Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: The Source of All Light

  1. #1 The Source of All Light 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4
    For the longest time, and according to every extant website, I believed that all EM radiation, light, came from the same thing; an electron is knocked up to a higher orbit and then upon falling back sheds a photon. Ok, but, then I read that an antenna makes radio waves because as they vibrate up and down, the lines of electric force emanating from them start waving, the same way waves move along a rope when you shake one end of it. So, now I'm confused. Radio and visible light are both EM radiation, right? What happened to the notion that all EM radiation comes from photons coming off electrons as they fall back to lower orbits?

    So you know how to form your replies; I have no formal training. I'm Pbs Nova educated. Many thanks.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: The Source of All Light 
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by Vosh
    What happened to the notion that all EM radiation comes from photons coming off electrons as they fall back to lower orbits?
    That statement is misleading. Change the word "all" to "some" and you are better placed.

    Electromagnetic radiation can arise in many ways. Of importance to radio engineers is the fact that whenever an electron is accelerated it will give off EM radiation. So the idea is to have electrons surging back and forth in an electric circuit or an antenna. Then you can transmit.

    There are many ways of creating EM radiation and each is associated with a particular range of energies, giving rise to EM radiation of particular frequencies. Visible light is most likely the result of the electron transitions that you described. Other regions of the EM spectrum are generated by other means.

    *


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: The Source of All Light 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Vosh
    For the longest time, and according to every extant website, I believed that all EM radiation, light, came from the same thing; an electron is knocked up to a higher orbit and then upon falling back sheds a photon. Ok, but, then I read that an antenna makes radio waves because as they vibrate up and down, the lines of electric force emanating from them start waving, the same way waves move along a rope when you shake one end of it. So, now I'm confused. Radio and visible light are both EM radiation, right? What happened to the notion that all EM radiation comes from photons coming off electrons as they fall back to lower orbits?

    So you know how to form your replies; I have no formal training. I'm Pbs Nova educated. Many thanks.

    And I learned it that when you slow ambient radiation which is just electrons moving so fast they do not register, to our senses or most of our equipment. That these slowed electrons now become the effects we have come to know and love. Light, heat, radiation, gravity, even sound are all caused by electrons.

    The waves created in matter. The vibrations the movements are all the effect of ambient radiation. Matter was believed by Benjamin Franklin to be particles of electricity just frozen or trapped. He called ambient radiation (electrons) the fluid that runs in between them. He called an abundance of free electrons a positive charge and a shortage of these particles of electricity a negative charge.

    Great scholars have since changed that up so now we call an abundance of electricity that creates a positive pressure that can easily be demonstrated, wrongly a negative charge. Because someone had the notion and very little practical experience, that electrons were somehow negative when they misunderstood how a cathode tube worked.

    A cathode tube sends electrons from the terminal currently marked (-) the anode, to the Cathode in the back of the tube. The Cathode becomes over excited and creates a diode, that creates a beam of electrons back against the flow of the power supply. This caused so much confusion and a pile of comical literature a mile high. The only thing not to funny is that modern scientists screwed up batteries and other devices by mislabelling them.

    The anode actually has a positive amount of electricity, and a positive pressure. The cathode before excited has a shortage of electrons or a negative pressure.

    Today the pressure in a battery runs from the (-) to the (+) terminal. Totally opposite of what our founding father Benjamin Franklin had almost by an act of God isolated and recorded for history. When his findings were laughed at by English scientists, he was pretty well assured that England was no longer moving in an upward direction. As we can be pretty well be assured our scientists are no longer moving upward.

    These are frames captured during the destruction of a piece of copper wire. The torch on the right side of the screen is feeding DC current to the left side. The torch is charged (-) as currently marked on a car battery. However you may be able to note that the pressure is from the torch marked (-).



    But to answer the question as an honors student, I was taught and lectured to, by a Universal Scientist from a local collage, that corroborated what the Grumman defense plant had already taught me. That it is all electrons, and pressure from ambient radiation.

    The Grumman defense plant in the sixties could accomplish what we cannot do today. They could bend metal with magnetic fields, while it was cold. They could go to other planets and solar systems. In days or months. They knew what we exhale to survive.

    They could boil ground water. Or effect the earths magnetic field. All with rather small devices that require little power.

    There have been tests that appear to prove that matter is just electrons. I do not know what has happened to the test information. However at one time it was standard in my area. My area was different then other areas though. Our Mallincrodt Ammonia was labeled NO2.

    All elements when pure, formed a Siamese bond with themselves. Pure hydrogen gas was H2, pure Helium gas was He2, Pure Argon was Ar2, pure Iron was Fe2.

    If you understand that it is all electrons, you can also understand that matter has no mass and weight. Mass and weight is an effect of the pressure created by ambient radiation.
    The distance between electrons that make up a proton, and the time it takes to transfer velocity from one electron to another, through an infinite chain of electrons.
    Create a diode on one side of an objects surface and it will take off faster then we can explain the strength of its structure supporting its current shape, using multi-subatomic particle science explanations.

    Electrons are as small, as what they believe is a photon, but is actually an electron. And a single electron can move the matter contained in our universe. An electron can never be destroyed.

    Light works almost like electricity. When it is in a conductor it stays in the conductor and moves away from the surface of the conductor where it was introduced.

    If you shine light through the side of a bar of glass or optical plastic, perpendicular to its length, you can note that it will only bounce off walls that run perpendicular to the wall the light is introduced. Light does not bounce off the wall opposite to the wall the light was introduced. When you shine a light or laser light through a bar the long way. It will bounce (apparently bounce) many times off the walls until it leaves the opposite end of the tube.




    If you press objects up against the sides of the bar of plastic you can get the light to extend beyond the bar of plastic. So light and electricity to me are one and the same. This is how it was taught to me. This is how Benjamin Franklin found it to be. This is the science they used to classify the elements up to 86.

    I said "apparently bounce", because in fact light does not bounce, if looked at, in its basic form and workings. Ambient radiation creates the rays of light. Ambient radiation does not bounce. This link below shows how ambient radiation carries light and never bounces.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/mrbill/mrbill.html


    But I am at odds with most institutions on Earth.






    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Of importance to radio engineers is the fact that whenever an electron is accelerated it will give off EM radiation.
    Will EMR also be given off if they are accelerated in a vacuum?
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    Will EMR also be given off if they are accelerated in a vacuum?
    Certainly.

    *
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    EM radiation is emitted whenever electric charges change their state of movement, i.e. they are accelerated. Positive and negative acceleration are included here. Even a circular movement is an acceleration, because the velocity direction (vector) is changed constantly. This can be observed e.g. in a cyclotron. The only exceptions are atoms in the old Bohr model, where atoms are regarded as similar to planetary systems. Here, the state of movement of an electron can only change in fixed packages (quantums). Therefore, in order to be able to radiate, electrons must change orbits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    EM radiation is emitted whenever electric charges change their state of movement, i.e. they are accelerated. Positive and negative acceleration are included here. Even a circular movement is an acceleration, because the velocity direction (vector) is changed constantly. This can be observed e.g. in a cyclotron. The only exceptions are atoms in the old Bohr model, where atoms are regarded as similar to planetary systems. Here, the state of movement of an electron can only change in fixed packages (quantums). Therefore, in order to be able to radiate, electrons must change orbits.
    Does this mean, then, that my answer is that, yes, all EM radiation comes from accelerating electrons, but that this happens under different circumstances; sometimes changing "orbits", sometimes moving in a current... but the common denominator is, they're accelerating? Hope that made sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    488
    *
    Does this mean, then, that my answer is that, yes, all EM radiation comes from accelerating electrons...
    There are additional sources of EMR, such as nuclear processes. Electrons need not be involved.


    *
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF
    Does this mean, then, that my answer is that, yes, all EM radiation comes from accelerating electrons...
    There are additional sources of EMR, such as nuclear processes. Electrons need not be involved.

    Interesting. Could it be that I once heard that all visible light is the result of electrons shedding photons as the fall back to original orbits, I wonder... Many thanks for your indulgence. This forum has been the most helpful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Cherenkov Radiation is one way visible light can be generated from any charged particle, not just electrons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

    Photons are emitted as an insulator's electrons restore themselves to equilibrium after the disruption has passed.
    Where does the energy to create the photons come from? I am assuming that the particles through induction give the surrounding medium the energy to emit the photons, but then to conserve energy the emitted mass particles must slow down, or reduce their frequency.

    Is it possible to make a type of practical light bulb that accelerates electrons back and forth in a vacuum to generate light? or would this be pointless due to the inherent complexity and low emission compared to other methods?
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

    Photons are emitted as an insulator's electrons restore themselves to equilibrium after the disruption has passed.
    Where does the energy to create the photons come from? I am assuming that the particles through induction give the surrounding medium the energy to emit the photons, but then to conserve energy the emitted mass particles must slow down, or reduce their frequency.

    Is it possible to make a type of practical light bulb that accelerates electrons back and forth in a vacuum to generate light? or would this be pointless due to the inherent complexity and low emission compared to other methods?

    Take a couple watt CB radio and antenna and put fluorescent bulbs around the top of the antenna. You will get your light.

    We used to fool around when we were kids with this. You can hold the bulb standing on dry ground without a problem. It just lights up.

    I would imagine you could make it much more efficient then five watts of power though.




    This is the entire link.

    http://www.rockwelder.com/History/WorldsFair/WF.htm



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    107
    Radio and visible light are both EM radiation, right? What happened to the notion that all EM radiation comes from photons coming off electrons as they fall back to lower orbits?

    Electromagnetic radiation is frequently described in terms of both quantum theory and classical theory. The use of classical theory is often determined by ease and convenience. Quantum theory is used to describe phenomena involving small numbers of photons, such as the emission of one photon. For example, in describing the light emitted by a laser, the process of stimulated emission of photons from atoms within the laser medium would be described in terms of quantum theory - atomic transitions similar to those you have referred to. However, the propagation of light within the laser cavity is described entirely in classical terms - the light is regarded as an electromagnetic wave.

    I principle, everything could be described by quantum theory but it could prove to be unnecessarily complicated when the number of photons involved is very large. Returning to the case of radio transmission - the electromagnetic field radiated from an antenna would normally be described quite adequately using classical theory. But such electromagnetic fields can be described in quantum terms by a process that is often referred to as "second quantization". In second quantization, the field is written in terms of what are called creation and annihilation operators. When this is done, the quanta of energy of the electromagnetic field are indeed photons.

    The two scenarios that you have referred to are simply different ways of treating electromagnetic waves/photons - one is the classical approach and the other is the quantum approach.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Fool
    Radio and visible light are both EM radiation, right? What happened to the notion that all EM radiation comes from photons coming off electrons as they fall back to lower orbits?

    Electromagnetic radiation is frequently described in terms of both quantum theory and classical theory. The use of classical theory is often determined by ease and convenience. Quantum theory is used to describe phenomena involving small numbers of photons, such as the emission of one photon. For example, in describing the light emitted by a laser, the process of stimulated emission of photons from atoms within the laser medium would be described in terms of quantum theory - atomic transitions similar to those you have referred to. However, the propagation of light within the laser cavity is described entirely in classical terms - the light is regarded as an electromagnetic wave.

    I principle, everything could be described by quantum theory but it could prove to be unnecessarily complicated when the number of photons involved is very large. Returning to the case of radio transmission - the electromagnetic field radiated from an antenna would normally be described quite adequately using classical theory. But such electromagnetic fields can be described in quantum terms by a process that is often referred to as "second quantization". In second quantization, the field is written in terms of what are called creation and annihilation operators. When this is done, the quanta of energy of the electromagnetic field are indeed photons.

    The two scenarios that you have referred to are simply different ways of treating electromagnetic waves/photons - one is the classical approach and the other is the quantum approach.
    Maybe you should just throw out all that stuff, and get back to the all electron universe?


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree bit4bit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Fool
    I principle, everything could be described by quantum theory but it could prove to be unnecessarily complicated when the number of photons involved is very large. Returning to the case of radio transmission - the electromagnetic field radiated from an antenna would normally be described quite adequately using classical theory. But such electromagnetic fields can be described in quantum terms by a process that is often referred to as "second quantization". In second quantization, the field is written in terms of what are called creation and annihilation operators. When this is done, the quanta of energy of the electromagnetic field are indeed photons.
    Thats really interesting. When would a radio designer see fit to use this method?
    Chance favours the prepared mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by bit4bit
    Thats really interesting. When would a radio designer see fit to use this method?
    Most radio engineers avoid quantum theory entirely and stick to classical theory. I got this by reading the works of Robert Hanbury-Brown, a famous radio engineer and astronomer. (see his biography over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanbury_Brown.)

    He states that at radio frequencies, photons are too smeared to be of much use in analysis. But his theories were continually challenged by the quantum physicists, mostly on the grounds of the Uncertainty Principle. So he teamed with Richard Twiss, who became his mathematical sidekick. Together they devised single-photon experiments to counter the challenges of the quantum physicists. That done, he could go back to presenting his work strictly along classical lines.

    *
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree bit4bit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    621
    Thats why it struck me...from my experience, radio engineers use purely classical analysis of antennas, and it seems odd to have a need for any sort of quantum analysis whatsoever...in a practical sense at least.
    Chance favours the prepared mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    107
    There is no need for radio engineers to resort to quantum theory, any more than it is necessary to think of photons when working out how a lens forms an image.

    However, all electromagnetic waves, no matter what their wavelength, can be quantized as photons. The point being made in the original question concerned the confusion which can arise when light is described in quantum mechanical terms and also in classical terms. Of the two, the quantum picture is the more fundamental, but classical theory is more readily used in some contexts - such as radio engineering.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF
    Quote Originally Posted by bit4bit
    Thats really interesting. When would a radio designer see fit to use this method?
    Most radio engineers avoid quantum theory entirely and stick to classical theory. I got this by reading the works of Robert Hanbury-Brown, a famous radio engineer and astronomer. (see his biography over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanbury_Brown.)

    He states that at radio frequencies, photons are too smeared to be of much use in analysis. But his theories were continually challenged by the quantum physicists, mostly on the grounds of the Uncertainty Principle. So he teamed with Richard Twiss, who became his mathematical sidekick. Together they devised single-photon experiments to counter the challenges of the quantum physicists. That done, he could go back to presenting his work strictly along classical lines.

    *

    The neutron came to be thought of as a particle in an atom, after much confusion. And after Universal Scientists admitted openly that they will never be able to see an electron. Because it is just too small, to ever see.
    No matter the amplification methods electrons are just too numerous to ever seriously be isolated. It would be like tracking an atom in our sun. From another solar system.

    The Universal Scientists lost the debate due to their honest uncertainty of having never seen an electron. All the fancy accelerators that actually slow down particles or negatively accelerate the particles to make them visible are just a scam or misunderstanding.

    Because they already had the smallest particle in the universe the electron, exactly understood. The Universal Scientists just knew they could never see it.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree bit4bit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Fool
    There is no need for radio engineers to resort to quantum theory, any more than it is necessary to think of photons when working out how a lens forms an image.

    However, all electromagnetic waves, no matter what their wavelength, can be quantized as photons. The point being made in the original question concerned the confusion which can arise when light is described in quantum mechanical terms and also in classical terms. Of the two, the quantum picture is the more fundamental, but classical theory is more readily used in some contexts - such as radio engineering.
    Yes, I'm aware that all light can be quantized, and all light can be treated as classical EM waves. This is the wave-particle duality of light, and in different situations, it may be better to talk in terms of quantized light, or classical light.

    My question was about why would radio designers need to consider an antenna design, for example, in terms of quantum theory. From your replies I see that in fact they don't, which is what I originally thought. When you mentioned the process of "second quantization", I'd assumed it was some common technique employed in radio design, but apparently not.
    Chance favours the prepared mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    107
    When you mentioned the process of "second quantization", I'd assumed it was some common technique employed in radio design, but apparently not.

    It isn't used at all in connection with radio-frequency engineering, as far as I am aware. It refers to that area of quantum theory that is used to describe fields. Any electromagnetic field could be quantized and the quanta would be photons. Vibrational motions in a crystal lattice could be quantized and the quanta would be phonons.

    A radio-frequency photon would have very low energy compared to a photon of visible light and would be very difficult to detect. However, the ammonia maser that was developed in the 1950's emitted at 24 GHz and the description of that definitely requires quantum theory. For normal radio-frequency electronics, the classical description of electromagnetic waves is adequate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Fool
    When you mentioned the process of "second quantization", I'd assumed it was some common technique employed in radio design, but apparently not.

    It isn't used at all in connection with radio-frequency engineering, as far as I am aware. It refers to that area of quantum theory that is used to describe fields. Any electromagnetic field could be quantized and the quanta would be photons. Vibrational motions in a crystal lattice could be quantized and the quanta would be phonons.

    A radio-frequency photon would have very low energy compared to a photon of visible light and would be very difficult to detect. However, the ammonia maser that was developed in the 1950's emitted at 24 GHz and the description of that definitely requires quantum theory. For normal radio-frequency electronics, the classical description of electromagnetic waves is adequate.
    Why would you need or want to to call the emission of electrons quantum theory?

    That is all there is, electron subatomic particles.

    Microwaves are just radio waves at very high frequency. The high frequency can cause air to breakdown and create 30,000 volts of usable power, a great distance away.

    Look at sound, and its spectrum in some respects you could say that mechanical vibration is a closer description of certain bass sounds, rather then sound as we think of it in day to day life.
    And the higher frequency sound could almost be mistaken for radio or electricity. And can be picked up by radio or electrical equipment.

    Radio is electrons. That can create waves or vibrations in matter.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree bit4bit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Fool
    When you mentioned the process of "second quantization", I'd assumed it was some common technique employed in radio design, but apparently not.

    It isn't used at all in connection with radio-frequency engineering, as far as I am aware. It refers to that area of quantum theory that is used to describe fields. Any electromagnetic field could be quantized and the quanta would be photons. Vibrational motions in a crystal lattice could be quantized and the quanta would be phonons.

    A radio-frequency photon would have very low energy compared to a photon of visible light and would be very difficult to detect. However, the ammonia maser that was developed in the 1950's emitted at 24 GHz and the description of that definitely requires quantum theory. For normal radio-frequency electronics, the classical description of electromagnetic waves is adequate.
    Thanks, I'm aware of this already. It's what I originally thought. I think I misread your original post.
    Chance favours the prepared mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Thought you guys might find this interesting. It was provided on another forum and investigates the structure of a photon (and funnily enough ties up with my own hypothesis :wink: ): Photon Structure (small PDF)
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25 Re: The Source of All Light 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF
    Quote Originally Posted by Vosh
    What happened to the notion that all EM radiation comes from photons coming off electrons as they fall back to lower orbits?
    That statement is misleading. Change the word "all" to "some" and you are better placed.

    Electromagnetic radiation can arise in many ways. Of importance to radio engineers is the fact that whenever an electron is accelerated it will give off EM radiation. So the idea is to have electrons surging back and forth in an electric circuit or an antenna. Then you can transmit.

    There are many ways of creating EM radiation and each is associated with a particular range of energies, giving rise to EM radiation of particular frequencies. Visible light is most likely the result of the electron transitions that you described. Other regions of the EM spectrum are generated by other means.
    I can hear someone saying, when I move my arm, am I not accelerating the electrons in my arm? I guess the answer to that is that you get impossibly long waves...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Alc
    Alc is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    21
    William if you say ambient radiation is EVERYWHERE, and in all directions..... how exactly will the "ambient radiation" know which way to send the new beam of light.....? if the area is excited at a singular point as you say. then theres no possible way to determine which way the light should propogate, be it not reflect/refract as a light wave in itself, yes its fine doing a flash animation to show us how you say ambient radiation sends a fresh light wave, atleast explain how the ambient radiation knows the vector in which the wave will need to propogate
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •