# Thread: physics question on light waves!

1. A question just popped into mind, I asked myself and was wondering about complete darkness.

Are there any of the light waves present in the dark, meaning infra-red or UV e.t.c.?

2.

3. Are there any of the light waves present in the dark, meaning infra-red or UV e.t.c.?
Yes, there can be, because you cannot "see" those. You can detect them by other means, though. The term "dark" refers merely to the absence of visible light.

4. It depends. Partly on how you define "dark". If you just mean the absence of visible light then there could be UV, IR, radio, X-rays, etc.

In reality, there will always be some thermal radiation (IR).

5. Thank you for your answers, I do not understand the maths <calculas?> ,quote.

So if there is certain frequencies of light in places of no visible light ,"dark" places, these frequencies penetrate and pass through all matter?

6. Originally Posted by theorist
So if there is certain frequencies of light in places of no visible light ,"dark" places, these frequencies penetrate and pass through all matter?
No, not necessarily. How far radiation can penetrate into matter depends on many factors; for example, gamma radiation will penetrate deeper into the human body than UV radiation does.

7. Interesting, so what radiation would pass completely through the human body , or is that not the case and none can?

8. Originally Posted by theorist
Interesting, so what radiation would pass completely through the human body , or is that not the case and none can?
Most radio frequencies will pass through the body (and walls, which is why you can listen to the radio indoors!) and X-rays, for example.

9. Thank you, sorry to be a pain, so what, if any waves, pass through the planet?

10. Originally Posted by theorist
Thank you, sorry to be a pain, so what, if any waves, pass through the planet?
Gravitational waves - if they exist - would do so.

11. You say gravitation waves, if they exist!, so all the gravity models are based on assumption,?.

and would gravitation waves then not be a form of EMR?

12. There are quite a few things that regularly pass through the planet, but I don't think any of them are composed of photons.

13. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
There are quite a few things that regularly pass through the planet, but I don't think any of them are composed of photons.
What sort of things? if not emr!.

14. Originally Posted by theorist
You say gravitation waves, if they exist!, so all the gravity models are based on assumption,?.
No, not at all - our model of gravity has proven very accurate, and the vast majority of its aspects have been experimentally verified over the years. Gravitational waves are a notable exception, which is mainly because they are extremely difficult to detect; the difficulty here is one of engineering, i.e. one of constructing a detector which is sensitive enough to pick up their signatures. The theory is sound - they are a result of the same theory that also models all other aspects of gravity.

and would gravitation waves then not be a form of EMR?
No, they are very different. EMR is excitations of the electromagnetic field, whereas gravitational waves are disturbances in the metric of space-time itself. Also, they have different polarisation modes.

15. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by theorist
You say gravitation waves, if they exist!, so all the gravity models are based on assumption,?.
No, not at all - our model of gravity has proven very accurate, and the vast majority of its aspects have been experimentally verified over the years. Gravitational waves are a notable exception, which is mainly because they are extremely difficult to detect; the difficulty here is one of engineering, i.e. one of constructing a detector which is sensitive enough to pick up their signatures. The theory is sound - they are a result of the same theory that also models all other aspects of gravity.

and would gravitation waves then not be a form of EMR?
No, they are very different. EMR is excitations of the electromagnetic field, whereas gravitational waves are disturbances in the metric of space-time itself. Also, they have different polarisation modes.
Thank you for the explanation. So gravity waves, they extend out from the earths core pulling in ward or is the gravity waves from external forcing inwards?

16. Dark matter and neutrinos are two things I can think of off the top of my head. Neither are EM.

Edit: Gravity waves only occur due to a change in the gravitational field. While I imagine the Earth's field changes as it moves around the sun, in cosmic terms the Earth is a featherweight when it comes to making waves (that is, those waves are much too small for us to measure, let alone notice). The pull of the Earth is due to the static gravitation field which isn't waving.

17. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Dark matter and neutrinos are two things I can think of off the top of my head. Neither are EM.

Edit: Gravity waves only occur due to a change in the gravitational field. While I imagine the Earth's field changes as it moves around the sun, in cosmic terms the Earth is a featherweight when it comes to making waves (that is, those waves are much too small for us to measure, let alone notice). The pull of the Earth is due to the static gravitation field which isn't waving.
Thank you for the neutrinos and dark matter explanation. Static gravitation, this is what stops us flying off the planet?,

Could we say that gravitation on Earth, is like a magnet for all matter, but with only the slightest of force?.

18. Originally Posted by theorist
Thank you, sorry to be a pain, so what, if any waves, pass through the planet?
I doubt any electromagnetic waves can pass through that thickness of material. The reason why radio waves, for example, can pass through the body (or a wall) is because the body is not very thick so not much radiation is absorbed. If your body was the size of the planet, then no radio waves would go through it.

Nothing is completely transparent. A piece of glass as thick as the plant would be opaque.

But neutrinos pass through the Earth almost as if it weren't they.

19. The biggest difference (apart from the difference in strength) is that a magnet can repel while gravity can't as far as we know, or at least we don't know of anything that would cause space to curve in such a way. Also, gravity attracts everything, not just matter.

20. Originally Posted by theorist
Thank you for the explanation. So gravity waves, they extend out from the earths core pulling in ward or is the gravity waves from external forcing inwards?
I am not sure what you mean here. The mechanics of gravitational waves are actually fairly complicated; basically what they do is introduce relative acceleration between test particles. See the animations on this page :

Gravitational wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

21. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
The biggest difference (apart from the difference in strength) is that a magnet can repel while gravity can't as far as we know, or at least we don't know of anything that would cause space to curve in such a way. Also, gravity attracts everything, not just matter.
Faraday discovered by magnetism that electrons could be directed, If i have that correctly interpreted, is gravity not just a grouping of electrons been attracted together by each other, hence when I jump I feel all my weight pull back down to the surface, is this not my electrons/body electricity, been pulled back to the surface?. directed electrons/electricity pulling back to the surface allowing me not to jump high, unless I create greater escape velocity?

22. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by theorist
Thank you for the explanation. So gravity waves, they extend out from the earths core pulling in ward or is the gravity waves from external forcing inwards?
I am not sure what you mean here. The mechanics of gravitational waves are actually fairly complicated; basically what they do is introduce relative acceleration between test particles. See the animations on this page :

Gravitational wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

23. Originally Posted by theorist
If i have that correctly interpreted, is gravity not just a grouping of electrons been attracted together by each other
Gravity is not just caused by electrons. Everything with mass (or energy) causes gravity, even if there are no electrons.

24. Originally Posted by theorist
Faraday discovered by magnetism that electrons could be directed, If i have that correctly interpreted, is gravity not just a grouping of electrons been attracted together by each other, hence when I jump I feel all my weight pull back down to the surface, is this not my electrons/body electricity, been pulled back to the surface?. directed electrons/electricity pulling back to the surface allowing me not to jump high, unless I create greater escape velocity?
No, gravity doesn't behave the same way as electromagnetism does. Gravity is always attractive, and there is no such thing as "gravitational charge". If you were to try and model gravity with Maxwell's equations, the resulting predictions would be wrong. You need the full formalism of General Relativity to accurately model gravity.

25. Thank you for your posts, I was "saying",trying to say, Faraday realised that electrons could be directed?, by magnetism.

What happens in a sheet of a metal for example if I hit one end with a sledge hammer, the energy of the blow is passed through the sheet, the metal vibrates, is this not a direction of energy?.

26. Originally Posted by theorist
Thank you for your posts, I was "saying",trying to say, Faraday realised that electrons could be directed?, by magnetism.
Yes, magnetic fields exert a force on moving charges. This has nothing to do with gravity.

What happens in a sheet of a metal for example if I hit one end with a sledge hammer, the energy of the blow is passed through the sheet, the metal vibrates, is this not a direction of energy?
The vibration passes through the material at the speed of sound. What does that have to do with Faraday's experiments?

(And I have just remembered who theorist is; random unconnected ideas thrown into a stew and stirred until banned.)

27. Im sorry guys, I am looking for connections, it is all related in a sense, from hammers on sheet metal, to waves and electricity.

And yes Strange, I was the one whom kept getting banned, but i am asking questions, I am just asking what seems random questions, but some where on the way, I am learning new things.

28. The vibration passes through the material at the speed of sound. What does that have to do with Faraday's experiments?
That electrons can be and do get directed, a shock wave is disturbing elements at a sub atomic particle level?

29. Originally Posted by theorist
That electrons can be and do get directed, a shock wave is disturbing elements at a sub atomic particle level?
The reason a material is solid is because the atoms are held together by the bonds created by the electrons in the atoms. The strength of the bonds determines properties like how stiff the material is and hence how it will react to being hit.

So, yes, both things have electrons in comment. Atomic bonds are quantum phenomena and have little to do with Farady's work on electromagnetism.

30. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by theorist
The vibration passes through the material at the speed of sound. What does that have to do with Faraday's experiments?
That electrons can be and do get directed, a shock wave is disturbing elements at a sub atomic particle level?
No, not all all, an electromagnetic field is not a shock wave.
Sorry my apologies, the shock wave was referring to the hammer hit on a metal sheet.

31. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by theorist
That electrons can be and do get directed, a shock wave is disturbing elements at a sub atomic particle level?
The reason a material is solid is because the atoms are held together by the bonds created by the electrons in the atoms. The strength of the bonds determines properties like how stiff the material is and hence how it will react to being hit.

So, yes, both things have electrons in comment. Atomic bonds are quantum phenomena and have little to do with Farady's work on electromagnetism.
Sorry Strange, I just mentioned Faraday to enthesize that electrons can be directional, and I am curious that when my metal sheet is hit, is the shockwave not a temporarily change in electron direction, but not enough to break the bond.
I hit a nail through wood, it is softer and easier to break the bond of the mass?

32. Originally Posted by theorist
Sorry Strange, I just mentioned Faraday to enthesize that electrons can be directional, and I am curious that when my metal sheet is hit, is the shockwave not a temporarily change in electron direction, but not enough to break the bond.
It doesn't change electron "direction" whatever that means. The electrons are in their orbitals around and between atoms. They are not travelling in any direction. Hitting something stretches the bonds (you can crudely think of them as little springs).

The nature of the bonds determines how something reacts to a blow: breaking, shaking like jelly, ringing like a bell.

Note: There are connections between things. Like everything, you need to learn what they are not just make things up as you usually do.

33. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by theorist
Sorry Strange, I just mentioned Faraday to enthesize that electrons can be directional, and I am curious that when my metal sheet is hit, is the shockwave not a temporarily change in electron direction, but not enough to break the bond.
It doesn't change electron "direction" whatever that means. The electrons are in their orbitals around and between atoms. They are not travelling in any direction. Hitting something stretches the bonds (you can crudely think of them as little springs).

The nature of the bonds determines how something reacts to a blow: breaking, shaking like jelly, ringing like a bell.

Note: There are connections between things. Like everything, you need to learn what they are not just make things up as you usually do.
I see small microscopic metal balls joined with cheese, I understand the bonds and electrons been in their orbital position, yes the bond stretches on the molecules, but surely a shock wave must have effect on the electrons orbital forcing temporarily direction change to the wave?

34. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Theorist, the above post (#34) is nonsense. Please think things through and post sensible questions.
Apologies again demon I am trying.

35. Originally Posted by theorist
I see small microscopic metal metal balls joined with cheese
Good grief. Perhaps you need an optician. Or medication.

but surely a shock wave must have effect on the electrons orbital forcing temporarily direction change to the wave?
That makes almost as much sense as your first sentence. (In other words, none.)

Applying force to a material stretches bonds, which means it must have an effect on the orbitals (but I have never studied material science, only physical chemistry so I don't know any details of that).

36. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Really? Statements like: "I see small microscopic metal metal balls joined with cheese" make me very skeptical and lead me to believe you are back to the trolling you admitted to before you went away.
Sorry I thought small metal balls surrounded by cheese was a good metaphor for a molecule.

37. These are (crude and hugely inaccurate but still useful) models of molecules. No cheese involved.

38. Originally Posted by PhDemon
It isn't, please go and do some basic reading and come back with specific questions as I suggested earlier. This nonsensical rambling of yours just pisses people off.
Electrons can be forced a direction by electromagnetic force?

Can a shock wave force direction of electrons in mass?

39. Originally Posted by theorist
Can a shock wave force direction of electrons in mass?
No. Electrons are constrained to their orbitals. They are not "moving in a direction". They are not "force in a direction" by physical force. (Unless you pick the whole object up and move it, I suppose.)

On the other hand:

In a metal, there are fee electrons which will move under the effect of an electric field (not a physical blow). This is what Faraday was investigating. Electromagnetic interactions are not caused by "shock waves".

40. Well, cheese can be quite useful as a model for the moon

41. Originally Posted by Strange
These are (crude and hugely inaccurate but still useful) models of molecules. No cheese involved.

On a close up pic of a molecule I veiwed on the net there was like a residue connecting the atoms together making a molicule. That is where i got the cheese from sorry.

42. Originally Posted by theorist
On a close up pic of a molecule I veiwed on the net there was like a residue connecting the atoms together making a molicule. That is where i got the cheese from sorry.
I assume that was a representation of the orbitals. Why you would think it looked like cheese is beyond me. On the other hand, your mind is a bit like a grapefruit: no one know what is going on inside. (Not even you, I suspect.)

43. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Well, cheese can be quite useful as a model for the moon
There is a danger (quite real) that theorist will take that seriously as a documentary.

44. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by theorist
Can a shock wave force direction of electrons in mass?
No. Electrons are constrained to their orbitals. They are not "moving in a direction". They are not "force in a direction" by physical force. (Unless you pick the whole object up and move it, I suppose.)

On the other hand:

In a metal, there are fee electrons which will move under the effect of an electric field (not a physical blow). This is what Faraday was investigating. Electromagnetic interactions are not caused by "shock waves".
Thank you Strange that answers my question and where i got confused, I was thinking a physical blow did the same.

45. Originally Posted by Strange
There is a danger (quite real) that theorist will take that seriously as a documentary.
Ha ha...sorry, I couldn't resist

46. The electron rotates around the proton?

47. Originally Posted by theorist
The electron rotates around the proton?
Around the nucleus, which is made up of protons and neutrons.

Strictly speaking it does not "rotate" or "orbit" around the nucleus. The electron exists in an "orbital" (which is simply the place where the electron is most likely to be detected).

48. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by theorist
The electron rotates around the proton?
Around the nucleus, which is made up of protons and neutrons.

Strictly speaking it does not "rotate" or "orbit" around the nucleus. The electron exists in an "orbital" (which is simply the place where the electron is most likely to be detected).
Thank you Strange, I remember that from before.

I can not add diagrams, so will try to explain.

Picture the ground, and it is made up of a ? amount of molecules/atoms.

I launch a missile, aimed at impact point A. A 50ft deep piece of concrete. The missile hits the target, most of the force been sent vertically down through the concrete,from the impact point, and also spamming force, spamming outward but also downward from our impact point.
Electrons are not in fixed position that we know, so what evidence is there that disproves that shockwaves/force, does not displace electrons, directional, with the impact of the force and direction of the force?.

NOT TRAVEL DIRECTIONAL, but more hang on a thread to the nucleus but forced to the impact direction, breaking bonds?

49. I'm sorry you have crossed that border from asking fairly sensible question to spouting completely meaningless nonsense. There is no answer to your question because it is incomprehensible.

so what evidence is there that disproves that shockwaves/force, does not displace electrons
There is no need to disprove this as there is no reason to think it could happen.

How do you disprove the idea that unicorns will be created by your missile?

50. Originally Posted by Strange
I'm sorry you have crossed that border from asking fairly sensible question to spouting completely meaningless nonsense. There is no answer to your question because it is incomprehensible.

so what evidence is there that disproves that shockwaves/force, does not displace electrons
There is no need to disprove this as there is no reason to think it could happen.

How do you disprove the idea that unicorns will be created by your missile?

I am not sure strange, how to prove or disprove it. Maybe some sort of EMP sensor.........Its not too far fetched if you consider nuclear fision, you can extract electrons as such.

Electrons we know can be directed.

From a shockwave off a blast, doe's the shockwave contain any known electrical energy?

51. Originally Posted by theorist
From a shockwave off a blast, doe's the shockwave contain any known electrical energy?
As, I think, has already been stated a shockwave is not the same as an electromagnetic wave.

I am not going to answer any more stupid questions.

52. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by theorist
From a shockwave off a blast, doe's the shockwave contain any known electrical energy?
As, I think, has already been stated a shockwave is not the same as an electromagnetic wave.

I am not going to answer any more stupid questions.
What is the difference and do the two entangle, does a shockwave also have an electromagnetic wave at the same time, is there is a frequency difference?

53. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Theorist, please stop the nonsensical rambling. Go back to asking the reasonable questions if you can but making stuff up like this is not helping you and is just plain annoying.
I am sorry I am trying to explain as clear as I can. I suppose I would call it Electron displacement theory, if that does not exist.

54. The idea is that electrons get displaced directional by force of shock wave from any impact, thus making things destructable by breaking of bonds at higher impacts.

55. Go and learn some physics instead of making up crap.

56. Originally Posted by Strange
Go and learn some physics instead of making up crap.

How is this made up?, I am asking you , not telling you, I am asking if this is possible?.

57. You have already been told no. Repeatedly.

N.O. spells No.

It is not possible.

You are talking nonsense.

No. Not possible.

Possible, it ain't.

Niet.

Nein.

Non.

いいえ

NO.

Nothing you invent is possible. It is all crap.

Do you begin to get the message?

58. Electrons are unpredictable to precise location with an often recorded vibration I believe. Atoms resonate, it is not far fetched to see that when destroying an object by force the bonds are broke of the object on a molecular level.
You can not saw an atom, you can only saw an object into smaller molecules.

Heat and friction breaking bonds of the molecule state. Electrons can get excited, you can draw out an electron, so surely electrons would be directed by shockwaves which must contain energy?

59. Originally Posted by Strange
You have already been told no. Repeatedly.

N.O. spells No.

It is not possible.

You are talking nonsense.

No. Not possible.

Possible, it ain't.

Niet.

Nein.

Non.

いいえ

NO.

Nothing you invent is possible. It is all crap.

Do you begin to get the message?
You have not told me why it is not possible?

60. No basis in reality, really?
I hit my metal with an hammer, the molecules become displaced, in lame terms I dent it.

I hit with more force, I get a bigger dent, the mass mishapes.

A shockwave travels through the entire object of mass.

I do not have to be a physics genious to know that a shock wave has force, and generally unless against the laws of motion, anything in a shockwaves path generally follows the direction of the wave.

61. Originally Posted by theorist
You have not told me why it is not possible?
Electrons aren't classical objects; they aren't little "balls" of matter circling the nucleus, like the planets revolve around the sun. If you impart energy onto them, the shape of the orbital they are in doesn't change - all that happens is that they may excite into a different energy level, so they might end up being distributed into different orbitals around the nucleus. The "shapes" of the orbitals themselves, however, never change. Hence you cannot "displace" an electron in the sense that the orbitals distort and the atoms becomes lopsided. That just isn't how quantum mechanics works, which is why the idea isn't possible.

62. Light is not a wave it is an object a piece of matter this is found by measuring its characteristics. Light in darkness only excludes the visable spectrum leaving everything else. Also a little off topic but does anyone have any good theories to disprove aether.

63. Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes
Light is not a wave it is an object a piece of matter this is found by measuring its characteristics.
Whut?

Also a little off topic but does anyone have any good theories to disprove aether.
It doesn't need "disproving" since there's no supporting evidence for it.

64. Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes
Light is not a wave it is an object a piece of matter this is found by measuring its characteristics.
Light, like all quantum objects, has both a wave and a particle aspect.

Also a little off topic but does anyone have any good theories to disprove aether.
You got it the wrong way around - there is nothing to disprove, because aether doesn't exist. It is not part of any modern theory of physics, and no trace of it has ever been found in any experimental setup. So the question should rather be : does anyone have any evidence that such a thing as luminiferous aether might exist ? The answer is of course no.

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement