What elements make Ocean Blue from Space?

[Sci101]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Because there are no transitions with energy differences corresponding to green light, involving states that are populated.

Your statement is not related to any view point from science.

so if you do not discuss on atomic level related to the Bohr model, you would miss the key point.

Do you have any suggestions on how thing works?
Thanks, to everyone very much for any suggestions (^v^)

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, Sci101 said:

Your statement is not related to any view point from science.

so if you do not discuss on atomic level related to the Bohr model, you would miss the key point.

Do you have any suggestions on how thing works?
Thanks, to everyone very much for any suggestions (^v^)

Swansont has a PhD in atomic physics and the Bohr model is so last century. It's now a curiosity from a time long since passed.

[Sci101]

35 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Swansont has a PhD in atomic physics and the Bohr model is so last century. It's now a curiosity from a time long since passed.

Ha, you just change the FOCUS, so what theory he applies to describe better than Bohr model on how Chlorophyll absorbs blue and red light and not GREEN in atomic levels?

Do you have any suggestions?
Thanks, to everyone very much for any suggestions (^v^)

 

 

[John Cuthber]

6 hours ago, Sci101 said:

Do you have any suggestions?

I suggest that you learn some science and some humility.

The atoms in chlorophyll are carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, magnesium and hydrogen.

None of  those is green.

So looking at it on an atomic level you would think that chlorophyll isn't green.

But it is.

So, that way of looking at it is obviously the wrong way to look at it.

So, your viewpoint is obviously wrong. 

I suggest that you change it.

 

[dimreepr]

On 6/9/2018 at 11:31 AM, swansont said:

Have you tried to look through a leaf? What color is the light that gets through?

It's an experiment you can do. You need a leaf, a flashlight, a white piece of paper, and a darkened room.

At the size of a photon, there is space between the atoms and the majority of photons that get to the other side of the leaf is reflected light hence green.

[Sci101]

4 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I suggest that you learn some science and some humility.

The atoms in chlorophyll are carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, magnesium and hydrogen.

None of  those is green.

So looking at it on an atomic level you would think that chlorophyll isn't green.

I am polite, but too straight on communication and keep learning to talk with more human feeling.

Referring to CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,

Oxygen has intensity 1000 on both 508.182 and 525.795 wavelength, which is green, but I don't know on what III represented on reference.

I cannot confirm on whether the intensity is strong or not, but GREEN wavelength is existed on chlorophyll based on your source.

What about go back to the discussed issue? (learning to be more human :>)

Thanks, to everyone very much for any suggestions (^v^)

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

At the size of a photon, there is space between the atoms and the majority of photons that get to the other side of the leaf is reflected light hence green.

When above image refer to reflected light, could you please provide on what reference / theory is? and I try to understand more on your viewpoint.

Thanks, to everyone very much for any suggestions (^v^)

Edited June 10, 2018 by Sci101

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, Sci101 said:

When above image refer to reflected light, could you please provide on what source / theory is? and I try to understand more on your viewpoint.

Thanks, to everyone very much for any suggestions (^v^)

I was attempting to simplify, the explanations of the other members, to the point that you may understand (since everything else has gone over your head) using a simple visual aid.

Edited June 10, 2018 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

16 minutes ago, Sci101 said:

Oxygen has intensity 1000 on both 508.182 and 525.795 wavelength, which is green, but I don't know on what III represented on reference.

Thanks for confirming that I was right.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Go and learn.

Here's a start

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

 

 

Magnesium glycinate contains the same types of atoms as are present in chlorophyll.

But it is white.

So it is clear that the colours of compounds don't come from atoms.

What you found in the CRC book is the emission spectrum of the O++ ion which does not exist in any chemical compound. The header in the book tells you what the I, II  III etc signify.

It's just that you are too lazy to read.

[Sci101]

29 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Thanks for confirming that I was right.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Go and learn.

Here's a start

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

Magnesium glycinate contains the same types of atoms as are present in chlorophyll.

But it is white.

So it is clear that the colours of compounds don't come from atoms.

What you found in the CRC book is the emission spectrum of the O++ ion which does not exist in any chemical compound. The header in the book tells you what the I, II  III etc signify.

It's just that you are too lazy to read.

Why Leaf is GREEN that is topic to be discussed, if you can explain it clearly, that is great, any reference is not directly related to the topic, it just change the FOCUS.  Could you please briefly explain on how molecular orbital related to GREEN leaf? 

Thanks, to everyone very much for any suggestions (^v^)

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by Sci101

[swansont]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

At the size of a photon, there is space between the atoms and the majority of photons that get to the other side of the leaf is reflected light hence green.

You have this backwards. The light that is reflected by definition does not get to the other side. The light that makes it through is the light that is neither reflected nor absorbed.

To speak of the space between the atoms is not really relevant. The cross-section for interaction is not a physical size. There are opaque materials and transparent materials with similar atom spacing. It depends on whether the molecular/lattice energy levels are resonant with the wavelengths in question.

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

You have this backwards. The light that is reflected by definition does not get to the other side. The light that makes it through is the light that is neither reflected nor absorbed.

To speak of the space between the atoms is not really relevant. The cross-section for interaction is not a physical size. There are opaque materials and transparent materials with similar atom spacing. It depends on whether the molecular/lattice energy levels are resonant with the wavelengths in question.

Every simplification is wrong, but sometimes it educates children to understand the next rung on the ladder of understanding.

Edited June 10, 2018 by dimreepr

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Sci101 said:

Your statement is not related to any view point from science.

You haven't demonstrated the level of understanding where you have any credibility in making this assessment.

Quote

so if you do not discuss on atomic level related to the Bohr model, you would miss the key point.

The Bohr model is incorrect and has been superseded by the models of quantum mechanics. However, the concept of quantized energy levels, which is part of the Bohr model, is still correct, and is what I presented to you.

 

Consider:

If you look at hydrogen, it will absorb light at 656.285 nm, 486.136nm, 434.05 nm, etc. (continuing to shorter wavelengths) IF the atom is in the n=2 state. It won't absorb green light, either, because there is no transition in the green.

In the ground state, it will not absorb visible wavelengths at all, since the lowest-energy transition is at 121.6 nm, and all other transitions are at shorter wavelengths. 

So the notion that some wavelengths are absorbed and others not absorbed is a notion from the Bohr model quite relevant to the discussion, despite your objections. Chlorophyll does not absorb green because there are not transitions corresponding to that span of wavelengths.

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Every simplification is wrong, but sometimes it educates children to the next rung on the ladder of understanding.

Sorry, no. Your claim was wrong, but not because it was simplified.

11 hours ago, Sci101 said:

Ha, you just change the FOCUS, so what theory he applies to describe better than Bohr model on how Chlorophyll absorbs blue and red light and not GREEN in atomic levels?

Quantum mechanics. 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Sorry, no. Your claim was wrong, but not because it was simplified.

It wasn't a claim, it was an attempt.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I was attempting to simplify, the explanations of the other members, to the point that you may understand (since everything else has gone over your head) using a simple visual aid.

 

 

[studiot]

@Sci101

 

This increasingly heated exchange as to why leaves are green (sometimes but look at a leaf in the autumn)  is completely off topic.

I would, however appreciate a response to my answer to the topic of this thread. (looking over it I apologise for my spelling mistakes.)

 

20 hours ago, studiot said:

To get back on topic an leave the leaves alone.

The blue colour is caused by scattering from water (note not elements) that is deeper than 50 metres.

Here are some facts.

As sunlight penetrates seawater,

 

By 1 metre depth most of the red is lost to absorbtion by the water.

By 10 metres depth all the red and most of the yellow and about 50% of the green is lost.

By 100 metres depth all the red yeloow and 95% of the green is lost, leaving only blue light.

 

As any light penetrates water it is scattered.

 

The only light going back upwards (by scattering) from the deep is blue light so that is what emerges and is seen form space.

 

There are exceptions.

 

The resence of phytoplankton scatters some green light upwards

Some Algae scatter red light upwards giving the famous colour  blooms.

 

But remembering that light travelling upwards is subject to the same absorbtion regime, the red and green light only reappears if the water is shallow enough.

 

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, Sci101 said:

  Could you please briefly explain on how molecular orbital related to GREEN leaf? 

OK,

When you form a molecule of chlorophyll from atoms of Mg, H, C, and N, the "electron shells"  of the individual atoms link up to form molecular orbitals.

These have energy levels in much the same way as those of atoms but generally with more complex patterns of absorption and emission.

In particular those of chlorophyll absorb red light and blue light.

 

Fig 1 here

http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/local/projects/steer/chloro.htm

 shows a graph of the percentage of light absorbed vs wavelength. (the details of the spectrum depend on the solvent, concentration, and so on, but the idea is the same.

To a rough approximation you can say that a leaf is made of cellulose, water and chlorophyll.

Water is colourless- it doesn't (significantly) absorb visible light over a distance as small as the thickness of a leaf.

Cellulose- the stuff cotton and paper are made of  also don't absorb much visible light, but the light is bounced off the surface to some extent.

So, if you stripped the chlorophyll out of a leaf it would look a bit like wet paper.

It's grey.

If you hold it up to the light, some light gets through.

On the other hand, some is reflected.

 

Now imagine putting the chlorophyll back.

Well, the green light in sunlight isn't absorbed by the chlorophyll so it's partly reflected and partly transmitted- just like before.

But the red light and blue light are absorbed by the chlorophyll.

So, only the green light is either reflected or transmitted.

That's why leaves look green.

 

 

[Eise]

Maybe this helps. This is the Windows color-Applet:

As you see, red/green/blue are at their maximum, which produces white (see the arrow).

As several people here have said, blue and red light are absorbed by a green leaf, maybe not totally, I don't know but you can see the result by decreasing the red and blue components. Then you get this:

And please confirm that you understand that

- the Bohr model only applies to hydrogen

- it only explains the main transitions, so it is a out-of-date model

- Atoms in molecules form totally different electron orbitals then the atoms a molecule is build off (so the colours of molecules is not just a mix of the colours of the atoms on their own).

If you do not acknowledge this, further discussion seems useless.

 

[Sci101]

I need to watch more youtube to learn about Quantum Mech before reply

Thanks, to everyone very much for suggestions (^v^)

Edited June 11, 2018 by Sci101

[swansont]

Youtube videos will only give you a thin veneer of understanding. You might learn about QM, but you won't learn QM. (Kinda like reading a short book about a faraway land and actually living there for years)

[Sci101]

I would like to know on whether the latest status about "spooky action at a distance" is confirmed on how it work or still exploring what it is.

Do you have any suggestions?
Thanks, to everyone very much for any suggestions (^v^)

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Sci101 said:

I would like to know on whether the latest status about "spooky action at a distance" is confirmed on how it work or still exploring what it is.

Do you have any suggestions?
Thanks, to everyone very much for any suggestions (^v^)

You should start a new thread if you are going to start asking about things not involving absorption/emission spectra.

[John Cuthber]

5 hours ago, Sci101 said:

I would like to know on whether the latest status about "spooky action at a distance" is confirmed on how it work or still exploring what it is.

Do you have any suggestions?
Thanks, to everyone very much for any suggestions (^v^)

Isn't that a bit like giving away who the murderer was in a mystery story?

[Sci101]

D

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Youtube videos will only give you a thin veneer of understanding. You might learn about QM, but you won't learn QM. (Kinda like reading a short book about a faraway land and actually living there for years)

Do you have any specific keywords related to atom under QM? so I can search for more specific topic under QM on this issue.

Do you have any suggestions?
Thanks, to everyone very much for any suggestions (^v^)

 

[Mordred]

Any QM textbook will in its earlier chapters fully describe the atom. I recommend Griffiths "Introductory to QM"

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/1107179866

its fairly easy to understand on the entry level. Feyman lectures isn't bad but not the greatest

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/