So what's this Cherenkov affect I'm reading about in another thread? Looks like there's more to light than meets the eye
Then you mean photons are aware, perceive the particles and avoid them to avoid losing speed? Is this why it travels waves rather than straight lines, a path to avoid collisions, or is that just how it appears to an observer who can't perceive collapsed dimensions curving or rippling space?
If by 'this' you mean the Higgs boson, then it is merely an example of a quantum field and its associated particle.
The fact that the fundamental particles have mass is regarded by physicists as being due to the existence of the Higgs field.
This is all to do with the quantum mathematics which predicts the existence of particles based on the effect they would have on other particles and fields.
Don't ask me to explain it!
Encounters may change the trajectory of individual photons (if such things as photons in the particle sense actually exist!), but the vast majority will follow their classical paths.
Last edited:
Cherenkov radiation is light produced by charged particles when they pass through an optically transparent medium at speeds greater than the speed of light in that medium.So what's this Cherenkov affect I'm reading about in another thread? Looks like there's more to light than meets the eye
It's analagous to the sonic boom you hear when an aircraft exceeds the speed of sound in air.
Last edited:
Thank you. I find this topic fascinating, and find little with search engines to explain things in layman's terms. Your answers are appreciated.
Another question for the forum, as science peers closer at smaller and smaller particles, os there a point where matter becomes immaterial, and instead is an organised form of energy? It seems to me if this is true, and we could emulate this on a macro scale, we could jump straight to a very high level society.
Yes - amazing that photons can traverse the universe without interaction with anything (maybe bending around a large object) and then hit the mirror on a telescope 13 billion yrs later.
I was told Cherenkof effect is light produced by particles because they have to loose energy.
It makes a beautiful blue hue one can see over a tank of H2O2 water reducing speed of fast neutrons.
It is also called Bremstralung ( German word ) radiation.
Sub-atomic particles can certainly be considered as "immaterial" given that, as I explained earlier, physicists regard them as excitations of quantum energy fields.
There's no doubt that the quantum world looks distinctly "immaterial", while the macroscopic world in which we go about our business looks distinctly "material".
The question is: At which point does the transition between the two worlds occur?
All objects have an associated quantum wavelength, but the bigger they are the shorter the wavelength, and the more difficult it is to detect.
However, recent experiments have confirmed the quantum nature of large organic molecules consisting of up to 2000 atoms.
Giant Molecules Exist in Two Places at Once in Unprecedented Quantum Experiment - Scientific American
UK children's TV programme, Blue Peter, discovers the joys of the internet, 26 years ago today: Blue Peter discovers the internet - BBC Archive
How far we've come in such a short time! 😎
How far we've come in such a short time! 😎
There's been some interest in regard to how photons from distant galaxies manage to reach us here on Earth.
Even if only a tiny percentage of the photons emitted from a distant galaxy head off directly in the direction of Earth, and even if many of those photons are deflected from their path on the way, we are still going to detect photons from distant galaxies in significant numbers.
Here are some statistics which may help substantiate my statement:
In 2016, astronomers measured the background light count from outside our galaxy, and calculated that 10 billion photons from distant galaxies fall on each square metre of the Earth's surface every second.
So, regardless of interactions with the intergalactic medium, a large number of photons manage to reach us from distant galaxies.
However, that number pales into insignificance when we compare it with the 1,000 billion billion photons from the Sun which hit each square metre of the Earth's surface each second! 😎
[1605.01523] Extra-galactic background light measurements from the far-UV to the far-IR from deep ground and space-based galaxy counts
Even if only a tiny percentage of the photons emitted from a distant galaxy head off directly in the direction of Earth, and even if many of those photons are deflected from their path on the way, we are still going to detect photons from distant galaxies in significant numbers.
Here are some statistics which may help substantiate my statement:
In 2016, astronomers measured the background light count from outside our galaxy, and calculated that 10 billion photons from distant galaxies fall on each square metre of the Earth's surface every second.
So, regardless of interactions with the intergalactic medium, a large number of photons manage to reach us from distant galaxies.
However, that number pales into insignificance when we compare it with the 1,000 billion billion photons from the Sun which hit each square metre of the Earth's surface each second! 😎
[1605.01523] Extra-galactic background light measurements from the far-UV to the far-IR from deep ground and space-based galaxy counts
10 billion versus 1000 billion billion ... what's a dozen orders of magnitude between friends?
That’s nice Galu - thanks for sharing. The amazing bit they’ve travelled 13 billion yrs plus.
🙂
As a fair-skinned Scotsman, I'd prefer a gradual galactic tan to a swift sunburn! 😀
Last edited:
So how relative is this to say a big screen 65" 4K UHD , 8,300,000 pixel TV emitting 10,000 photons per pixel? That's 83 billion, x 60 per sec.? 4 x what hits the Earth? Eventually, pixelation becomes evident but there's no apparent image breakup observing interstellar space through a telescope. However tiny a percentage it is, it's sufficient to fully reveal an object as long as it's not too distant.
Your calculation looks mighty shaky to me, Pete. I can see why you added the question marks during it!
I'm particularly interested in where you obtained the "10,000 photons per pixel" information from.
We would have to know the rate of photon production per pixel (i.e. the number of photons emitted per pixel per second) and the area, in square metres, of the screen (as well as the total number of pixels, which you have already supplied).
Then we could accurately calculate the number of photons per square metre per second and do a proper comparison.
I'm particularly interested in where you obtained the "10,000 photons per pixel" information from.
We would have to know the rate of photon production per pixel (i.e. the number of photons emitted per pixel per second) and the area, in square metres, of the screen (as well as the total number of pixels, which you have already supplied).
Then we could accurately calculate the number of photons per square metre per second and do a proper comparison.
I just google the question, "how many photons in a pixel" and the answer appears when I click.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.