. Till you understand that particles alone don't adequately describe the visible and measurable phenomena with EM fields, you won't have the information necessary to understand what is happening. You are stuck on particles and particles alone aren't even half the story.

 

[gslack]

gslack said-you aren't going to address the net energy being greater than that from its source? Ah ok then it must be what exactly? If radiation coming is absorbed and sent back out to the atmosphere as IR Radiation, where it interacts with greenhouse gases (in this case CO2) causing the molecules to vibrate which releases heat and much of that goes back down to the surface, and out into space, how in the hell do you explain all of that energy? If that where at all possible we could harness the IR vibrative properties of CO2 and create machines that power the entire planet using just a glass tube of CO2 gas and some conductors.. By endorsing this greenhouse theory as a climate driver rather than a response, you are in effect supporting perpetual motion machines.

is this the direct quote you want me to respond to?

do you want to make any clarifications to it before I respond?

Ladies and gentlemen, Ian the dancing bear!

 

[konradv]

gslack said-you aren't going to address the net energy being greater than that from its source? Ah ok then it must be what exactly? If radiation coming is absorbed and sent back out to the atmosphere as ir radiation, where it interacts with greenhouse gases (in this case co2) causing the molecules to vibrate which releases heat and much of that goes back down to the surface, and out into space, how in the hell do you explain all of that energy? If that where at all possible we could harness the ir vibrative properties of co2 and create machines that power the entire planet using just a glass tube of co2 gas and some conductors.. By endorsing this greenhouse theory as a climate driver rather than a response, you are in effect supporting perpetual motion machines.

what are you talking about? Trenberth's graphic of energy flow in and out of the planetary system? Not that i agree necessarily with that graph but i thought you and wirebender were ok with fields cancelling out and leaving a net result? Does it matter if there is an extra (10-10) or (1000-1000) as long as it balances in the end? You guys do realize that 1-1+1 still equals 1, right? Or is it the vibration of the co2 molecule that has you flustered? The molecule absorbs the photon and vibrates, until it emits a similar photon and stops vibrating. Where is the extra energy that you are talking about?

You are the equivilent of old rock's lapdog konradv. You just serve a different master

**** you, ian.

 

[IanC]

gslack said-you aren't going to address the net energy being greater than that from its source? Ah ok then it must be what exactly? If radiation coming is absorbed and sent back out to the atmosphere as ir radiation, where it interacts with greenhouse gases (in this case co2) causing the molecules to vibrate which releases heat and much of that goes back down to the surface, and out into space, how in the hell do you explain all of that energy? If that where at all possible we could harness the ir vibrative properties of co2 and create machines that power the entire planet using just a glass tube of co2 gas and some conductors.. By endorsing this greenhouse theory as a climate driver rather than a response, you are in effect supporting perpetual motion machines.

what are you talking about? Trenberth's graphic of energy flow in and out of the planetary system? Not that i agree necessarily with that graph but i thought you and wirebender were ok with fields cancelling out and leaving a net result? Does it matter if there is an extra (10-10) or (1000-1000) as long as it balances in the end? You guys do realize that 1-1+1 still equals 1, right? Or is it the vibration of the co2 molecule that has you flustered? The molecule absorbs the photon and vibrates, until it emits a similar photon and stops vibrating. Where is the extra energy that you are talking about?

You are the equivilent of old rock's lapdog konradv. You just serve a different master

**** you, ian.

sorry konradv, you're just collateral damage.

 

[IanC]

here is one that agrees with me.

Seems more in agreement with me Ian. It states explicitly that photons are the stuff that EM fields are made of. If you diminish the mangnitude of an EM field, you are diminishing photons; it can't be any other way. I also note that your student didn't touch on interference, destructive or non destructive, or the subtraction of EM field vectors.

Again, I refer you to wave-particle duality. Till you understand that particles alone don't adequately describe the visible and measurable phenomena with EM fields, you won't have the information necessary to understand what is happening. You are stuck on particles and particles alone aren't even half the story.

from the quoted discussion-

changes in the electromagnetic field do not affect photons in the absence of matter

Changes in the electromagnetic field do not affect photons because photons are also merely changes in the electromagnetic field, and multiple contributions to the field will simply add together without affecting each other.

When a traveling disturbance in the field (say, a photon) encounters a stationary one (say, a local, static electromagnetic field), it will simply pass through and then continue on as if they never met

No matter how complicated or ugly an electromagnetic field gets, photons will still pass through it unaffected as long as there is no matter around to get in their way.

If you have a positive charged particle and a negative charged particle they attract because they exchange photons. Not true photons, instead "virtual photons". A true photon is a photon traveling from the space, but a "virtual photon" is a photon used to exchange between particles and only is used on the exchange.

these are specific comments that contradict your understanding of how it works. I must admit that I thought sooner or later that you would catch on, given all the hints and clues that I have given you.

 

[IanC]

actually wirebender I would like to thank you for bringing this whole subject up. as a teenager forty years ago I loved thinking about physics and chemistry and quantum effects. I must admit when I first said you were wrong I wasnt sure why exactly. but I am sure now and it has been delightful to renew my admittedly shallow understanding of how things work on the micro/macro scale. perhaps we should delve into the thermodynamics aspect as well. it is also a messy subject with easy to forget, misunderstand and misuse principles.

 

[wirebender]

from the quoted discussion-

changes in the electromagnetic field do not affect photons in the absence of matter

From the quoted discussion:

While Anthony Yeh and Jay Wacker are correct in the aspects they have addressed, I believe an important source of confusion is the following assumption made by the OP:

"The matter photons travel through are electromagnetic fields"

Also from the quoted discussion:

Light Waves/Photons/Electromagnetic fields do not need a separate medium to propagate in the same way that mechanical waves do.

They are fine propagating through vacuum.

The resolution of this issue is a cornerstone of the story of relativity.

You aren't reading for comprehension Ian. You are reading with the mindset of grasping for straws so you don't have to be wrong. As I said, it isn't going to happen. You keep saying that photons won't affect photons in the absence of matter. Tell me Ian, in addition to the above statement that the EM fields themselves are matter, are you under the impression that Oxygen, Nitrogen, CO2, Argon, Neon, etc. are not matter? The atmosphere is full of matter. How much matterless vacuum do you believe you could find in the atmosphere of the earth?

Changes in the electromagnetic field do not affect photons because photons are also merely changes in the electromagnetic field, and multiple contributions to the field will simply add together without affecting each other.

As I pointed out, he does not mention subtracting EM fields. I already told you that radiation emitted from CO2 molecules that are travelling in the direction of an EM vector emitted from the earth simply add to its magnitude. Moving against the direction of propagation, however is an entirely different thing.

When a traveling disturbance in the field (say, a photon) encounters a stationary one (say, a local, static electromagnetic field), it will simply pass through and then continue on as if they never met

Are you saying that the photons that make up the EM field radiated outwards from the earth at, or near the speed of light are stationary? Which EM field in the atmosphere might be stationary? Read for comprehension Ian.

No matter how complicated or ugly an electromagnetic field gets, photons will still pass through it unaffected as long as there is no matter around to get in their way.

As has been pointed out, the field itself is matter. In addition, the atmosphere that the field is moving through is chock full o matter. No matterless vaccum in the atmosphere.

these are specific comments that contradict your understanding of how it works. I must admit that I thought sooner or later that you would catch on, given all the hints and clues that I have given you.

Actually Ian, they are specific comments that support me but in your desperate need to be right, you have completely twisted their meanings or completely misunderstood what is being said.