BanterinBoson

I agree and I think it is because the photon is a wave, not a particle. What do you think about the analogy of the directionality of sound increasing as frequency increases to that of EMWs? Are radio waves more omnidirectional than higher frequencies of light? And the electron is so super-directional that we describe it as a particle? I'm trying to equate "particle-ness" to directionality. Isn't that also true of sound through a tube? I think I can see what you're saying. The atom "looks big" if the photon is at resonant frequency because the photon interacts significantly and it "looks small" if the photon is at a frequency higher than resonance because there is little interaction, but then I'm having trouble seeing it "looking small" if the photon is below resonance because lower frequencies will interact. For instance, holding a weight suspended by a rubber band in your hand and then slowly move your hand up and down, the weight should follow the movement of your hand. As you move faster, you'll find the resonant frequency where the weight and your hand move in opposite directions. As you move your hand faster than resonance, the weight will not move. If the weight is a co2 molecule and the motion of your hand is the light, then the light is able to pass up to the point of resonance. Beyond that, the weight does not move and the light is stopped from propagating further (until the frequency is so high that it can propagate through the constituents that form the weight). Don Lincoln says here (at 1:30) that electrons and top quarks have no size: I can see that, but what happens outside those values is what I'm having trouble seeing. I'm not sure light having a constant speed regardless of the speed of the observer necessarily disproves a medium. I can see how it would seem so, but space is actually spacetime in 4 dimensions and having zero velocity with respect to the medium necessitates maximum velocity through time and maximum velocity through space necessitates zero velocity through time, so it seems not so easy to disprove an aether with relativity due to the extra time variable and the fact that, from the point of view of light, there is no time or space. How do we use something that sees no space or time to disprove something that exists within spacetime? Maybe it's not the Higgs field, but it has to be something: Yes I concede that gamma rays travel through nuclei and it was an error on my part not seeing the mechanism of utilizing the subatomics as a medium for propagation. That realization was indeed insightful. If you're saying that light will pass straight through a molecule if there are no resonances, then how does light reflect off of chlorophyll? We know that grass is green because it absorbs all frequencies of visible light except green, therefore green is reflected and that is what we see. All other frequencies are absorbed and converted to sugar and IR radiation which is re-emitted. So if green light reflects off of chlorophyll, then why can't light reflect off of co2?

The difficulties could be an artifact of text-based communication. It's not my intention to cause frustrations. I seek a mechanism to describe the propagation of visible light (10^14 hz) through the co2 molecule. I have learned that gamma rays (10^19 hz) can propagate through the co2 molecule using the subatomic particles as a medium, but I do not believe 10^14 hz is sufficient to utilize subatomics in order to propagate through the molecule (since 10^16 was identified as the transition). I have noted that IR (10^13 hz) can vibrate atoms within the co2 molecule and therefore lower-than-resonance frequencies have a mechanism for which to pass. Microwaves (10^10) can vibrate the entire co2 molecule utilizing the dipole moment and therefore lower-than-resonance frequencies have a mechanism for which to pass. But visible light seems to be of the perfect frequency to neither vibrate the subatomics nor the atomics nor whole molecules and therefore there is no medium for propagation. Yes, those appear to be observational facts.

I don't know what prompted the idea that I'm being unappreciative since I specially said I do not want to seem that way. I definitely appreciate the opportunity to learn, but you have to understand that I can't just accept things by faith or on someone's authority... I have to understand the rationale. If the argument is that the light is too big to "see" (reflect off of) the co2 molecule, then it is bigger in the IR band (wavelength longer) and so how can it be absorbed? I'm still not understanding the rationale. What is the cross-sectional width of a photon? It can't be the wavelength because that is a measure along the x-axis (axis of travel), which is perpendicular to the cross-section. The measure of the y-axis is the amplitude of the wave, but is that a physical distance? This page says photons do not have amplitudes https://www.quora.com/If-you-have-two-photons-with-equal-wavelengths-and-one-has-a-bigger-amplitude-what-would-that-mean-would-the-photon-have-more-energy So then what is the width of a photon? And why would it be bigger than an electron or quark? If a photon is smaller than an electron, then my drawing has the ray of light many times too big. I'm sorry if I seem argumentative because it's not my intention to drive you guys crazy, but simply that I haven't understood why the width of a photon would be = to its wavelength. And I haven't understood why co2 would absorb (resonate) in the 10^13 band while being a zero-resistance medium for the transference of 10^14 visible light. I learned that co2 can be a near-zero-resistance medium for the transference of gamma rays (10^19), which I previously thought wasn't possible. So that's evidence that I am not seeking to be obtuse. Surely talking to me isn't that bad. What else would you be utilizing this forum for if it weren't for me? Echo-chambers are boring and you need someone to banter with to make it fun. I'm not arguing with the universe; I'm arguing with someone's claim about the universe. 1) There is sufficient evidence for the claim of a ubiquitous energy field medium. 2) The idea of a wave makes no sense outside of a medium through which the wave can propagate. Claiming a wave can propagate through absolute nothingness is a self-defeating statement. "This means that nuclear resonance (emission and absorption of the same gamma ray by identical nuclei) is unobservable with free nuclei, because the shift in energy is too great and the emission and absorption spectra have no significant overlap." So far there is evidence that if the nuclei is held sufficiently strong, then it can be forced to accept gamma radiation. "Just as a gun recoils when a bullet is fired, conservation of momentum requires a nucleus (such as in a gas) to recoil during emission or absorption of a gamma ray." That seems a lot like a "bounce" to me. It also seems like the thing that would be doing the absorption would be subatomic particles and not the whole nucleus because the whole nucleus has too much mass to be affected by such energetic vibrations while quarks are sufficiently small to accommodate them. You trimmed the part of my quote that was relevant: "Vibrational excitation can occur in conjunction with electronic excitation in the ultraviolet-visible region. The combined excitation is known as a vibronic transition, giving vibrational fine structure to electronic transitions, particularly for molecules in the gas state." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration 10^14 is not the transition; it's even higher in the 10^16 range (UV). That doesn't explain anything, but is merely a statement. If visible light has frequencies higher than the vibrations of co2, then they should bounce. If that is not true, then why is it not true?

A wave makes no sense without a medium. "The Higgs field is an energy field that is thought to exist everywhere in the universe." https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field Is there evidence of that? I know they can emit gamma rays, but I couldn't find anything on google about absorption of them. Passes by? Or through? "Vibrational excitation can occur in conjunction with electronic excitation in the ultraviolet-visible region. The combined excitation is known as a vibronic transition, giving vibrational fine structure to electronic transitions, particularly for molecules in the gas state." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration As I was saying, as the frequency falls past 10^16 (UV), other mass combinations come into play. If 10^19 affects electrons, then 10^16 affects things bigger than electrons. "the typical frequencies of molecular vibrations range from less than 10^13 to approximately 10^14 Hz," so that's visible and IR with the transition occurring in the UV band. I don't understand how visible light (10^14) can pass straight through it. Can you explain further? CO2 is composed of C and O which are composed of E, P, N, and Quarks. CO2 can resonate as a molecule (probably in the microwave band, similar to water ie 10^9). C can resonate as an atom bonded to 2 other atoms as springs. O can resonate bonded to the C. The Electrons can resonate as well as the nuclei and Protons, Neutrons, and I suppose the Quarks as well (all irrelevant to visible light). So it seems the focus is narrowed to what the bonded C and O will do with 10^14 light. If 10^14 is too fast to vibrate (absorb into) the C or O, but not fast enough to vibrate subatomics, then how can it pass through? Because "passing through" is defined as "using it as a medium for which to pass through". On the other hand, IR light (10^13) will absorb into (resonate) either C or O or both, therefore the mass/spring combination is such that 10^14 visible light will be impeded by the same mass/spring combination that absorbs 10^13. What is the mechanism for the transference of the 10^14 wave through the medium which is the co2 molecule? That little bit of understanding is the holy grail to all of this discussion.

I don't think that is true. Light travels through an energy field... I believe it is called the higgs field, but I could be wrong on the nomenclature. Anyway, light can't travel through nothingness and it's a wave traveling through a medium very much like sound. That's interesting. I haven't thought about that. Gamma rays are on the order of 10^19 hz and so could act on the electrons themselves rather than the nucleus, which is far too massive to be affected by such frequencies. That would explain the ionization by knocking electrons off atoms. The penetration of gamma rays would be an artifact of the atom being mostly empty space. I understand absorption and re-emission, but not what happens when the frequency falls below or rises above that of absorption. That is what I'm trying to grasp. If the frequency falls from 10^19 to 10^16 (UV region), then it no longer affects electrons, but the nucleus. It's by virtue of mass and frequency. Is that right? So when the frequency falls even further to 10^13 (the IR region), then it no longer affects the nucleus, but bonded molecules by virtue of the mass and bond strength. Is that right? So the different frequencies affect differing collections of masses and springs. Yes, that makes sense now that you mention it. I believe it is because of the above-stated... that atoms are mostly empty and the x, gamma rays travel through like a fishing net. Once the frequencies fall from 10^19 to 10^16, then atoms become more opaque to the light. So what does co2 do with visible light? So co2 is completely transparent to visible light? As if it were not there?

I don't want to seem unappreciative of your help, but I don't see the relevancy to any of this talk of getting up this morning and not seeing co2 or any talk of glass or any talk of compressed gases. I want to focus on one molecule of co2. Will that one molecule increase or decrease the temp of the earth? And why? It's a theoretical, hypothetical thought experiment to help me learn. Once we discover what the one molecule will do, then we can string them together and speculate from there.

Water is transparent, yet we look up in the sky and, behold, we can't see through the clouds. And from space, the clouds seem quite reflective. It's hard to drive in fog and having bright lights only exacerbates the problem due to reflectivity. The pressure in the tank gives the molecules different resonant properties from those of co2 floating loosely in the atmosphere. Also, dry ice is less transparent than water ice indicating that co2 is less likely to pass visible light than water, probably because it's heavier and more resistant to those frequencies. Heavier things will vibrate faster if fixed to stiffer springs. If not, then they will resist faster vibrations. CO2 in the atmosphere has no springs attached, therefore it's too heavy to pass visible light. CO2 in a tank will be compressed and be bound by rigid springs giving it a faster resonance. The variables in resonance are the spring constant and the mass. Change either and the resonance changes. So, comparing compressed gas and glass to co2 at .04% concentration in the atmosphere isn't a fair comparison. If most are not lost to space, then most come back to earth, therefore co2 can effectively reflect IR back to earth. But I can't see it that way. There are many more paths to space than to earth by virtue of the earth's curvature; therefore, it's a net-loss of radiation. That would be true for any point above earth, except in a valley between hills which are places where there are more paths to earth than sky.

Right, it does not absorb, but it reflects visible, UV, and most certainly gamma rays. Well, as small as they are, they do resonate and therefore they will reflect frequencies higher than their resonance. Wiki says the density of an atomic nucleus is about 2.3×1017 kg/m3. That seems quite dense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_density Glass is a good example. Glass will reflect UVB, which has a higher frequency than the UVA that glass passes. So if glass passes frequencies lower than UVB, then why does it reflect IR? It can only be due to the rigid atomic structure of the glass because one molecule of glass wouldn't have the support of its neighbors and therefore wouldn't have the rigidity to resist the IR frequencies. IR must be affecting the molecular structure of the glass much like microwaves affect the whole molecule of water in food. Once the frequency decreases beyond that point, they should once again find that glass is transparent. Rigidity of a solid panel of co2 isn't a concern in the atmosphere. As far as I know, co2 just floats around. I think they make good greenhouses because they pass visible light and stop convection in order to retain heat. Glass is also somewhat reflective of IR and a poor thermal conductor. Right, they radiate the IR in all directions, some of which come back to earth, but most head off into space. That's another argument against the warming of a planet by co2. Maybe pics will help. Below are the two cases: a direct hit and a miss by solar radiation. Direct-impact solar ray: Solar ray misses CO2: Btw, I love this forum software!

If IR light (10^13 hz) causes co2 to resonate, then why doesn't co2 reflect visible light (10^14 hz)? The narrative I'm being asked to buy is that visible light passes unimpeded by co2, but then the same co2 absorbs the IR from the earth. That is the mechanism by which the earth supposedly warms by co2 (light can get in, but it can't get out due to a lowering in frequency).

Yes, I understand that the orders of magnitude are different, but the properties of waves are the same. If we have a collection of atoms known as a wall, then the wall will have its specific resonance as well as the individual atoms within the wall (depending how tightly bound by the springs the atoms are and how much mass each atom contains). Also, just to add that radio waves can go as low as 3 Hz or lower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency Anyway, if we have an atom that resonates at 10^14 hz, then raising the frequency of the light to 10^15 should find the atom too heavy to vibrate that fast and therefore the atom will reflect the light. If we lower the frequency to 10^13 hz, the light passes through the atom and does not reflect. That is analogous to a tuning fork vibrating at 1000 hz and being too heavy to vibrate faster. Or a wall constructed of drywall that is too heavy to vibrate at 1000hz, so it reflects as well. If the frequency is reduced to 100 hz, the fork and wall pass the sound without much resistance. The difference is the order of magnitude, but the principle is the same. Microwave ovens, for instance, emit frequencies well below resonance of the individual atoms, but instead the waves act on the whole water molecule. So water has several resonances: that of hydrogen, that of oxygen, that of the union of both H and O as a whole molecule, and that of a collection of molecules.

Why is that so? What is it dictated by? Cloud particles do not transmit visible light, but visible light misses the particles and light may refract around them, but light does not go directly through the particles (at least, I don't understand how it could) unless the "light" is a radio wave or some long wave. Is not temperature a measure of vibration? So, the hotter and the more vibrations due to heat energy, the whiter the light and higher the frequencies emitted. Yeah that makes sense. I guess I meant "runaway" effect in a different way. Perhaps I should have said "cumulative". Why are they different waves? That's the heart of my question. It makes a lot of sense to relate radio waves passing through just about anything while gamma rays are reflected by just about anything to sound waves where high tones are reflected by anything while low bass travels through anything. Therefore, how are they different? I can understand an atom being different than a wall of a room and having different properties of reflection and resonance, but the wave itself seems analogous. So I suppose my question boils down to the properties of carbon, oxygen, and co2 that affect the reflection or absorption of light. Specifically, what is it about co2 that will allow transmission of high-frequency visible light while absorbing (ie blocking) low-frequency IR? A capacitor is the only thing I am aware of that will pass high frequencies while restricting low frequencies, but a capacitor has a discontinuity. A continuous resistor or inductor will restrict highs while passing lows. Am I to understand co2 is acting like a capacitor? If so, why is water not? If water acted as a capacitor, then it would pass visible light while blocking IR and radio waves. Clearly that is not the case, so it's hard for me to understand why co2 would not act the same as water vapor, which cools, not warms.

I am unsure if I'm posting this in the right section, but nonetheless I require specialized assistance in verifying my understanding of vibrational frequencies of molecules and atoms with regard to the atmospheric insulative effects of various gases. My current understanding is that "vibrational frequency" is what I've formerly called "resonant frequency" with regard to the effects of sound, but if I am in error, please correct me. Now, relating light to sound, frequencies above resonance should reflect off of the particle since the particle is too massive to move at that frequency and frequencies below resonance should pass through the particle with minimal interference since the particle doesn't contain enough mass with which to interact with the wave. I have edited a graph to aid in illustrating my problem: Original graph found here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png Am I correct? Why or why not? Summarily, the problem I am having is in visualizing how high-frequency light (ie visible) will pass through CO2, hit the earth, and then radiate back to the CO2 as lower-frequency IR-light where it then becomes trapped, seemingly forming a runaway heating effect. So, what I need to know is how light interacts with particles differently than sound and why one energy-wave (light) behaves differently from another (sound) because my current understanding demands that if CO2 will insulate at IR frequencies (ie resonate), then it simply must reflect at visible (and higher) frequencies and therefore it would have a cooling effect, not warming, just like clouds of water vapor do. To further clarify, high-energy light should be reflected away while only retaining low-energy IR light and therefore the overall effect is cooling. What am I missing? For if sound behaved in the way I am being asked to understand light, then a 20K tone would pass completely unimpeded through a wall, strike an object which would produce a vibration lower than 20K, say 100hz, then the lower frequency tone would somehow become trapped by the same wall that was transparent to the 20k tone. It makes absolutely no sense. Help!