Controversial : Photon --- the place of its birth -- in the sun. Where is the place of its death?

[Kramer]

Controversial : Photon --- the place of its birth -- in the sun. Where is the place of its death?
( A puzzled lay –man)
The sun is created to illuminate the earth days as a candle, in the same as the moon on the night. Here is nothing to ask because it is so evident.
What puzzled me is about of the abundance in the amount photons of sun’s productions.
The science now has calculated that only a fraction of fraction is used for the aim for which it is created, that is --- to illuminate the earth.
But -- nobody has the right to blame the abundance…because the abundance bring the prices down.
So, --- the puzzle that gave me sleeplessness is: where on earth ends the runaway unused photons of the sun?
Anecdote says that when was asked Einstein about this he answered: if you shut a photon in front of you, after some long time it will hit you in the back.
I wonder, if is it the same young photon, or becomes an older one?
Somebody of moderators assured me that the frequency of photons doesn’t change when it travel.
Yes. This is the answer for my wondering---- photons stays always yang.
But, (damn your skepticism Kramer): how comes that photons of that biggest sun, in the year 370000.23 , year of “let it be light”, with a temperature 3000 grade, becomes so old after only 16 billion years traveling? Microwaves!?
What? ---- Do you think that C.M.B. are maybe aged photons of universe’s suns (both - live and dead ones) ,wandering and lost in space?
I du no! You tell me.

[swansont]

The science now has calculated that only a fraction of fraction is used for the aim for which it is created, that is --- to illuminate the earth.

 

There is no "aim" of a photon created by the sun.

 

Do you think that C.M.B. are maybe aged photons of universe’s suns (both - live and dead ones) ,wandering and lost in space?

I du no! You tell me.[/size]

 

If these were "aged" photons, you should be able to measure a spectrum depending on their age and source, instead of a value that's predicted by the expansion of the universe.

[Kramer]

Swanson
About first your short rebut I have nothing to debate: opinion issues. I only may assure you that if we put in overall voting our opinions, my will bit yours with near three-git.

About second your explanation:

”If these were "aged" photons, you should be able to measure a spectrum depending on their age and source, instead of a value that's predicted by the expansion of the universe.”

here please I need some explanations to disperse my doubts:

1- Where are now photons of “ let it be light” and what had happen with their energy ?
2- Where have ended photons of all suns of all their times, and is any method to calculate their approximate energy? Where is it gone that energy?
3- Aren’t microwaves part in Plank graphic and doesn’t they coexist in the packet of photons together with other “high frequency waves” emitted by “let it be light - Sun “ . or in the light of normal suns afterwards?
4- Why ruled out any possibility that the photons may have loosed waves with high frequency as more vulnerable to be swallowed by micro particles that fill the space and degrade them in low frequency ?
5-What is this “value predicted by the expansion of universe? Who from?.
Ou –ou .I forget about Mr Agostine. In the moment of creation of universy , was created time and space .
Nevertheless that this was a sound authority in physic, I again want to ask:
Where is the place that photons created by suns have been “annihilated”?

[swansont]

1- Where are now photons of “ let it be light” and what had happen with their energy ?

"Let there be light" is Biblical, not scientific.

 

2- Where have ended photons of all suns of all their times, and is any method to calculate their approximate energy? Where is it gone that energy?

When photons are absorbed, the material absorbing the photon gains the energy. That material can emit more photons. Photon number is not a conserved quantity.

3- Aren’t microwaves part in Plank graphic and doesn’t they coexist in the packet of photons together with other “high frequency waves” emitted by “let it be light - Sun “ . or in the light of normal suns afterwards?

Plank graphic?

 

The sun emits photons of many wavelengths.

4- Why ruled out any possibility that the photons may have loosed waves with high frequency as more vulnerable to be swallowed by micro particles that fill the space and degrade them in low frequency ?

Which micro particles?

5-What is this “value predicted by the expansion of universe? Who from?.

Value of what? The microwave background radiation? It's a prediction of the Big Bang.

[ACG52]

The sun is created to illuminate the earth days as a candle, in the same as the moon on the night. Here is nothing to ask because it is so evident.

I'm a little confused. I didn't realize we were in the religion thread.

[Kramer]

 

Swanson

"Let ther e be light" is Biblical, not scientific.

----- It is taken by a popular masterpiece of a star phys. math. ist

When photons are absorbed, the material absorbing the photon gains the energy. That material can emit more photons. Photon number is not a conserved quantity.

----- The question was about the photons that are wasted in open space. The emitted photons re-emitted----- aren’t they of microwaves frequency? “Non conserved quantity of photons” it is interesting issue for me to think about it.

Plank graphic?
The sun emits photons of many wavelengths.

-----Forget for while the ignorance of a L.M. Let say Plank diagram of dependence of intensity energy by frequency. In fact it seems that in space predominate the energy of micro-waves as they are most numerous. Seems like Plank diagram is inversed when the suns emit 70% visible light and in space exist only low frequency waves.
This is in fact this thread about. Where is visible light emitted by suns-- in eons?

Which micro particles?

-----I do no. You tell me. Maybe those that create “after glow”?


Value of what? The microwave background radiation? It's a prediction of the Big Bang.

----- Exact. For this is the thread. Big Bang can’t predict, it is predicted by people that create theory, hypothesis, myths. ( Like predecessor physicist of the author, the name of which is mentioned in that masterpiece)

ACG53

You lack humor in physic!

[ACG52]

ACG53

You lack humor in physic!

 

The only physics you've taken is Ex-lax.

 

You also seem to have trouble counting. That's what your fingers are for.

[swansont]

Swanson

 

"Let ther e be light" is Biblical, not scientific.

 

----- It is taken by a popular masterpiece of a star phys. math. ist

 

When photons are absorbed, the material absorbing the photon gains the energy. That material can emit more photons. Photon number is not a conserved quantity.

 

----- The question was about the photons that are wasted in open space. The emitted photons re-emitted----- aren’t they of microwaves frequency? “Non conserved quantity of photons” it is interesting issue for me to think about it.

 

Photons are wasted in open space?

 

Re-emitted photons will depend on the interaction and material involved.

 

 

Plank graphic?

The sun emits photons of many wavelengths.

 

-----Forget for while the ignorance of a L.M. Let say Plank diagram of dependence of intensity energy by frequency. In fact it seems that in space predominate the energy of micro-waves as they are most numerous. Seems like Plank diagram is inversed when the suns emit 70% visible light and in space exist only low frequency waves.

This is in fact this thread about. Where is visible light emitted by suns-- in eons?

 

 

If you are referring to the black body spectrum, it depends on temperature. The sun emits a lot of visible light because the surface is at around 6000 K. The microwave background has cooled because of the expansion and is what you would expect of something at around 2.7 K.

 

 

 

Which micro particles?

 

-----I do no. You tell me. Maybe those that create “after glow”?

 

You brought it up.

 

 

 

Value of what? The microwave background radiation? It's a prediction of the Big Bang.

 

----- Exact. For this is the thread. Big Bang can’t predict, it is predicted by people that create theory, hypothesis, myths. ( Like predecessor physicist of the author, the name of which is mentioned in that masterpiece)

 

 

And your point would be what, exactly?

[Kramer]

 

ACG52

. The only physics you've taken is Ex-lax.
You also seem to have trouble counting

That's what your fingers are for.

-----I wanted to bribe you mister b.p. for to leave me alone. For this i increased you from grade 2 to 3. Now I degrade you again as a rude interlocutor.

SWANSONT

Photons are wasted in open space?

Re-emitted photons will depend on the interaction and material involved. Photons are wasted in open space?

---- Your cautious responses and interrogation sentences, which express doubt about validity of my questions, disappoint me. Haven’t I been clear in my thread, that I am confused about where ends the fate of photons of light? Forget for a while if they are created by the “sun of Big Bang” or by the suns of universe. Forget about that minimal percent of them, which hit cosmic bodies and are reemitted, even though it presents a plus in my doubt. I asked about photons that trip always in space.
You affirm that photons not change their frequency in their trip in space. Is it true? If yes then what is their fate? Will they continue their trip unchanged in infinity?
If their frequency change, does this in any way result in microwaves? Why not in radio waves, or in longer wavelengths?

. If you are referring to the black body spectrum, it depends on temperature. The sun emits a lot of visible light because the surface is at around 6000 K. The microwave background has cooled because of the expansion and is what you would expect of something at around 2.7 K.

---- Isn’t black body spectrum result of Plank work? ( For joke---temperature of sun is twice higher than the “ Sun of big bang”. One plus for my controversy.)

-----That yours “ background has “cooled” because of expansion” confuse me? Are photons cooled by the low temperature of space? Or by the expansion of space?
I think those are two different causes.
What has to do expansion of space (if it were any), with temperature of photons. After this logic the photons that hit the space today find an expanded space and they must be cooled instantaneous in microwaves (if this is the limit of their age) ,
So, I think, the expansion of space must not be the cause of cooling the photons.(alias of reduction of their frequency in microwaves)
The logic leads in a controversial hypothesis:
Creation of microwave background exist as the cause of lowest temperature of space, which is its property.
Maybe creation of a wave has its initials of its life in higher limit of temperature ( higher Plank energy area, temperature and space) and the end of it’s life in Zero Kelvin , in lowest Plank energy area, space and temperature. Indeed in lowest Plank area radius of particle is inverse proportional with temperature.

---- By the way, is it possible to obtain zero Kelvin in outer space inside a metallic box which impede entrance of microwaves?

You brought it up

---- Yes. I brought it up as a controversial argument that frequency change even by collision of photons with mass particles, and degrade waves in microwaves.
Existence of micro particles in space is a fact.

And your point would be what, exactly?

----- Short. A theory that take for base a myth merits to be considered with skepticism and doubt.

[swansont]

SWANSONT

Photons are wasted in open space?

 

Re-emitted photons will depend on the interaction and material involved. Photons are wasted in open space?

 

---- Your cautious responses and interrogation sentences, which express doubt about validity of my questions, disappoint me. Haven’t I been clear in my thread, that I am confused about where ends the fate of photons of light?

 

No, you haven't been clear. It's hard to parse what you mean, which is why I ask for clarification. I am assuming that English isn't your first language

 

 

Forget for a while if they are created by the “sun of Big Bang” or by the suns of universe. Forget about that minimal percent of them, which hit cosmic bodies and are reemitted, even though it presents a plus in my doubt. I asked about photons that trip always in space.

You affirm that photons not change their frequency in their trip in space. Is it true? If yes then what is their fate? Will they continue their trip unchanged in infinity?

 

If they don't interact, the only change will be due to the expansion of the universe.

 

 

If their frequency change, does this in any way result in microwaves? Why not in radio waves, or in longer wavelengths?

 

Because the amount of expansion depends on how much time has elapsed since the big bang.

 

 

. If you are referring to the black body spectrum, it depends on temperature. The sun emits a lot of visible light because the surface is at around 6000 K. The microwave background has cooled because of the expansion and is what you would expect of something at around 2.7 K.

 

---- Isn’t black body spectrum result of Plank work? ( For joke---temperature of sun is twice higher than the “ Sun of big bang”. One plus for my controversy.)

 

It's Planck, and yes, he worked on it. Others, too.

 

-That yours “ background has “cooled” because of expansion” confuse me? Are photons cooled by the low temperature of space? Or by the expansion of space?

I think those are two different causes.

 

Space itself doesn't actually have a temperature. That's a somewhat lazy reference to the microwave background having a thermal signature with a temperature of ~2.7 K, which is due to the expansion.

 

 

What has to do expansion of space (if it were any), with temperature of photons. After this logic the photons that hit the space today find an expanded space and they must be cooled instantaneous in microwaves (if this is the limit of their age) ,

 

The expansion caused the cooling. It happened over billions of years, not instantaneously.

 

So, I think, the expansion of space must not be the cause of cooling the photons.(alias of reduction of their frequency in microwaves)

The logic leads in a controversial hypothesis:

Creation of microwave background exist as the cause of lowest temperature of space, which is its property.

Maybe creation of a wave has its initials of its life in higher limit of temperature ( higher Plank energy area, temperature and space) and the end of it’s life in Zero Kelvin , in lowest Plank energy area, space and temperature. Indeed in lowest Plank area radius of particle is inverse proportional with temperature.

 

No.

 

---- By the way, is it possible to obtain zero Kelvin in outer space inside a metallic box which impede entrance of microwaves?

 

 

No.

 

 

You brought it up

 

---- Yes. I brought it up as a controversial argument that frequency change even by collision of photons with mass particles, and degrade waves in microwaves.

Existence of micro particles in space is a fact.

 

And yet when I asked you said you didn't know, so I will ask again: what micro particles?

 

 

 

And your point would be what, exactly?

 

----- Short. A theory that take for base a myth merits to be considered with skepticism and doubt.

 

It helps to understand the theory you are criticizing. It helps a lot.

[SamBridge]

Where is their death? Where they get absorbed by a particle.

[Kramer]

 

SWANSONT

No, you haven't been clear. It's hard to parse what you mean, which is why I ask for clarification. I am assuming that English isn't your first language

------ I did what I could, to make clear my questions. About my English, I have had, in another thread, your zero valuation. I have noticed that sometime some core Englishmen pretend that don’t understand, with aim to embarrass conversant and to show their supremacy or when they don’t bother themselves for a grammar analysis. Sure this is not the case.

If they don't interact, the only change will be due to the expansion of the universe

----- From your categorical sentences is excluded any other cause for change of E.M. waves frequency, except when they loose energy by the collision with mass bodies and when their wave length suffer deformation (stretching) from space’s expansion.
Doesn’t it seems like waves are welded in the fabric of space? By what kind of force?

Because the amount of expansion depends on how much time has elapsed since the big bang.

------ I think that ‘flow of time’ is a human illusion. When human began to count with fingers and to make comparison between periodic natural phenomena, like day-night, sessions, and with them to count live-lengths and other important personal issues. It has nothing to do with space.

Space itself doesn't actually have a temperature. That's a somewhat lazy reference to the microwave background having a thermal signature with a temperature of ~2.7 K, which is due to the expansion.

------ Doesn’t it mean that temperature of space in itself is zero Kelvin? And, temperature of –2.7 K isn’t it temperature of microwaves photons via: De Vien constant / wave-length? Isn’t my ‘finger numeration’ right?
Here another head scratch: If temperature of microwaves is so low, why microwave –oven doesn’t work as a fridge?

The expansion caused the cooling. It happened over billions of years, not instantaneously.

------- If I understand right, it has to do with intensity of photons in the unity volume of space that decide the temperature of universe or fridge? Not the temperature of photons in itself?

No.

----- A categorical and hermetic answer, for my questions.
Anyway I insist in the idea that the alleged theory is nothing else but the span of two Plank, estreme status of the world of particles vested in cosmology.

No.

---- Another categorical hermetic answer. Why wouldn’t be zero Kelvin temperature of a volume of space, if it will be privet by waves? Aren’t waves cause of temperature?

And yet when I asked you said you didn't know, so I will ask again: what micro particles?

------ Let say : alleged particles of dark mater, neutrinos, mesons, and debris of all kind.

It helps to understand the theory you are criticizing. It helps a lot.

Me no. On the contrary. When I was a kid I asked my grandma; why rain rains from clouds? “The scientific” her answer was: The goddesses hidden in the clouds are washing their pants.

SAMBRIDGE

Where is their death? Where they get absorbed by a particle.

------ And those that do not collide with particles?

[SamBridge]

 

 

Where is their death? Where they get absorbed by a particle.

A photon is different than pure energy itself. Energy in the macroscopic scale is always conserved within any closed system. On extremely small scales, it may be possible for it to be created or destroyed through improbability and uncertainty of its existence such as with virtual matter/anti-matter pairs.

[Kramer]

 

SAMBRIDGE

A photon is different than pure energy itself. Energy in the macroscopic scale is always conserved within any closed system. On extremely small scales, it may be possible for it to be created or destroyed through improbability and uncertainty of its existence such as with virtual matter/anti-matter pairs.

-------- So the fate of photon is in the “hand of improbability or uncertainty” if I grasped right your meaning. This mean that photon may be “ annihilated “ even without arriving in earth or be moving in eternity with out any change in frequency.
Or it may change in frequency via expansion of space, as assume modern cosmology.
May be: change of frequency of visible light photon in microwaves may have at all different cause!
I don’t believe in” uncertainty “or in “virtual’s”. Whatever be the phenomena it must have a cause to happen, each change must have a law, every participant in change must be real.

[SamBridge]

-------- So the fate of photon is in the “hand of improbability or uncertainty” if I grasped right your meaning. This mean that photon may be “ annihilated “ even without arriving in earth or be moving in eternity with out any change in frequency.

Or it may change in frequency via expansion of space, as assume modern cosmology.

May be: change of frequency of visible light photon in microwaves may have at all different cause!

If you're asking if a photon get's destroyed, photon's get destroyed all the time. If you're asking if energy get's destroyed however, even when it does in small amounts get destroyed or created, the balance is usually sustained, energy get's destroyed in virtual pairs as much as it's created, so even in that instance there is still a conservation. Energy already in existence doesn't really go away.

 

 

I don’t believe in” uncertainty “or in “virtual’s”. Whatever be the phenomena it must have a cause to happen, each change must have a law, every participant in change must be real.

Well that's too bad because they aren't religions.

Edited June 9, 2013 by SamBridge

[swansont]

SWANSONT

 

No, you haven't been clear. It's hard to parse what you mean, which is why I ask for clarification. I am assuming that English isn't your first language

 

------ I did what I could, to make clear my questions. About my English, I have had, in another thread, your zero valuation. I have noticed that sometime some core Englishmen pretend that don’t understand, with aim to embarrass conversant and to show their supremacy or when they don’t bother themselves for a grammar analysis. Sure this is not the case.

 

Can't parse this.

 

 

If they don't interact, the only change will be due to the expansion of the universe

 

----- From your categorical sentences is excluded any other cause for change of E.M. waves frequency, except when they loose energy by the collision with mass bodies and when their wave length suffer deformation (stretching) from space’s expansion.

Doesn’t it seems like waves are welded in the fabric of space? By what kind of force?

 

No, they are not "welded in the fabric of space" so there is no force. Space is not a substance.

 

Because the amount of expansion depends on how much time has elapsed since the big bang.

 

------ I think that ‘flow of time’ is a human illusion. When human began to count with fingers and to make comparison between periodic natural phenomena, like day-night, sessions, and with them to count live-lengths and other important personal issues. It has nothing to do with space.

 

Relativity disagrees, and relativity is a wildly successful scientific model.

 

Space itself doesn't actually have a temperature. That's a somewhat lazy reference to the microwave background having a thermal signature with a temperature of ~2.7 K, which is due to the expansion.

 

------ Doesn’t it mean that temperature of space in itself is zero Kelvin? And, temperature of –2.7 K isn’t it temperature of microwaves photons via: De Vien constant / wave-length? Isn’t my ‘finger numeration’ right?

Here another head scratch: If temperature of microwaves is so low, why microwave –oven doesn’t work as a fridge?

 

Space isn't a substance, so it can't have a temperature.

 

Microwaves in a microwave oven aren't from a thermal source and don't represent thermal equilibrium. Thermodynamically speaking they do work on whatever you put into them to cook.

 

 

 

The expansion caused the cooling. It happened over billions of years, not instantaneously.

 

------- If I understand right, it has to do with intensity of photons in the unity volume of space that decide the temperature of universe or fridge? Not the temperature of photons in itself?

 

No. It's the distribution of wavelengths (or frequencies) that dictates the temperature.

 

 

And yet when I asked you said you didn't know, so I will ask again: what micro particles?

------ Let say : alleged particles of dark mater, neutrinos, mesons, and debris of all kind.

 

Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically. Mesons have exceedingly short half-lives - where would they come from? Debris? What debris?

 

The bottom line is that if light interacted with it, there's a chance we could see it. And if light scattered off of it, we wouldn't see those photons coming from a source. They scattered and went off in a different direction!

 

It helps to understand the theory you are criticizing. It helps a lot.

 

Me no. On the contrary. When I was a kid I asked my grandma; why rain rains from clouds? “The scientific” her answer was: The goddesses hidden in the clouds are washing their pants.

 

Your little anecdote is supposed to mean what, exactly?

 

 

[Kramer]

 

SAMBRIDGE

A photon is different than pure energy itself. Energy in the macroscopic scale is always conserved within any closed system. On extremely small scales, it may be possible for it to be created or destroyed through improbability and uncertainty of its existence such as with virtual matter/anti-matter pairs.

-------- So the fate of photon is in the “hand of improbability or uncertainty” if I grasped right your meaning. This mean that photon may be “ annihilated “ even without arriving in earth or be moving in eternity with out any change in frequency.
Or it may change in frequency via expansion of space, as assume modern cosmology.
May be: change of frequency of visible light photon in microwaves may have at all different cause!
I don’t believe in” uncertainty “or in “virtual’s”. Whatever be the phenomena it must have a cause to happen, each change must have a law, every participant in change must be real.

SAMBRIDGE
If you're asking if a photon get's destroyed, photon's get destroyed all the time. If you're asking if energy get's destroyed however, even when it does in small amounts get destroyed or created, the balance is usually sustained, energy get's destroyed in virtual pairs as much as it's created, so even in that instance there is still a conservation. Energy already in existence doesn't really go away.

------I really don’t understand you or maybe “my lay-man’s notion for photons” is wrong. I think that photons are particles of light. As particles they have energy which is equal h*f. They may be in packet of different coherent waves, in this case they have a common frequency (for this I am not sure), Ones can’t imagine photon without it’s movement with C velocity..
Now -- photons of light, with origin in sun, move in all directions. A few of them hit the earth. Here, they are absorbed , as you say, by mass particles. The process of absorption for me is an enigma, --- may you give me a clue about how? You say that here is the death of photons, because they exist only in C velocity. Right! Because particles that absorb them are relative stationary.
But why not speculate that linear velocity of photon is transformed in circular, or even spherical? Why not suppose that electrons and photons are structured with the same sort of sub-particles?
----- Again. What about those photons that does not hit earth ? What about their end?

 

Well that's too bad because they aren't religions.

----- May be not to bad if you try to throw out of science all those weird transcendent statements, but it is bad because a lay - man like me, with scarce knowledge, is not fit for this. They are not --- but they grist in their mills.



Swansont

Can't parse this.
----- Can we leave aside my linguistic deficits? My English is lame because is not learned in school.



No, they are not "welded in the fabric of space" so there is no force. Space is not a substance

----- That too weird: space is not substance but it acts up on substance. Any explanation about how it happens?
What if I speculate a gross that space is not empty, but it is filled with the sub-particles of antimatter that are missing in the islands of mater called galaxies?

Relativity disagrees, and relativity is a wildly successful scientific mode

------- That ‘s right but when we speak about flow of time, maybe it is true only for circular movement. In this case the flow of time is proportional with frequency and this is inverse proportional with flow of time.

Space isn't a substance, so it can't have a temperature.

------- Now some physicists say that empty space (isn’t this vacuum?) is filled with virtual particles, which pop in and out existence, via uncertainty principle. Isn’t this in contradiction of your statement?
On the other hand; the lower frequency of waves brings the lower temperature: of which? Of the space or the waves? If frequency becomes zero, for example constant field (if they exist), how much will be temperature?

Microwaves in a microwave oven aren't from a thermal source and don't represent thermal equilibrium. Thermodynamically speaking they do work on whatever you put into them to cook.

--------Sure they cook my food, I repeat this “experiment” every day, so – it is undisputable fact.
May be I was wrong comparing the two kind of microwaves, which may have different frequency in the span of microwaves. Can I have a numerical value for both, please? Because I have had a wrong idea that the “afterglow microwaves” must be used for cooking, in the interstellar trip. (Or for production of electrostatic energy, like from microwaves of m.w.oven in my home experiment)
My wrong idea was created by the dimension of holes in metallic door’s set of oven.

No. It's the distribution of wavelengths (or frequencies) that dictates the temperature.

____ That “dictates” push me to ask: by what means?

Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically. Mesons have exceedingly short half-
lives - where would they come from? Debris? What debris?

----The truth, I don’t remember where I read once that in each cubic meter of space are N particles. What about Dirac’s sea? For me is more interesting than dark matter which, I think with myself, is a crutch.

The bottom line is that if light interacted with it, there's a chance we could see it. And if light scattered off of it, we wouldn't see those photons coming from a source. They scattered and went off in a different direction!

------- I think that photons of light are a bunch of different frequency waves, and those that are more vulnerable to be derailed from the pack are those with lower frequency, like infra, micro and radio waves.
.
Little anecdote is supposed to mean what, exactly?

----- Nothing specific. Only a justification for my skepticism.

[swansont]

No, they are not "welded in the fabric of space" so there is no force. Space is not a substance

 

----- That too weird: space is not substance but it acts up on substance. Any explanation about how it happens?

What if I speculate a gross that space is not empty, but it is filled with the sub-particles of antimatter that are missing in the islands of mater called galaxies?

 

Come up with a way to test the idea, and then test it.

 

 

Relativity disagrees, and relativity is a wildly successful scientific mode

 

------- That ‘s right but when we speak about flow of time, maybe it is true only for circular movement. In this case the flow of time is proportional with frequency and this is inverse proportional with flow of time.

 

This makes no sense to me.

 

Space isn't a substance, so it can't have a temperature.

 

------- Now some physicists say that empty space (isn’t this vacuum?) is filled with virtual particles, which pop in and out existence, via uncertainty principle. Isn’t this in contradiction of your statement?

 

"Filled with virtual particles" is not the same as "made of virtual particles".

 

 

On the other hand; the lower frequency of waves brings the lower temperature: of which? Of the space or the waves? If frequency becomes zero, for example constant field (if they exist), how much will be temperature?

 

It's a blackbody distribution. The shape of the distribution indicates the temperature of the source. Zero frequency doesn't make sense.

 

Microwaves in a microwave oven aren't from a thermal source and don't represent thermal equilibrium. Thermodynamically speaking they do work on whatever you put into them to cook.

 

--------Sure they cook my food, I repeat this “experiment” every day, so – it is undisputable fact.

 

Yes. The add energy to your food and it heats up. Thermodynamically, this would be the work (W) rather than heat (Q), because the energy transfer is not because of a temperature difference.

 

 

May be I was wrong comparing the two kind of microwaves, which may have different frequency in the span of microwaves. Can I have a numerical value for both, please? Because I have had a wrong idea that the “afterglow microwaves” must be used for cooking, in the interstellar trip. (Or for production of electrostatic energy, like from microwaves of m.w.oven in my home experiment)

My wrong idea was created by the dimension of holes in metallic door’s set of oven.

 

http://www.astro.soton.ac.uk/~pac/PH112/notes/notes/node182.html

 

Microwave ovens usually have frequencies around 2.4 GHz, in a fairly narrow spectrum.

 

 

 

No. It's the distribution of wavelengths (or frequencies) that dictates the temperature.

 

____ That “dictates” push me to ask: by what means?

 

The blackbody spectrum's shape depends on temperature.

 

 

 

Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically. Mesons have exceedingly short half-

lives - where would they come from? Debris? What debris?

 

----The truth, I don’t remember where I read once that in each cubic meter of space are N particles. What about Dirac’s sea? For me is more interesting than dark matter which, I think with myself, is a crutch.

 

 

Those are typically protons. If you scatter off of a proton, you don't see that photon, because it has changes direction.

 

The bottom line is that if light interacted with it, there's a chance we could see it. And if light scattered off of it, we wouldn't see those photons coming from a source. They scattered and went off in a different direction!

 

------- I think that photons of light are a bunch of different frequency waves, and those that are more vulnerable to be derailed from the pack are those with lower frequency, like infra, micro and radio waves.

 

 

You need a much more complete model than this if you want to posit stellar origins for the CMB. You have to answer why it looks pretty uniform and why it looks thermal with the temperature it has.

[Kramer]

SWANSONT

Come up with a way to test the idea, and then test it.

------ Well---I will wait until experiment will show that anti-hydrogen bounce up.
That too weird: space is not substance but it acts up on substance. Any explanation about how it happens? I dare to request.


This makes no sense to me.

------A polite answer, Thanks.
But… Isn’t time measured by number of cycles, Aren’t cycles the root of illusion of time? Even in linear movement everyone can find comparison between numbers of cycles, and the rate with unity, and this way it may be called flow of time.

"Filled with virtual particles" is not the same as "made of virtual particles"

====Ha. Do you mean that space has structure and that the fabric of space is wowed from virtual particles?! It’s going from weird concept in weirdness itself.
Any data about density of them in cubic cm?
Isn’t there a possibility that this structure of space degrade the frequency of light?
Any data about forces that cause them to create a stable or un-stable space?
Any difference between them and abrogated aether?
And many- many questions bring your statement ” space is made of virtual particles”.

It's a blackbody distribution. The shape of the distribution indicates the temperature of
the source. Zero frequency doesn't make sense.

-----The map of dispersion of microwaves show different spot that presents different temperatures from different places of black body..
Are there any spots with zero grad K?
After moment “zero plus” from command “let it be light “, there was a full specter, from which to us arrived (degenerated in microwaves ) only visible frequencies: what was the fate of ultra and infra waves?

Microwave ovens usually have frequencies around 2.4 GHz, in a fairly narrow spectrum.

---- I don’t see any big difference in frequency with space microwaves. Am I wrong?
If I am not : why is difference in their energy? Why not cook with them.?

The blackbody spectrum's shape depends on temperature.

==== That’s true. But isn’t true the vice verse: temperature is caused by waves-length?

Those are typically protons. If you scatter off of a proton, you don't see that photon, because it has changes direction

------ I suppose that waves have particular structure with the same sub-particles as the mass particles. It differs only composition of charges. In this meaning not only the scattering effect, but mostly the movement near charged particles change the frequency of light.

This influence is more active, especially, for the waves with low frequencies , which cause the red shift of them. This influence must be very weak but in the long trip of many parsecs it becomes observable.

You need a much more complete model than this if you want to posit stellar origins for the CMB. You have to answer why it looks pretty uniform and why it looks thermal with the temperature it has.

------ There was a paradox against the infinity of universe: If universe was infinity the sky would be full of light by the infinity stars (suns).
Let say: the sky is full of light, but with a light of low quality --- microwaves.
It is strange the nature of reasoning pro or contra.

 

[ACG52]

Is there any reason you can't learn to use the quote function? It's almost impossible to tell which are your responses. Except the other quotes are the ones which make sense.

[Kramer]

ACG50

Yes. You are very bright to distinguish the inside….of the box.