I presume it was water in that bottle?
The way water absorbs light is quite unique.
A water molecule has three basic modes of vibration, but a tremendous number of combinations of these modes is possible.
The vibrations are driven by the absorption of relatively low energy infrared and visible (red) photons.
This gives liquid water an extremely complex absorption spectrum (see attachment).
It is the absorption of long-wavelength infrared photons that heats up water in a microwave oven.
There are also vibrations which can be driven by red light which means that water absorption can remove red light from the spectrum - a red diving suit will look black when viewed at a depth of around 15m.
Water does not absorb light strongly in the blue and green part of the spectrum. In deep water, all that is left is blue light which is scattered about rather than absorbed - that is what gives large bodies of water our planet-defining blue hue.
Information courtesy of my current bedtime read: 'Forces of Nature'! 😎
Attachments
Not to let myself be derailed by the recent Light discussion. 😀
Recent discussion a few pages back got me thinking. Flamesuit on.
I dub my ponderings:
The thesis of "Something"
There cannot be nothing, there are some areas of physics we do not yet comprehend. But so far it seems that there can never be: Nothing.
We can see and measure matter, for the sake of simplicity we can associate matter with +, giving matter a positive value, though it is difficult to really say for sure what's the actual + and the actual -.
So far, nothing new.
Here's the thought I had:
If there is complete loss of matter (IE there's not a single part of an atom, no electrons, no photons and so on) within a specific volume. There is no "+".
The total sum of that "Something", hereby associated with "-", remaining will tear itself inside out, resulting into a variable amount of "+"
Since an absolute 0 cannot (seemingly) exist, a volume consisting of purely "-" can result in a negative reaction that can achieve a positive result.
I am not talking about "anti matter" really, I think whatever it is is a most definitive ""something". We just haven't figured it out properly yet.
"Something" can conduct gravity, light, EM seemingly without resistance, because resistance and influence of all the above is a factor primarily by "+".
I wonder if "-" could be influenced by some form of radiation that we know of.
Could it be possible to manipulate "-"?
Recent discussion a few pages back got me thinking. Flamesuit on.
I dub my ponderings:
The thesis of "Something"
There cannot be nothing, there are some areas of physics we do not yet comprehend. But so far it seems that there can never be: Nothing.
We can see and measure matter, for the sake of simplicity we can associate matter with +, giving matter a positive value, though it is difficult to really say for sure what's the actual + and the actual -.
So far, nothing new.
Here's the thought I had:
If there is complete loss of matter (IE there's not a single part of an atom, no electrons, no photons and so on) within a specific volume. There is no "+".
The total sum of that "Something", hereby associated with "-", remaining will tear itself inside out, resulting into a variable amount of "+"
Since an absolute 0 cannot (seemingly) exist, a volume consisting of purely "-" can result in a negative reaction that can achieve a positive result.
I am not talking about "anti matter" really, I think whatever it is is a most definitive ""something". We just haven't figured it out properly yet.
"Something" can conduct gravity, light, EM seemingly without resistance, because resistance and influence of all the above is a factor primarily by "+".
I wonder if "-" could be influenced by some form of radiation that we know of.
Could it be possible to manipulate "-"?
NO no, before you became a DIYAudio member, the link Kaffiman provided about the photon burst in the bottle was already given in this thread in the past by someone else. It's his post I initially responded to. 🙂
Sorry, I got nothing.
Other than to say that 'nothing' creates 'something' all the time.
That's because elusive particles pop in and out of nothing all the time - they’re called virtual particles.
The Nature of Nothingness: Understanding the Vacuum Catastrophe | by Anumeena Sorna | Nakshatra, NIT Trichy | Medium
What if we could remove every fundamental constituent of matter, every quantum of radiation; every mass; every particle and antiparticle. What would we have left - nothing?
No, spacetime would still be there and all the fields present within empty space, from the Higgs field to gravitational fields to the quantum fields (particle and anti-particle pairs popping in and out of existence) would still be around.
No, spacetime would still be there and all the fields present within empty space, from the Higgs field to gravitational fields to the quantum fields (particle and anti-particle pairs popping in and out of existence) would still be around.
Empty space has a zero-point energy that's non-zero and had a very different non-zero value in the distant past, which was the driving force behind cosmological inflation. When people talk about the Universe arising from nothing, this is the type of "nothing" they're referencing - the Big Bang being born from inflation.
Random
So if light photons resume their speed when transitioning from a denser medium to a vacuum without acceleration or transition, is it the same for energy becoming matter, or vice versa?
Is there a fleeting intermediate state?
If not, are the two states or not states related?
So if light photons resume their speed when transitioning from a denser medium to a vacuum without acceleration or transition, is it the same for energy becoming matter, or vice versa?
Is there a fleeting intermediate state?
If not, are the two states or not states related?
Yes, such interactions can have a choice of fleeting intermediate states.
For example, neutral pions decay into gamma rays via intermediaries as shown in the attached Feynman diagrams.
Attachments
Mars Landing!
NASA's Perseverance rover has touched down: Highlights From NASA’s Perseverance Rover Landing on Mars - The New York Times
NASA's Perseverance rover has touched down: Highlights From NASA’s Perseverance Rover Landing on Mars - The New York Times
While I remain dubious whether interesting LIFE exists on Mars,
We congratulate NASA on its efforts. Better tyres now. Poor road-surfacing on Mars apparently. 🙂
We congratulate NASA on its efforts. Better tyres now. Poor road-surfacing on Mars apparently. 🙂
Additinal thoughts.
I was wary of going into this one for fear of losing my audience. 🙄
But apparently, in the Standard Model, Left-handed dominates. No, I don't know why either. Just how it is.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-map-of-the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-20201022/
I was wary of going into this one for fear of losing my audience. 🙄
But apparently, in the Standard Model, Left-handed dominates. No, I don't know why either. Just how it is.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-map-of-the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-20201022/
That's probably the way to solve things in the future, stop all road maintenance, blame the wheels.
"Sorry guys, we spent all the budgets on more bureaucrats."
The strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational interactions are all perfectly symmetric between left-handed and right-handed configurations.
The weak interaction only involves left-handed configurations and, puzzlingly, right-handed configurations simply don't exist.
Why is this?
No one knows! 😉
Neutrinos are particularly interesting!
Why Is The Universe Fundamentally Left-Handed?
Attachments
Now I know why they suddenly changed the convenient direction for unrolling vapor barrier from right to left. I thought it was to politically accommodate the lefties 😡, but clearly not! 🙂
Yes! Definitely!
And it has to be able to collect photons and put them in a neat little pile!
And it has to be able to collect photons and put them in a neat little pile!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.