Nature of light

[swansont]

You can't radiate in one frame and not in another. I agree, I'm saying that any motion wr to another will produce radiation even after acceleration.

To be true you must then radiate while at rest. Any evidence of that?

[Bird11dog]

No evidence but your right everything is in motion wr to everything else ie, everything must radiate. An interesting experiment, two objects of equal mass under equal acceleration. Can one object detect radiation from the other?

Edited June 12, 2017 by Bird11dog

[Strange]

No evidence but your right everything is in motion wr to everything else ie, everything must radiate.

 

 

Not true. I am stationary relative the chair I am sitting on. And to the whole house. And even the entire town. (Although, interestingly, not the whole country, as parts of it are moving at different rates!)

[Bird11dog]

The atoms in your body are not stationary.

[swansont]

The atoms in your body are not stationary.

 

 

They are also neutral, and not radiating in the way that's under discussion.

No evidence but your right everything is in motion wr to everything else ie, everything must radiate. An interesting experiment, two objects of equal mass under equal acceleration. Can one object detect radiation from the other?

 

Sure. Two charged particles traveling in opposite directions in an accelerator ring will definitely see radiation (i.e. cyclotron or synchrotron) from each other.

[Bird11dog]

 

 

They are also neutral, and not radiating in the way that's under discussion.

 

Sure. Two charged particles traveling in opposite directions in an accelerator ring will definitely see radiation (i.e. cyclotron or synchrotron) from each other.

The electrons and protons are not neutral and they are moving.

 

 

 

Sure. Two charged particles traveling in opposite directions in an accelerator ring will definitely see radiation (i.e. cyclotron or synchrotron) from each other.

Sure, but what if they are accelerating in the same direction?

[swansont]

The electrons and protons are not neutral and they are moving.

 

 

You will not normally detect a charge outside the atom. Atoms in uniform motion do not radiate because of that motion.

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

This is me, Glenn. Catching up. This thread has grown mightily and most interesting while I wasn't looking.

[Bird11dog]

 

 

You will not normally detect a charge outside the atom. Atoms in uniform motion do not radiate because of that motion.

Would you mind pointing to your source. I must have missed it in my own studies.

[swansont]

Would you mind pointing to your source. I must have missed it in my own studies.

 

 

Atoms don't radiate at rest, which is part of the quantum revolution — atoms have stable configurations wherein they don't radiate (where would the energy come from?). And any inertial motion can be treated as if the body is at rest. That's part of relativity.

[Handy andy]

The following link might be helpful here and may help with some of the above questions. It was posted originally under the fermions and bosons thread.

 

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

[dimreepr]

The following link might be helpful here and may help with some of the above questions. It was posted originally under the fermions and bosons thread.

 

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

 

The answer was no, as I recall.

[swansont]

If this is in reference to whether or not atoms at rest radiate, what I'm discussing has nothing to do with virtual photons.

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

Now that I have had time to read all of the above, I find it is "over my head".

 

Did the apple that Sir Isaac saw RADIATE as it fell, since it was being accelerated?

 

How does that apply to light?

[Handy andy]

If this is in reference to whether or not atoms at rest radiate, what I'm discussing has nothing to do with virtual photons.

 

No it wasn't. It was to do with how virtual fields move through space generating waves that interfere with the trajectory of photons of light(which are fields), plus a whole lot more not related to this thread. Clearly it is over the head of the Dimreepr(apt name) and others and is therefore irrelevant to the post.

[swansont]

 

No it wasn't. It was to do with how virtual fields move through space generating waves that interfere with the trajectory of photons of light(which are fields), plus a whole lot more not related to this thread. Clearly it is over the head of the Dimreepr(apt name) and others and is therefore irrelevant to the post.

 

 

Do you have ANY evidence to support a claim that virtual fields affect the trajectory of photons?

Now that I have had time to read all of the above, I find it is "over my head".

 

Did the apple that Sir Isaac saw RADIATE as it fell, since it was being accelerated?

 

How does that apply to light?

 

The apple, being uncharged, would not radiate.

 

EM radiation is light.

[dimreepr]

Clearly it is over the head of the Dimreepr(apt name) and others and is therefore irrelevant to the post.

 

In this case, I think you're right; but the irony field just did a little dance, for some reason.

[Bird11dog]

 

 

Atoms don't radiate at rest, which is part of the quantum revolution — atoms have stable configurations wherein they don't radiate (where would the energy come from?). And any inertial motion can be treated as if the body is at rest. That's part of relativity.

Where does thermal radiation come from? I could have sworn it was from the vibration of atoms and molecules.

[swansont]

Where does thermal radiation come from? I could have sworn it was from the vibration of atoms and molecules.

Vibration involves acceleration, which is not uniform linear motion.

[Bird11dog]

Vibration involves acceleration, which is not uniform linear motion.

Any change of direction must include acceleration. Come on Swan, have I done something to you?

Any change of direction must include acceleration which produces thermal radiation regardless of uniform motion. Come on Swan, have I done something to you?

[swansont]

Any change of direction must include acceleration. Come on Swan, have I done something to you?

 

 

Other than continually change or ignore the context of my discussion? I keep saying a charge in uniform motion does not radiate and you keep bringing up cases that are not uniform motion. Why is that? Are you ignoring me, or not understanding me, or some third option?

[Bird11dog]

Your right, I don't understand you.

[dimreepr]

 

 

Other than continually change or ignore the context of my discussion? I keep saying a charge in uniform motion does not radiate and you keep bringing up cases that are not uniform motion. Why is that? Are you ignoring me, or not understanding me, or some third option?

 

Maybe he's confusing vibration with external energy.

[Trash]

Swon, do you think anyone would ever devise an experiment to test for an electromagnetic wave that is two or three light years in length? A charge in normal motion would have wavelengths something like that long.

[swansont]

Swon, do you think anyone would ever devise an experiment to test for an electromagnetic wave that is two or three light years in length? A charge in normal motion would have wavelengths something like that long.

 

 

 

This would be well into the classical regime (a light year is 10^16m, so a photon of that wavelength has something like 10^-22 eV of energy.) How would a "change in normal motion" (not sure what that is supposed to be) give rise to radiation of that wavelength?

 

The frequency would be tens of nanohertz. I'm not aware of being able to detect anywhere close to that frequency range.