Is light sticky

[Rovgard]

So, i have a question about light.

When light strikes a surface does it instantly jump off, or is there a small amount of time in which it "sticks" to that surface?

If it sticks could we, in theory, spin an object so fast that we could see through it by having that "stuck light" go around the object?

I think someone might have put weed in my cereal. Thanks in advance!

 

[StringJunky]

LOL! A quick and dirty explanation. An incoming photon will interact in a way with the molecule dependent on it's wavelength. If it's the 'wrong' frequency, it will pass through - like glass - or be reflected. If it's the 'right' frequency, it will be absorbed. When it's transmitted or reflected there is always a finite delay before it passes through or reflected. So, they do 'stick' for a brief time.

 

[koti]

29 minutes ago, Rovgard said:

So, i have a question about light.

When light strikes a surface does it instantly jump off, or is there a small amount of time in which it "sticks" to that surface?

If it sticks could we, in theory, spin an object so fast that we could see through it by having that "stuck light" go around the object?

I think someone might have put weed in my cereal. Thanks in advance!

 

LoL! Funny

I will add to StringJunky’s good comment that light is massless and it always travels at a constant speed of three houndred thousand kilometers per second. Always. In order to spin an object fast enough for the light to „stay stuck” to it you’d have to spin it at a speed higher than the speed of light and thats not doable. So no, even theory you couldn’t do it. Sory to ruin your cereal idea  

[Rovgard]

Thanks for the response

[koti]

6 minutes ago, Rovgard said:

Thanks for the response

Think of a tennis ball hitting a 1m3 cube at 150km/h (thats about 41,6 meters per second) and now imagine rotating that cube 180 degrees at such a speed that it manages to rotate 180 degrees while the ball is „stuck” to its wall, the rotational speed of that cube would have to be far greater than 150 km/h (depending on the elasticity of the tennis ball) Now imagine that light travels at 299 792 458 meters per second and photons are non elastic like a tennis ball is. There are a few people here who can give you the exact numbers but one thing for sure, the 1m3 cube rotational velocity would have to exceed the speed of light to spin to the other side with a photon stuck to it. There is one possibilty that comes to mind, if the cube was small enough, then maybe its rotational velocity would not have to exceed c. But that is kind of uselss because no matter how many of those cereals you have you wont be able to observe a cube smaller than a photon spinning. 

[Corpuscles]

On 5/22/2018 at 11:56 AM, StringJunky said:

LOL! A quick and dirty explanation. An incoming photon will interact in a way with the molecule.....So, they do 'stick' for a brief time.

 

For non-ionizing radiation, this stick time could be represented as an "photon-electron" event.  For the frequencies that "pass thru" (transmitted ) a given molecule, and which have a reduced linear speed, they too would have a "transient time" ("stick" time).

As an off-topic side note, Corpuscular theory of light (1637) was based upon particles called "corpuscles, which were perceived as having straight line motions. Descartes and Newton were not aware of particles, now called photons, interacting with electrons. For instance, in chemistry today, emission, absorption, and scattered spectra represents electron-photon events. Nor would they have perceived of particles being re-propelled via electrons, which is what happens with emission and scattered photons.  If there was an interest in this line of thinking, I could post an unpublished work with details on re-propulsion aspect. Previous particle and wave explanations do not account for electron-photon re-propulsion events...if they did, the light paradox would not exist.

 

[John Cuthber]

It "sticks" for a very short time.

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

And while it is too quick to see the effect of rotation on reflection, you can see it in other transitions. 

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

[Corpuscles]

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It "sticks" for a very short time...Reflection_phase_change.../Fluorescence_anisotropy

Good examples....Reflection, fluorescence, and chemistry's "emission, absorption, and scattered spectra" all show photons being rebroadcasted at different time intervals (transient times); but as I noted above, physicists have not considered this as an re-propulsion event. 

Even in Compton scattering (see Fig. 1)

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

those X ray photons are being re-propelled several times, but physicists have not considered this as photons being re-propelled.

[MigL]

So you could, in theory at least, have an object absorb the incoming visible light from an empty field on its one side.
Then spin it fast enough so that re-emission is on the opposite side towards the observer.
Thereby rendering the object invisible.

[John Cuthber]

50 minutes ago, MigL said:

So you could, in theory at least, have an object absorb the incoming visible light from an empty field on its one side.
Then spin it fast enough so that re-emission is on the opposite side towards the observer.
Thereby rendering the object invisible.

Er...

No.

All the phase information would be lost for a start, and, of course, the light gets emitted in pretty much random directions.

it would be like looking through fog- you could tell what colour things were, but that's about all

[Corpuscles]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

in theory at least, have an object absorb the incoming visible light from an empty field on its one side.
Then spin it fast enough so that re-emission is on the opposite side towards the observer.
Thereby rendering the object invisible.

Photon-atomic understandings are not fully understood.  I would not use a term like "spin it."  Electrons are "spinning" around in atomic structures.  In Inverse Compton scattering, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering#Inverse_Compton_scattering , electrons collide with photons, and are re-transmitted at a higher energy.  From this understanding, it could be suggested, like in  scattered spectra (chemestry) or transmitted light, that photons "ride" on an electron for a period of time (aka transient time) before it is ejected...But, I'm not aware of this thinking in physics today.

There is this topic in the news:

June 28, 2018 Spectral cloaking could make objects invisible under realistic conditions

...

...

Most current cloaking devices can fully conceal the object of interest only when the object is illuminated with just one color of light. However, sunlight and most other light sources are broadband, meaning that they contain many colors. The new device, called a spectral invisibility cloak, is designed to completely hide arbitrary objects under broadband illumination.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180628120102.htm

 

 

[StringJunky]

29 minutes ago, Corpuscles said:

Photon-atomic understandings are not fully understood......

 

 

Quantum elecrodynamics may not be fully understood but it is very well understood.

Quote

QED mathematically describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange of photons and represents the quantum counterpart of classical electromagnetism giving a complete account of matter and light interaction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

 

[Corpuscles]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Quantum elecrodynamics may not be fully understood but it is very well understood.

 

I would say there are mathematical expressions for describing events, but understanding events is questionable, in some cases.  For instance, "Feynman partially explains that a photon will follow a predetermined path which is a choice of one of many possible paths. These chosen paths form the pattern; in dark areas, no photons are landing, and in bright areas, many photons are landing." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens–Fresnel_principle#Huygens'_theory_and_the_modern_photon_wavefunction

My forum focus here in this topic, not current thinking, has been focused on events within this path, and I have suggested photo-atomic and photo-electron events are re-propelling photons along this path.  What this implies is the "source" emitter concept becomes meaningless as a photon travels along a path while interacting with atomic matter.  For instance, in Inverse Compton scattering, photons are emitted via original source, but when they collide with electrons, they are re-emitted via these electrons.  Hence, when a laser beam is directed at a beam of moving electrons, there are two "emitters," one being the source (laser), and the other being when photons "bounce" off these moving electrons.

When the concept of "re-propulsion" is considered, and I have cited several examples, at each photo-atomic or photo-electron collision, then the perceived perception of light's constant speed must be re-evaluated.  When evaluated from this perspective, re-propulsion, in f (x) = c equation, x represents an incoming photon's speed, and c represents the outgoing speed at each electron-photon collision, with respect to that electron's coordinates.  QED does not address particle re-propulsion, btw.

I am the author of the unpublished manuscript called Heuristic Photon Model.  The source emitter concept is erroneous, which has caused blunders in scientific reasoning.

 

[Markus Hanke]

4 hours ago, Corpuscles said:

then the perceived perception of light's constant speed must be re-evaluated

The speed is invariant, not constant. That’s a very important difference.

Either way, what you propose amounts to a violation of Lorentz invariance, and we have overwhelming evidence that under normal circumstances (i.e. outside the domain of quantum gravity) this symmetry holds to a very high degree:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation

[Corpuscles]

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

...what you propose amounts to a violation of Lorentz invariance...

Last I knew, mathematical means attempt to describe events, and depend upon the event being observed correctly.  Particle re-propulsion concept would nullify thinking based upon source emitter proposition.  My "proposal" (aka hypothesis) has not been delineated; its underpinnings have not been explained.

FWIW: Wiki - " The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant..."  Hence... the perceived perception of light's constant speed.

[studiot]

7 minutes ago, Corpuscles said:

Last I knew, mathematical means attempt to describe events, and depend upon the event being observed correctly.  Particle re-propulsion concept would nullify thinking based upon source emitter proposition.  My "proposal" (aka hypothesis) has not been delineated; its underpinnings have not been explained.

FWIW: Wiki - " The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant..."  Hence... the perceived perception of light's constant speed.

Which is why I am asking you to explain and define the three terms, I have underlined below,  you have introduced that I (and probably many others here) are not familiar with.

In particular the re-propulsion idea.

10 hours ago, Corpuscles said:

photo-atomic and photo-electron events are re-propelling photons along this path

Are you, for instance,  proposing that the same photon is emitted or what after a photo-atomic and photo-electron event ?

 

I think Marcus is referring to change of propagation conditions and Wiki is referring to constant or unchanging propagating conditions, in respect of the constancy of the speed of light.

 

[Strange]

11 hours ago, Corpuscles said:

then the perceived perception of light's constant speed must be re-evaluated.  When evaluated from this perspective, re-propulsion, in f (x) = c equation, x represents an incoming photon's speed, and c represents the outgoing speed at each electron-photon collision, with respect to that electron's coordinates. 

What evidence do you have that speed of the photon is not constant?

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

The speed is invariant, not constant. That’s a very important difference.

Well, it is both constant and invariant. Whether Corpuscles knows the difference, or cares, is not clear.

43 minutes ago, Corpuscles said:

My "proposal" (aka hypothesis) has not been delineated; its underpinnings have not been explained.

Why not?

11 hours ago, Corpuscles said:

I am the author of the unpublished manuscript called Heuristic Photon Model.

And why is it unpublished? Which journals has it been submitted to?

(And reported for hijacking)

[Corpuscles]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

(And reported for hijacking)

OP inquired: " When light strikes a surface does it instantly jump off"   I'm just adding what I perceive to be relevant details.

Journal: Annalen der Physik  Editor: Nadezda Panarina (andp.201800241)   But keep this in mind for another journal, "Since the launch of pss‐RRL as a stand‐alone journal, approximately 650 submissions have reached us. Of these, 31% have been accepted for publication while 51% were rejected by the Editors. The remaining 18% were ultimately withdrawn by the authors either following editorial recommendation or due to critical referee judgements, some with later re‐assignments as Original Papers to pss (a) or (b). These figures speak for a very careful and thorough editorial selection process which is summarized by the three terms: novelty, importance, and quality." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pssr.200850067

 

Quote

What evidence do you have that speed of the photon is not constant?

What evidence do you have that this model is not valid?  Until re-propulsion details are explain, objections are premature. No one has requested for it to be explained.

 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Corpuscles

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Corpuscles said:

 Until re-propulsion details are explain, objections are premature. No one has requested for it to be explained.

!

Moderator Note

And there is no need to repeat this multiple times. If you wish to delve into this, it would need to be in the speculations section. Further discussion of non-mainstream physics in this thread is off-topic.

 

[Corpuscles]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

speculations section. Further discussion of non-mainstream physics in this thread is off-topic.

 

Understood, but I do not consider this "speculation."

[studiot]

In accordance with Moderator directions I have started a spin off thread in Speculations

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Corpuscles said:

Understood, but I do not consider this "speculation."

!

Moderator Note

Under the forum's definition, it is.