Sections
Light provides with information about the world. For example, about Big Sur: see the figure below (local link / general link: pfeiffer_beach.html).
Caption: Pfeiffer Beach, near Big Sur, California.
My God, why do we live in a desert?
Jack Nicholson (1937--) once rode a horse on this beach. See The Terror (1963 film) (also starring Boris Karloff (1887--1969) with associate producer and uncredited assistant director Francis Ford Coppola (1939--)) and, circa 2025, the YouTube The Terror (1963 film) at time 3:26.
Credit/Permission: ©
User:Wingchi,
2009 /
Creative Commons
CC BY-SA 3.0.
Image link: Wikipedia:
File:Pfeiffer State Beach Reflection.JPG.
Local file: local link: pfeiffer_beach.html.
File: Art_p file:
pfeiffer_beach.html.
Caption: "The Crookes radiometer, also known as the light mill or solar engine, consists of an airtight glass bulb, containing a partial vacuum. Inside are a set of vanes which are mounted on a spindle. The vanes rotate when exposed to light. The reason for the rotation has been the cause of much scientific debate."
The Crookes radiometer is actually a form of heat engine. But how the heat energy gets turned into mechanical energy is hard to understand.
The Crookes radiometer can be used to measure electromagnetic radiation, but nowadays it is mostly a novelty item. There continues to be scienfitic interest in how it and variations on it work.
Credit/Permission: ©
Nevit Dilmen (AKA User:Nevit),
2010 /
Creative Commons
CC BY-SA 3.0.
Image link: Wikipedia:
File:Radiometer 9965 Nevit.gif.
Local file: local link: crookes_radiometer.html.
File: Thermodynamics ifile:
crookes_radiometer.html.
So we need some explanation. In fact, the explanation goes on and on throughout this lecture and the next one IAL 7: Spectra.
First, the term light can be used for either visible light or electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
The latter is the general class into which visible light falls.
Hereafter, we'll usually use EMR for clarity when talking about EMR.
What is EMR?
The short answer is electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is a traveling, self-propagating, transverse wave state IN the electromagnetic field which is everywhere always in all spacetime. This what is one says when being very exact.
But there is the old IN/IS dichotomy explicated in the figure below (local link / general link: electromagnetic_field_everywhere_always.html).
General Caption: Note the old IN/IS dichotomy or the single meaning for the two locutions:
Illustrations of the electromagnetic field which is everywhere always.
The electric field lines are a visualization tool that at every point align with the electrostatic field at that point: the arrows give the direction of the electrostatic field.
At the macrosopic level, there is NO electromagnetic field inside the electrical conductors, but at the microscopic scale there is---it just is small scale and averages away at the macroscopic scale.
Remember the electromagnetic field is everywhere always in all spacetime.
The magnetic field lines are a visualization tool that at every point align with the magnetic field at that point: the arrows give the direction of the magnetic field.
For an example of a transverse wave, see the animation in the figure below (local link / general link: transverse_waves.html).
Caption: An animation of a single transverse wave (a complete up-and-down cycle) propagating in one direction. The animation is generic for transverse waves, but it is NOT particularly good for illustrating electromagnetic waves (which are transverse waves).
Features:
EMR waves require NO transmission medium in order to exist. They propagate in vacuum.
This makes them distinct from mechanical waves such as waves on a string and sound waves.
For mechanical waves, the medium oscillates in some way.
For waves on a string, it is the string that oscillates. For an illustration of standing waves on a string, see the animation in the figure below (local link / general link: standing_waves.html).
Image 1 Caption: An animation dynamically illustrating the first 6 normal modes of standing waves on a vibrating string with fixed endpoints.
Features:
This is because a wavelength is by definition a full spatial cycle of the wave phenomenon. Usually a spatial cycle can be characterized as an up-and-down cycle.
This definition of wavelength is the useful one for analysis of wave phenomenon.
If we drive a vibrating string with a vibrating machine at exactly a resonance frequency f_n (which we explain below), we get standing waves with exactly n anti-nodes. What if we drive the vibrating string off all resonance frequencies? We get small traveling waves that varied in time. For off resonance frequencies, the pulls on the vibrating string strongly cancel instead of adding up.
Now when you strike a vibrating string, you simultaneously excite standing waves with multiple superimposed resonance frequencies, but other frequency waves are strongly suppressed by canceling pulls.
L n = --- , where L is the length of the vibrating string. λ/2Thus, the wavelength formula is
L λ = ----- = 2L/n , (n/2)where the first version makes sense since there are 2 anti-nodes per standing wave. Now we have a general formula for phase velocity (the velocity at which traveling waves propagate):
phase velocity formula fλ=v ,where v is the phase velocity and f is frequency). Using this formula, we find the resonance frequency formula for a vibrating string to be
f_n = n[v/(2L)] .
The animation in the figure below (local link / general link: standing_waves_sound.html) illustrates sound waves in a standing waves case.
Caption: An animation dynamically illustrating the 2nd harmonic or 1st overtone of standing waves (specifically, standing sound waves) in air in an simplified musical pipe.
One full wavelength is shown. You can tell this because there are 3 nodes and 2 anti-nodes with oscillations going in opposite directions.
Features:
Transverse sound waves as well as longitudinal sound waves occur in solids.
Transverse sound waves CANNOT exist in fluids when they are sufficiently ideal since shearing forces (i.e., "sideways" forces) do NOT exist in ideal fluids.
That there are 3 nodes shows that one full wavelength is shown: one complete up-and-down cycle for the oscillation. The "up" is motion to the right; the "down" is motion to the left.
But we notice their oscillations in the obvious rarefactions and compressions of the displayed cartoon air molecules.
Saying 90° out of phase is equivalent saying 1/4 wavelength out of phase.
Density oscillates in phase with pressure. Thus, the two thermodynamic variables have their nodes and anti-nodes in the same places.
In real wind instruments, there are holes somewhere to let sound (i.e., sound waves) escape.
EMR waves do propagate in media, of course, as well as in in the vacuum. They do interact with the media as they propagate through and cause it to oscillate in some sense and this slows them down (see subsection Light Speed in Media below).
What oscillates in EMR waves in vacuum? It is the electromagnetic field that oscillates---which can cause an ancillary oscillation in any medium too.
Electromagnetic fields (meaning particular electromagnetic field states) have an associated energy, and so EMR is also an energy flow.
Note one can say simply that electromagnetic fields have energy.
The adjective "associated" in this context means a particular kind of energy which is the energy of electromagnetic fields.
There is an exact formula for the energy density of electromagnetic fields calculated from characteristics of the electromagnetic fields (see electric field energy and magnetic field energy). We will NOT describe this formula, but one can see it is pretty simple actually:
Similarly, kinetic energy is the energy associated with the motion of body and is calculated from the formula (that you probably saw in high school)
Any form of energy can be converted into any other form of energy which is one reason why all energy is energy.
So EMR energy be made from or converted into any other kind of energy via the electromagnetic force.
For example, sunlight is absorbed by a body---like your body---and becomes heat energy. The reverse process always happens too. Bodies always convert heat energy into EMR. You only notice this when the bodies are hot enough to emit visible light. We discuss this reverse process in IAL 7: Spectra.
For general reference, the figure below (local link / general link: energy_explication_2b.html) gives the Link: Energy explication which gives a fullish explication of energy---as well as illustrating how sunlight powers the biosphere.
The image illustrates that energy analysis (making use of conservation of energy principle during energy transformations) often gives partial information easily while getting full information is often very hard. This boon of energy analysis is why if finds so much use in physics and many other fields.
To elucidate the image in brief: electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from the Sun mainly in visible band (∼ 0.380--0.750 μm) → chemical energy and macroscopic mechanical energy (i.e., kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy) in biota → dissipation to waste heat energy all along the way → ultimately re-radiation to space as infrared radiation EMR mainly in the near infrared band (∼ 0.750--1.4 μm).
In physics, we follow the energy rather than "follow the money".
See Energy Explication below/at (local link / general link: energy_explication.html).
We described EMR as a wave, but it also has a particle nature.
The EMR particle is called a photon.
The dual nature of light and also of massive particles (particles with rest mass: most importantly electrons, protons, and neutrons) is called the wave-particle duality.
Microscopic particles really have only one nature.
The wave-particle duality arises from the two aspects that quantum mechanical particles have.
It's NOT easy to explain wave-particle duality without getting into the details of quantum mechanics---NOT even then really.
The figure below (local link / general link: qm_wave_particle_duality.html) gives a bit of an explanation of the wave-particle duality.
In fact, one needs both the wave and photon pictures to understand EMR---and actually all of microscopic physics.
We will mostly use the wave picture of EMR, but occasionally allude to the photon picture and look at it in a bit more detail below in the section Photons.
Caption: A cartoon illustrating the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics.
Features:
How much here or there is its "density of being"---which is just a useful nonce expression.
Conventionally, the "how much here or there" is called a probability distribution, but that may NOT be exactly right as we discuss below.
The capital Greek Psi = Ψ (pronounced Psi like sigh) is the common symbol for the wave function.
The "density of being" itself is the QM probabilitiy density which is equal to the square of the complex-number absolute value of the wave function: i.e., = |Ψ|**2.
The QM probabilitiy density is, among other things, the probability density for measuring a particle at any point in space.
The ħ (pronounced h-bar) is the reduced Planck's constant ħ = (1.054571817 ...)*10**(-34) J-s = (6.582119569 ...)*10**(-16) eV (exact values) (see NIST: Fundamental Physical Constants --- Complete Listing) (which is a universal physical constant that first turned up in quantum mechanics) and k is the mean wavenumber.
k=2π/λ where λ is the mean wavelength.
A wavelength is the length of one complete up-and-down cycle.
The megaminds have been divided on many interpretational issues in quantum mechanics---and have been since Albert Einstein (1879--1955) and Niels Bohr (1885--1962) had their iron-cage grudge matches on the interpretational issues.
But it doesn't seem to matter how we interpret quantum mechanics---it works just fine no matter what we think of it.
See Schlosshauer et al., 2013, A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics.
Yours truly jests---polls are pretty common in science before the evidence solidifies---but with quantum mechanics, the evidence never solidifies.
EMR brings us energy from the Sun to heat the Earth and power the biosphere. See Biosphere videos below (local link / general link: biosphere_videos.html).
We take up the subject of the universe and the multiverse in IAL 30: Cosmology.
Long ago because electromagnetic radiation has a finite speed---the vacuum light speed c = 2.99792458*10**8 m/s (exact by definition) ≅ 3*10**8 m/s = 3*10**5 km/s ≅ 1 ft/ns.
So whenever we look out, we look back in cosmic time. Looking to astronomical objects at distances of megaparsecs and gigaparsecs, were are looking to lookback times of, respectively, of millions of years and billions of years.
Thus, we can learn about the evolution of the observable universe. Astronomers have this great advantage over historians: we can see the past. Of course, the farther you look out and back, the harder it gets.
To explicate, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is EMR that was emitted by the cosmos-spanning gas at about 377,700 years after the Big Bang (see Wikipedia: Λ-CDM model parameters; Wikipedia: Cosmic microwave background: Features; Wikipedia: Recombination).
The CMB is as far back as we can see with our present techniques.
The CMB is microwave radiation just as you have in your microwave oven.
It permeates outer space and is coming from all directions with a very close to uniform angular distribution.
The CMB is discussed at several points in the IALs and it is covered in detail in IAL 30: Cosmology: The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).
It's amazing that we can know as much about the big bad universe without ever going there.
There is almost certainly more universe similar to what we see that is beyond the observable universe.
Beyond that there may be a bigger universe with very different behavior that what we see. At this point, one enters the realm of speculative cosmology.
Note "local inertial frame" means right where the measurement is done, not some remote inertial frame.
"Local" is a somewhat elastic term in physics. It can mean right where the measurment is done or near where the measurement is done in some sense which if you are being exact must be specified. However, people often let the meaning of "local" be set by context as we usually do for words with multiple meanings.
To clarify FASTEST PHYSICAL SPEED all over again: we mean that NO physical information can propagate faster with speed measured at ONE POINT relative to a local inertial frame: i.e., a local free-fall frame NOT rotating relative to the observable universe or any local inertial frame setup using inertial forces. Note that by local inertial frame, one means an inertial frame in which the light signal is traveling when its speed is being measured---NOT a remote inertial frame.
Of course, the fact that the vacuum light speed is the fastest physical speed is an aspect of special relativity, and so we must dive a bit into that subject. Special relativity is taken up in more detail in IAL 25: Black Holes: Special Relativity.
Albert Einstein's (1879--1955) theory of special relativity (published 1905) is a true theory of mechanics (which includes motion) and electromagnetism in the weak gravity field limit and a scale size much less than the observable universe (where curved space might be a consideration) and given that certain tricky cases in quantum mechanics need special explanations. To deal with strong gravity (like near black holes) and the whole observable universe, you need Einstein's general relativity (GR) (which is essentially a theory of gravity and motion under gravity). We consider general relativity in IAL 25: Black Holes and IAL 30: Cosmology. To deal with the tricky cases in quantum mechanics, one needs quantum mechanics. We will NOT consider those tricky cases, except briefly in subsection Qualifications About the Vacuum Light Speed as the Fastest Physical Speed.
One can say---and yours truly does say---that special relativity is an emergent theory that is exactly true in the limit specified by the limitations just specified above.
Answer 1 is right.
We discuss the latter feature below in subsection The Vacuum Light Speed Invariance and the former below that in subsection How Do We Know that the Vacuum Light Speed is the Fastest Physical Speed?
The vacuum light speed (standard symbol c) is
The light pulse propagates at the vacuum light speed and takes ≅ 1.26 seconds.
As aforesaid vacuum light speed is inertial-frame invariant (and see again subsection The Vacuum Light Speed Invariance below).
So nature has given us an exact standard speed and international metrology decided to take advantage of this by defining it to be exactly given by vacuum light speed c = 2.99792458*10**8 m/s.
The particular choice of the trailing decimal fraction is for historical consistency.
Since nature has given us a universal speed standard, but NOT a universal length standard, the modern meter is defined in terms of the vacuum light speed and the modern second:
1 meter = c * [(1/299792458) s] is the modern definition of the meter.
So in the modern world, we use a standard speed to define the standard length rather than a standard length to define a standard speed.
Why are there NO standard lengths in nature to exploit? NO macroscopic scale objects are ever exactly identical. They must differ at the microscopic scale (i.e., the atomic scale) in an uncontrollable way at least.
Note that quantum mechanics dictates that all unperturbed atoms of the same species are absolutely identical, but we CANNOT use those at all as length standards for the macroscopic scale world NOR even for the microscopic scale world since atoms do NOT have sharply defined edges---they are fuzzy little balls.
How can we be sure that the vacuum light speed is absolutely invariant?
Two reasons:
The principle of invariant light speed is the aforesaid absolute invariance of the vacuum light speed relative all inertial frame observers.
It is one of the two basic axioms from which special relativity is derived. Yours truly calls it the invariance principle for short.
Because the invariance principle is a basic axiom of special relativity, all special relativity effects depend on it.
Now special relativity has never failed an experimental test. Thus, indirectly, the invariance principle has been super-well verified.
In fact, a lot of axioms/results in modern physics are verified like the invariance principle, NOT just by direct testing, but by the verification of the theory of which they form a part.
If any part of a tightly connected theory is wrong, then everything in the theory is probably wrong---and we would know it---the theory and all that depends on it would fall apart like a house of cards with almost any single card removed without great care.
See a house of cards illustrated in the figure below (local link / general link: house_of_cards.html).
Caption: A six-story card castle (or "house of cards") made from 3.5 decks of playing cards." (Slightly edited.)
This looks like a faux house of cards to me.
Remove one card from a house of cards almost anywhere without great care and it falls. A theory is like a house of cards: disprove one absolutely determined result based on the theory and the theory is falsified.
The conclusion is that we can trust the results of a well-established theory that are NOT directly verifiable---the whole theory would be wrong if they were wrong---and very probably it is NOT wrong since it's well established.
The analogy between a theory and a house of cards is NOT perfect, of course.
A good theory should have few axioms and infinite results. A house of cards has many 1st storey cards compared to the number of cards in any upper storey.
Actually, reality in most respects is verified by overall consistency of behavior, NOT by checking every event. If any theory about anything that we depend on for many effects was inadequate, we'd notice---and have to correct said theory or replace it.
Credit/Permission:
Jesse Merz (AKA User:Merzperson),
2007
(uploaded to Wikipedia
by User:Liftarn
2007) /
Public domain.
Image link: Wikipedia:
File:Card castle6.JPG.
Local file: local link: house_of_cards.html.
File: Art_h file:
house_of_cards.html.
All experiments capable of detecting variation in vacuum light speed find NO variation: i.e., they find invariance. So the invariance principle is directly verified by experiment.
The most famous of the experiments verifying the invariance principle is the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) which was the first to make people think seriously about the invariance of vacuum light speed. The Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) is explicated in the figure below (local link / general link: michelson_morley_aether.html).
Caption: A diagram illustrating the luminiferous aether---which was a 19th century hypothesis that the medium of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) (i.e., light).
Features:
It is interesting to note that Einstein in later years made contradictory statements about the Michelson-Morley experiment---some said it did influence his thinking and others that it didn't---maybe he could NOT quite remember.
Three reasons:
No faster physical speed has ever been observed which suggests there is none.
Special relativity implies that faster than vacuum light speed travel relative to a local inertial frame gives time travel to the past.
Time travel to the past has NEVER been observed in nature NOR in experiment and leads to paradoxes that have NO unique resolution.
So Einstein ruled out physical speeds faster than the vacuum light speed in special relativity and NO observations have ever ruled them in.
It's disappointing to scifi fans, but nature needs NOT backward time travel. Forward time travel is NOT only allowed, but special relativity guarantees it. We will discuss forward time travel below in subsection The Twin Paradox.
Note that tricky superluminal effects in quantum mechanics trickily evade paradoxes and do NOT give time travel to the past in any ordinary sense.
Note also to undisappoint scifi fans a tiny bit, general relativity does open the door a crack to the possibility time travel to the past, but most people think that possibility is NOT real. We discuss it a bit more in subsection The Twin Paradox.
There is such a thing rest mass which is possessed by massive particles (e.g., protons, neutrons, and electrons), but NOT by massless particles of which the overwhelmingly prime example is the photon.
Special relativity dictates that massive particles take infinite energy to accelerate to the vacuum light speed. So they CANNOT be accelerated to the vacuum light speed and this is experimentally verified so far by particle accelerators among other ways.
On the other hand, massless particles have NO rest mass and special relativity dictates that they must move at the vacuum light speed always when in vacuum.
In fact, rest mass is a form of energy that massive particles have just by existing. The amount of energy in rest mass is determined by the only physics formula everyone knows: E=mc**2 which we explicate in the figure below (local link / general link: e_mc2.html).
Caption: Shown is the only physics formula everyone knows: E=mc**2, where E is energy, m is mass and the vacuum light speed c = 2.99792458*10**8 m/s (exact by definition) ≅ 3*10**8 m/s =3*10**5 km/s ≅ 1 ft/ns.
E=mc**2 is, of course, a basic result of special relativity (1905) and is obtained in the physicsy derivation of special relativity from the special relativity postulates. A physicsy derivation is one where you start with basic axioms, but introduce extra ones as you go along as seems reasonable to physical intuition (i.e., educated guessing) or by clairvoyance (i.e., you believe you know where you have to arrive). Pure mathematics it isn't.
In fact, the derivation of E=mc**2 is remarkably simple though well beyond the scope of this figure.
But what does E=mc**2 mean?
Actually, E=mc**2 means two things:
Such changes in mass are NOT noticed in everyday life NOR were they observed experimentally prior to the advent of special relativity in 1905 (when people started looking for them) because ΔE/c**2 is usually so small compared to a system's rest mass (see the Meaning 2 of E=mc**2 below). Nowadays, they have been super well verified at least by indirect means.
In modern formulation, the laws of conservation of mass and conservation of energy are fundamentally the same thing and are considered as separate laws only as emergent laws in cases where changes in rest mass are below notice (see the Meaning 2 of E=mc**2 below and Wikipedia: Relativistic mechanics: Rest mass and relativistic mass). However, it many applications scientific and technological, those changes are below notice.
Actually, yours truly believes that a measurement of mass of an object is the only direct measurement of energy and it is only a measurement of total energy. All other energy measurements are indirect measurements since you measure some other quantities and calculate energy from a formula. For example, kinetic energy KE=(1/2)mv**2 (the energy of motion in the classical limit) is measured by measuring m and v and using the just given formula.
Since kinetic energy changes with reference frame, you may wonder is gravity a reference-frame dependent quantity. In the classical limit, NO because in the classical limit we simply do NOT consider changes in mass given by the semi classical physics formula KE/c**2: they are deemed negligible.
When NOT in the classical limit, general relativity (1915) tells you how to calculate gravity effects in general and yours truly thinks the issue of gravity as reference-frame dependent quantity becomes a bit unmeaningful.????
There is such a thing as rest mass energy (usually just called just rest mass for simplicity) since massive particles have intrinsic mass NOT due to any other energy form.
This is the energy calculated from E=mc**2 for an object of mass m when the object is at rest in an inertial frame: hence the name rest mass.
Since any energy form can be converted into other all other energy forms, rest mass can be converted into all other energy forms. But note conversions are NOT always easy to do in practice.
Some further points:
Exotic dark matter particles (if they actually exist) also have rest mass and are massive particles, but they are NOT baryonic matter.
To emphasize, massive particles can be observed when at rest.
Note that objects including composite particles (e.g., atoms and molecules) that are at rest on some observed scale have contributions to their mass from many kinds of microscopic scale energy. Are those contributions part of the rest mass of the objects? Yes or no depending on what you mean with the meaning usually determined by context.
Note that massless particles always move at vacuum light speed c = 2.99792458*10**8 m/s (exact by definition) ≅ 3*10**8 m/s =3*10**5 km/s ≅ 1 ft/ns relative to any local inertial frame, and so are NEVER at rest in a local inertial frame. But could they still have rest mass in some sense? NO. If they had rest mass, then the formula
But E=mc**2 means that massless particles do have mass since they have energy (finite energy). To be super precise, rest-massless particles should be called rest-massless particles, but that's NOT the convention.
But it can be done in principle. For example, just rapidly collide 0.5 kg of matter with 0.5 kg of antimatter and both will annihilate to form gamma rays (and maybe other stuff ???) which will give explosive heating with the above calculated amount of 25 megatons TNT. But there is NO practical way to accumulate any macroscopic amounts of antimatter.
Pair creation is actually inverse annihilation since you create massive particles, NOT destroy them.
At the microscopic level, the mutual annihilation of matter and antimatter goes on all the time at a very low level including wherever you are. For example, positrons (the antiparticles of electrons) are products of certain radioactive decay processes (specifically some beta decay processes) that occur at a low level just about everywhere. But the rate of positron production is very low usually. The produced positrons run into electrons pretty quickly and mutually annihilate to create gamma rays. The rate of heating from this natural and common process is relatively low.
Ever since the advent of special relativity in 1905, people have been mesmerized by how much energy is available in principle in rest mass. But the practical ways of getting a significant fraction of it from matter are limited to nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs (see the figure below: local link / general link: explosion_1954_bikini.html).
Caption: A 15 megaton TNT hydrogen bomb on Bikini Atoll, 1954 Mar01.
We've long forgotten where an innocent word for beach-wear came from and why.
The explosion was the Castle Bravo test. It was the first test of a dry-fuel hydrogen bomb.
This kind of thing used to be pretty scary---it still is---they used to blow them up NOT far away at the Nevada Test Site---just 105 km from Las Vegas.
As supernova researcher, yours truly used to sometimes see Stirling Colgate (1925--2013) who did a lot of hydrogen bomb research in the 1950s---but he said he quit when stopped blowing them up above ground. No more atmospheric nuclear bomb tests, nuclear bomb air blasts, or bomb pulse---we hope.
Credit/Permission:
US Department of Energy (DOE),
1954
Mar01
(uploaded to Wikimedia Commons
by User:Fastfission~commonswiki,
2005) /
Public domain.
Image link: Wikimedia Commons:
File:Castle Bravo Blast.jpg.
Local file: local link: explosion_1954_bikini.html.
File: Nuclear file:
explosion_1954_bikini.html.
See the the insert Relativity file: non_local_grav_field_energy.html
As everyone knows the speed of light in media is less than in vacuum.
Some cases of light speed in media are illustrated in the figure below (local link / general link: light_speed_in_media.html).
Caption: Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) travels more slowly than vacuum light speed at the macroscopic scale in media.
Credit/Permission: ©
David Jeffery,
2003 / Own work.
Image link: Itself.
Local file: local link: light_speed_in_media.html.
File: Electromagnetic Radiation file:
light_speed_in_media.html.
The short answer is light interacts with the media.
At the microscopic scale between atoms, light still moves at the vacuum light speed---or nearly so---see qualification 4 in the subsection Qualifications About the Vacuum Light Speed as the Fastest Physical Speed below.
Answer 2 is right.
As aforesaid, remember those endless 4th of July fireworks displays---John Philip Sousa (1854--1932), The Stars and Stripes Forever (1896): da da da da da da da da da, etc.
You see and then you hear since the speed of light in air is nearly the vacuum light speed which is much much faster than sound speed which in air at sea level at 20°C is about 343 m/s (Wikipedia: Speed of sound: Tables). Usually, you are at least 300 meters from the explosions, and so the sound delay is at least a second. So it seems as if you are watching a film with the picture and sound NOT synchronized properly. In fact, if you heard explosions in films from where the camera stood, there would often be a sound delay. It's just a convention of film language that sight and sound are simultaneous.
See Fireworks/drone art videos below (local link / general link: fireworks_drone_art_videos.html).
Actually, one must qualify the statement that the vacuum light speed is the highest possible physical speed/velocity with 5 qualifications:
We will on qualification 1 just below in subsection Geometrical Velocities because its really easy to understand and just part of everyday life.
As aforesaid, the vacuum light speed is the highest physical speed---the fastest physical speed.
To clarify FASTEST PHYSICAL SPEED all over again all over again: we mean that NO information or energy can travel faster than this with speed measured at ONE POINT relative to a local inertial frame: i.e., a free-fall frame NOT rotating relative to the observable universe or an effective inertial frame (IEF). Of course, we can should add if necessary the qualification about the tricky quantum mechanical superluminal effects we mentioned above in Qualifications About the Vacuum Light Speed as the Fastest Physical Speed.
The figure below (local link / general link: light_speed_earth_moon.html) illustrates the vacuum light speed again.
The light pulse propagates at the vacuum light speed and takes ≅ 1.26 seconds.
When such velocities occur, they do NOT convey information from one place to another.
For example, turn on two flashlights pointed in opposite directions. You would judge the relative velocity of the two beam heads to be 2c---and you would be right---but that is a geometrical velocity since NO information or energy is traveling at greater than the vacuum light speed with speed measured at ONE POINT relative to a local inertial frame.
Also note you are NOT finding the speed of one beam head relative to the other's "rest frame". In special relativity calculation that would lead to a relative velocity of c.
"Rest frame" is in quotation marks because talking about a light's rest frame requires some tricky qualifications.
Caption: Bell Rock Lighthouse (Angus, eastern coast of Scotland) constructed in 1807--1810 by Robert Stevenson (1772--1850).
Robert Stevenson (1772--1850) was the grandfather of writer Robert Louis Stevenson (1850--1894)---you know, Treasure Island (1883).
Lighthouse beams going in opposite directions have a relative velocity of nearly 2c: i.e., twice the vacuum light speed c = 2.99792458*10**8 m/s (exact by definition) ≅ 3*10**8 m/s = 3*10**5 km/s ≅ 1 ft/ns.
But this is just a geometrical velocity.
No information is sent faster than c.
There is no signal traveling from the end of one beam to the end of the other.
By the by, yours truly's father was briefly a lighthouse keeper in the 1950s (or so) at the Port Colborne Lighthouse in Port Colborne, Ontario, Canada---my hometown.
Credit/Permission:
Miss Stevenson
(fl. 1850?)
(daughter of Robert Stevenson)
in Alan Stevenson's (1807--1865)
Biographical Sketch of the Late Robert Stevenson,
1861
(uploaded to Wikipedia
by User:Tagishsimon,
2006) /
Public domain.
Image link: Wikipedia:
File:Bell Rock Lighthouse - Google Book Search - Biographical Sketch of the Late Robert Stevenson.jpg.
Local file: local link: bell_rock_lighthouse.html.
File: Art_b file:
bell_rock_lighthouse.html.
In fact, it is the Earth that rotates with respect to the observable universe in its center-of-mass free-fall inertial frame, NOT the rest of the observable universe: see the figure below (local link / general link: /celestial_sphere_rotating.html). It is in this reference frame that local photons travel at the vacuum light speed.
Features:
It should be quasi-infinite compared to the Earth---but that is undrawable.
v = r * (2πf) ,
where r is radius perpendicular to the rotation axis and f is the frequency of rotation. For the at-rest Earth reference frame, f=1/( 86164.1 s) where 86164.1 s = 1 sidereal day. We have the special cases:
v = 0.4651 km/s = 1.551*10**(-6) * c for r = 6378.1 km/s = Earth equatorial radius, v = 1.091*10**5 km/s = 0.03639 * c for r= 1.495978707*10**8 km = 1 astronomical unit, v = 7506 * c for r= 3.0856775814671900*10**13 km = 1 parsec.
The direct implication of the invariance principle is actually itself when you think about.
All observers in any relative motion must measure the same vacuum light speed for a light beam.
Now I know what you are thinking: this conflicts with our ordinary understanding of RELATIVITY in regard to relative velocity. There is a RELATIVITY PARADOX
But there is no RELATIVITY PARADOX for the sound speed for instance for non-relativistic velocities at least. The sound speed you measure depends on your speed relative to the sound medium. In fact, you can move at the sound speed in air (meaning sound speed relative to air) in a jet and you could watch sound waves at rest if they were NOT invisible.
Watching water waves at rest is even easier. You can just walk along beside them in a swimming pool.
See the animation of water waves the figure below (local link / general link: water_waves.html).
Image 1 Caption: An animation of "Stokes drift in shallow water waves with a wavelength much longer than the water depth."
Features:
Image 2 Caption: "Breaking waves at a beach looped to create a continuous gif. (Location: Playa del Matorral in Morro Jable, Pajara, Fuerteventura, Canary Islands, Spain)."
The dependence of time flow rate on reference frame is called time dilation.
The RELATIVITY PARADOX is further explicated in the figure below (local link / general link: relativity_light.html).
Caption: The vacuum light speed c = 2.99792458*10**8 m/s ≅ 3*10**8 m/s = 3*10**5 km/s ≅ 1 ft/ns and relative velocity.
Features:
How can this be?
The slightly longer answer is that length and time flow rate depend on relative velocity according to special relativity in just such a way that both Aliens measure the vacuum light speed to be c.
There is a sort of "cancelation of paradoxes".
By the by, mass also depends on relative velocity---but that's another story.
The mathematics of these dependencies is simple. Wrapping your head around them is hard.
All of the special relativity depends on the invariance principle and if it were wrong, all of special relativity would be wrong somehow---but it is all right to within experimental uncertainty.
So we have overwhelming confidence in the invariance of the vacuum light speed.
The weird effects of special relativity usually scale as v/c or (v/c)**2, where v is relative velocity. In everyday life and in many other cases, v/c << 1 and the weird effects are unnoticeably small.
But they are real enough and can be measured with accurate/precise equipment. For example, Global Positioning System (GPS) would NOT work well if special relativity (and general relativity too) were NOT accounted for. In fact, GPS confirms special relativity and general relativity every second of the day.
Time dilation (which is a main factor in solving the RELATIVITY PARADOX) is the relativistic effect that people usually find most mind-blowing---but it's quite real.
Time literally flows at different rates in different inertial frames. Inside an inertial frame time seems to flow normally, but in comparing different inertial frames the effect becomes noticeable.
But in everyday life, the time dilation is NOT noticeable because the relative velocites between inertial frames are too small.
We explicate time dilation in the subsections below.
"Moving clocks run slow." is a mnemonic for one manifestation of time dilation.
We explicate this manifestation in the figure below (local link / general link: time_dilation_moving_clocks.html).
Caption: An illustration of time dilation (more precisely, special relativistic time dilation) and the asymmetry in time dilation between the situation with the two clocks in Frame A (which is an inertial frame) and the one clock in Frame B (which is another inertial frame). Frame A and Frame B are NOT accelerated with respect to each other.
Features:
By "time flows at different rates", we mean as measured by all clocks---mechanical clocks, atomic clocks, biological clocks---all clocks. To time itself flows at different rates.
The effect is called time dilation and it is probably the most mind-blowing feature of special relativity.
A Frame A observer and a Frame B observer both agree on this.
But they also agree to observe the effect that there must be two clocks in Frame A at different places in Frame A and one clock in Frame B.
This is the asymmetry between the two observers that allows an asymmetric effect. Otherwise one might wonder why don't both observers see the other's clock as running slow which is symmetrical but impossible.
Without mathematical detail, it is hard to explicate how the asymmetry in number of clocks leads to asymmetry in time measurements. However, one can say that it an aspect of the connection between space and time in special relativity. The relativity speak term spacetime emphasizes the connection.
But note despite the connection, the space and time dimensions are distinct.
The time dilation and effects of relative velocity increase from zero as relative velocity increases between objects or inertial frames
The relative velocities in everyday life are too small to notice these effects of relative velocity without super accurate/precise measurements.
In this case, there is another kind of asymmetry, since special relativity does NOT treat all aspects of motion as relative.
Acceleration (relative to an inertial frame) is distinct from constant velocity (relative to an inertial frame).
The most famous aspect of time dilation with accelerated motion is the twin paradox explicated in Relativity file: time_dilation_twin_paradox.html. More explication of time dilation with accelerated motion is given in Relativity file: time_dilation_animation.html.
Another manifestion of time dilation is the twin paradox which arises with accelerated motions. We explicate the twin paradox in the figure below (local link / general link: time_dilation_twin_paradox.html).
Caption: Click on the Alien image to see an illustration of the twins paradox, an illustration of the time dilation effect of special relativity.
Features:
The astronaut twin notices NO time funniness in their reference frame (which is NOT a true inertial frame when there is acceleration). It is only by comparing their time flow to time flow in other reference frames that funniness is observed.
Time does flow at different rates in different reference frames. This is the time dilation effect.
So shouldn't both twins have aged less? Isn't everything relative? This is a paradox.
The Earthbound twin did NOT accelerate very much relative to inertial frames. They did accelerate a little since the Earth's rotation relative to the observable universe is an accelerated motion in the center-of-mass (CM) inertial frame of the Earth.
Actually, all moving clocks run slow. This point is explicated in some detail in file Relativity file: time_dilation_animation.html.
In fact, in this experiment both the special relativity effect (called time dilation) and the general relativity effect (called gravitational time dilation) have to be accounted for. But the results agree with the predictions within uncertainty.
Thus, special relativity and general relativity do play roles in modern everyday life even if most people do NOT know it.
But special relativity forbids backward time travel (i.e., time travel to the past). Actually, forbidding time travel to the past is an extra minor of postulate deemed necessary since time travel to the past was deemed impossible since it is never seen and presents paradoxes that only scifi can solve. This postulate causes vacuum light speed to be the highest physical velocity (i.e., the highest velocity that information or any effect can propagate relative to a local inertial frame).
It's disappointing to scifi fans, but nature needs not backward time travel. So those time travel classics The Time Machine (1895), By His Bootrtaps (1941), etc. are just voyages of the imagination. See Wikipedia: List of time travel works of fiction.
Of course, you can replicate the past locally to some fidelity. We do this all the time when we remember.
Further explication on time dilation with accelerated motions is given in the figure below (local link / general link: time_dilation_animation.html).
Caption: An animation illustrating time dilation (more precisely, special relativistic time dilation) and the asymmetry in time dilation between inertial frame motion and non-inertial frame motion (i.e., a motion with an acceleration relative to an inertial frame). Note time dilation is mnemonicked by saying "Moving clocks run slow."
Features:
This reference frame is an inertial frame.
The reference frame of the moving clock (which is the red clock) is a non-inertial frame because it is an accelerated frame relative to an inertial frame: in this case, the inertial frame of the stationary clock.
The spiraling of the moving clock is actually a circling in physical space.
The paths of the clocks are their world lines in Relativityspeak.
Time itself runs slow in the moving clock's reference frame relative to the reference frame of the stationary clock.
Actually, all motion is NOT relative in special relativity.
Acceleration relative to an inertial frame is distinct from constant velocity motion relative to an inertial frame.
The moving clock is accelerated continuously since its direction of the motion is continuously changing even though its speed is constant.
The asymmetry between accelerated and non-accelerated motion is the origin in this case of the time dilation difference between the two clocks.
The clocks are twins: the traveling twin ages less than the unmoving twin.
However, there is a gravitational time dilation that must be accounted for as well for the atomic clock-jet.
They are very small effects in most of everyday life, but the Global Positioning System (GPS) would NOT work nearly as accurately as it does without accounting for both time dilation and gravitational time dilation.
To understand this, define an inertial frame as the rest frame and cover it with synchronized stationary clocks. They stay synchronized as time passes, but do NOT move in space relative to each other or the inertial frame.
Now consider a clock moving at constant velocity relative to the rest frame.
The moving clock, though at rest in its own reference frame, is moving in space as well as time relative to the stationary clocks.
In special relativity, space and time motions interact and the formalism of special relativity predicts that the moving clock runs slow compared to the stationary clocks.
A second set of clocks covering the reference frame of the moving clock (which is an inertial frame too) would show that any one of the stationary clocks runs slow compared to the second set.
So the situation is symmetrical between the defined rest and moving frame. The motion between them is indeed relative.
No contradictions arise from this symmetry, but we have NOT shown that which takes some effort---which yours truly has never done.
The time intervals Δt' and Δt are just what clocks in the moving frame and rest frame would measure: all clocks: mechanical clocks, atomic clocks, biological clocks, all clocks.
Even for very high everyday life speeds (e.g., the low-Earth orbital speed ∼ 8 km/s), β is tiny and β**2 super tiny (e.g., ∼ [8/(3*10**5)]**2 ≅ 10**(-9) for low-Earth orbital speed), and so we NEVER notice time dilation in everyday life sans (AKA without) measurements of super accuracy/precision---which can be done in some cases and those cases verify special relativity to within uncertainty.
Form groups of 2 or 3---NOT more---and tackle Homework 6 problems 2--6 on electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
Discuss each problem and come to a group answer.
Let's work for 5 or so minutes.
The winners get chocolates.
See Solutions 6.
How now can we eat a chocolate Easter Bunny?
Credit/Permission:
Mary Cynthia Dickerson
(1866--1923,
The American Museum Journal, Vol. XVII, 1917
(Natural History (magazine)
(known then as The American Museum Journal until 2002?))
(uploaded to
Wikimedia Commons
by User:Fae,
2015) /
Public domain.
CC BY-SA 2.0.
Image link: Wikimedia Commons: File:The American Museum journal (c1900-(1918)).
Local file: local link: chocolate_easter_bunny.html.
File: Art_c file:
chocolate_easter_bunny.html.
This section gets a bit verbose.
So here is a short description of the electromagnetic field to keep in mind as we scroll along.
The electromagnetic field is a vector field that is the cause of the electromagnetic force.
It's everywhere in space and time.
It's modified by electric charge.
Particular electromagnetic field states which can be called electromagnetic fields are caused by particular arrangements and movements of electric charge and by creation by other electromagnetic fields.
Self-propagating electromagnetic fields (with NO electric charge needed for propagation) are electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
OK, now verbosity.
Coupled (i.e., interacting) electric and magnetic fields which are really are one thing the electromagnetic field---which is a fundamental entity---it CANNOT be explained by something else---a "just so story".
Electric fields and magnetic fields are different manifestations of the electromagnetic field.
In EMR both electric fields and magnetic fields are present and self-propagate by giving rise to each other---which is why we call them coupled fields.
A time-varying electric field creates a time-varying magnetic field and vice versa---they create each other to paraphrase Jack Nicholson (1937--).
And they must do so for EMR to be self-propagating.
In physics, fields are quantities that have value at every point in space and time or at least some region of space and time.
A field with only a real number value at every point in space and time is a scalar field. Examples are density, pressure, and temperature.
The electromagnetic field is, in fact, a vector field: at every point in space and time, it has have a magnitude and a direction.
One can think of little arrows attached to every point in space.
Note that while the vectors of a vector field point in SPACE SPACE, their extent is in their own abstract space---except for position vectors which extend in SPACE SPACE.
The directions of the electromagnetic field determine the directions electromagnetic force. The electric force is parallel to the electric field and the magnetic force is perpendicular to the magnetic field---which makes the magnetic force rather tricky.
Another example of a vector field is the velocity distribution of a moving fluid.
Yet another example of a vector field is the gravitational field which is the cause of gravity (i.e., the gravitational force). The gravitational field is usually given the symbol g (where boldface means vector).
Vector fields are further explicated in the figure below (local link / general link: vector_field.html).
Caption: A diagram of a generic 2-dimensional vector field.
One can mentally use field lines to connect the arrows → in the direction of the vector field (see vector_field_field_lines.html).
Features:
Thus, there are a continuum of points with values as opposed to a discrete set of points with values.
Formally, to be a vector some other properties beyond magnitude and direction are needed---but let's NOT go into all that arcana.
One standard way is to label a representative set of points with arrows. The tail end of the arrow is set at the point.
The arrows point in the vector direction and and have length proportional to the vector magnitude.
Except for the displacement vector, the vector extends in its own abstract space, NOT in space space: e.g., the velocity vector extends in velocity space.
The vector direction is in space space.
In a diagram, one sort of superimposes the abstract spaces on the space space.
One mentally interpolates between the arrows to visualize the whole vector field.
There is a converging flow along the upper left to lower right diagonal and a diverging flow along the upper right to the lower left diagonal
The point where the velocity zero is called a stagnation point in fluid dynamics.
A field line is drawn along a path such that at every point the field line points in the direction of the vector at that point.
The field line is given the direction of the vector.
One draws a representative set of field lines to represent the vector field and mentally interpolates between them to visualize the rest of the vector field.
Note that field lines CANNOT cross, except where the vector field goes to zero since a vector can't point two ways, except, in a sense, when it is zero and has no defined direction.
Field lines are often used for electric fields and magnetic fields.
Field lines were, in fact, invented by Michael Faraday (1791-1867) to aid in understanding electric fields and magnetic fields.
The electromagnetic field is a real thing, a real physical object.
It also can't be explained as something else---it is a fundamental entity---a just so.
You many wonder if it is a real thing since we usually just notice the forces between electric charges in what one ordinarily thinks of as electrical and magnetic events.
But, yes, it is a real thing.
There are 2 obvious ways to know this.
For one thing, changes in the electric force and magnetic force between electric charges are NOT communicated instantly when electric charges move or are accelerated. There is a finite propagation time.
The most obvious example of this finite propagation time is EMR.
EMR can propagate across the observable universe: propagating long after its source has been destroyed and long before its sink has come into existence.
For another thing, the electromagnetic field has an associated energy density---as we know for many reasons---one of those being that EMR transports energy.
Question: The electromagnetic field has an energy density,
Answer 2 is right.
Also recall the explication of E=mc**2 given in the figure above (local link / general link: e_mc2.html). From that explication, it is understandable that the electromagnetic field has mass, but NOT rest mass. Objects with rest mass CANNOT move at the vacuum light speed.
Electric charge is a fundamental property of matter that comes in two flavors: positive charge and negative charge---which names were chosen by none other than Benjamin Franklin (1706--1790)---see the figure below (local link / general link: benjamin_franklin.html).
Caption: Benjamin Franklin (1706--1790): printer, journalist, philosophe, polymath, scientist, inventor, politician, diplomat, statesman, patriot, Founding Father of the United States.
In the painting, Ben's doing experiments in electricity. The small balls are being held apart by the repulsion of the Coulomb's law force (AKA electric force) for like electric charge. Outside is lightning and a lighting rod---his own invention from 1752 (see Wikipedia: Lightning rod: United States).
By the by, Ben Franklin gave positive charge and negative charge their names. Actually, old Ben sort of blew it since conventionally electrical current flows from positive to negative. But it is negative charge (i.e., electrons) that make up electrical current in most technological applications and they flow from negative to positive. If he'd just switched the names ...
As for Declaration of Independence, to see how that document was written, view the archival footage video 1776 - But Mr. Adams Clip | 6:28 in the insert below (local link / general link: benjamin_franklin_videos.html).
Caption: A short explication of electric charge.
The familiar ampere is coulomb per second.
Credit/Permission: © David Jeffery,
2023 / Own work.
Image link: Itself.
Local file: local link: electric_charge_explication.html.
File: Electromagnetism file:
electric_charge_explication.html.
The image is not-to-scale.
For a description of hydrogen (H-1) itself, see file atom_001_h_001.html. In that file, we also explicate the color of free electrons and free protons (i.e., electrons and protons NOT bound in larger structures: e.g., atoms, molecules, solids). The short answer: they're shiny.
However, electric charge also causes electromagnetic fields as one of its basic properties.
Static electric charge causes electric fields and moving electric charge causes magnetic fields.
Since uniform motion is relative (with respect to inertial frames in both Newtonian physics and relativistic physics), the description of the electromagnetic field as either electric field and magnetic field must depend on relative motion---and which is why they are both manifestations of the same thing, the electromagnetic field.
Self-propagating electromagnetic fields (i.e., EMR) require more explanation which we give below in section Electromagnetic Radiation: Creation and Destruction.
Note EMR since it is a self-propagating electromagnetic field, does NOT need electric charge except for initiation. It can self-propagate across the universe.
For field lines in general, see the figure below (local link / general link: vector_field_field_lines.html).
Caption: An animation illustrating how field lines are are generated for a vector field.
Features:
A field line points in the direction of the vector field: i.e., NOT opposite the direction of the vector field.
However, in a diagram, a vector field can only be represented by a finite discrete set of representive arrows →.
Similarly, field lines form continuum and can only be represented in a diagram by a representative set of curves.
However, in certain cases they do have a physical meaning:
For a very simple case of an electric field and a magnetic field represented by field lines, see the figure below (local link / general link: em_field_lines.html).
Image 1 Caption: A cartoon of an electric field and a magnetic field visualized by field lines.
Features:
The magnetic field pattern is a common one and is called dipole magnetic field. The electric current loop is, in fact, dipole magnet: i.e., a magnet with a north pole and a south pole.
The direction of the magnetic poles is determined by a right-hand rule: curl the fingers of the right hand in the direction of electric current around the electric current loop and the right hand thumb points in the direction of the north pole.
The helixing is often present in astrophysical systems: e.g., aurora, the solar corona, solar prominences, Van Allen radiation belts (AKA Van Allen belts), etc.
Note the alignment is actually a two-stage process: see Wikipedia: Field line: Physical significance.
Only the electric force component of the electromagnetic force is felt by stationary charges. Moving charges can feel both the electric force and the magnetic force.
This is again a manifestation of the fundamental unity of the electromagnetic field.
For example, electric generators and electric motors use them both.
Then there are those things you stick on your fridge---fridge magnets.
At the microscopic scale, electric fields in atoms and molecules and between them give materials their structure: i.e., they hold us together.
Form groups of 2 or 3---NOT more---and tackle Homework 6 problems 2--6 on electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
Discuss each problem and come to a group answer.
Let's work for 5 or so minutes.
The winners get chocolates.
See Solutions 6.
Ah Brussels---Belgian chocolate, waffles, Belgian beer---the Germans know nothing about making beer---cafes, Brussels lace, le Sablon, le Musee royau de Beaux-Arts, (avec the Fall of Icarus), Pieter Bruegel the Elder (c. 1525--1569), comics, and Belgian comics---you've heard of Tintin---and my old pal Guy.
Credit/Permission: ©
Chmouel Boudjnah (AKA User:Chmouel),
before or circa 2005
(uploaded to Wikipedia
by User:Neutrality,
2005) /
Creative Commons
CC BY-SA 3.0.
Image link: Wikipedia:
File:Chocolate fountain.jpg.
Local file: local link: chocolate_fountain.html.
File: Art_c file:
chocolate_fountain.html.
With electric charge.
How does electric charge create and destroy EMR?
There are two ways as seen from the macroscopic scale, but which at a deeper level are really just one way.
The two ways are explicated below in subsections Microscopic Transitions and Acceleration of Electric Charge:
If you make an electric charge undergo a transition in an atom or a molecules, the charge will emit EMR.
But in most everyday phenomena, we only notice photons en masse, and so don't notice the particle nature usually---just as we don't notice that water is made of molecules of H_2O.
The reverse process happens too. A photon is absorbed to cause the reverse transition of an emission transition.
No.
The retina does respond to a single photon, but neural filters suppress the signal.
For conscious psychophysical response, one needs 5 to 9 photons arriving in less than 100 ms = 0.1 s (see Can a Human See a Single Photon?, Philip Gibbs, 1996).
One could only notice so few photons with the eye adapted to very dark conditions.
Caption: An ABSTRACT diagram of a hydrogen atom changing energy levels and emitting a photon. In general, a change in energy levels is called a atomic transition.
Features:
Atoms can be imaged directly in various ways. But they do NOT have sharp edges, and so they look like fuzzy balls. In general, a real image of an atom does NOT give a clear picture of its structure in any direct way.
But it is right in that there are NOT a continuum of energy states allowed for the electrons that surround the atomic nucleus which for hydrogen (the simplest of all atomic nuclei) is a single proton represented by the central dot in the diagram. A hydrogen atom also has only one electron represented by a small dot in the diagram.
Instead of a continuum of energy states, there is only a discrete set with discrete energies. This is main reason why we call quantum mechanics quantum mechanics: the energy states are QUANTIZED.
The quantized energy levels in the ABSTRACT diagram are represented by a quantized set of circular orbits.
The larger the circular orbit, the higher the energy of the energy level.
The smallest circle represents the ground state, the lowest energy energy level allowed by quantum mechanics.
The Bohr atom did posit actual circular orbits, but that turned out to be WRONG.
In fact, each energy level is a spread out density distribution for an electron. The electron exists in a continuum superposition of positions with the amount of it at any point being determined by the density distribution.
The electron is usually only one energy level at at time---but it can be in a superposition of energy levels.
The energy of the emitted or absorbed photon is determined by the conservation of energy.
An absorption process requires an incident photon.
In the ground state, the atom simply has no REMOVABLE energy.
It does have an IRREMOVABLE zero-point energy dictated by quantum mechanics.
This means only certain frequencies and wavelengths are allowed for the emitted or absorbed photons.
Wavelength is given by de Broglie relation ΔE=hc/λ, where λ is wavelength.
They look like fuzzy little balls as illustrated by the actual image of atoms shown the figure below (local link / general link: atom_gold.html).
Caption: "Image of surface reconstruction on a clean gold (Au(100)) surface, as visualized using scanning tunneling microscopy (STM). The individual atoms composing the material are visible. Surface reconstruction causes the surface atoms to deviate from the bulk crystal structure, and arrange in columns several atoms wide with regularly-spaced pits between them."
The image is ∼ 100 X 100 Angstroms (Å) = 10 X 10 nanometers (nm), where 1 nm = 10 Å = 10**(-9) m .
Features:
The brighter columns are higher and the darker ones are lower.
So why gold color? It's gold.
They look like fuzzy little balls. Why?
Because atoms are fuzzy little balls. The electrons that make up almost all the size of atoms exist in a continuum superposition of positions according to quantum mechanics. Thus, there is a continuously varying electron density in atoms with NO sharp edges or jumps in electron density.
The actual electron density depends on the particular physical state of the electrons. Images of atoms give only limited knowledge of this state and quantum mechanics calculations must be done to obtain it to high accuracy/precision.
A related process to transitions is the acceleration of electric charge.
For example, an alternating current (AC) in a conductor will generate radio waves (a form of EMR).
The reverse processes happens too: EMR can be absorbed by electric charges causing the electric charges to accelerate. This is how radio waves generate a current in a radio receiver.
The generation of radio waves by alternating current (AC) is illuatrated in the animation in the figure below (local link / general link: radio_wave_emission.html).
Image 1 Caption: "An animation of a half-wave dipole antenna (a stardard radio antenna) emitting radio waves (radio band fiducial range 3 Hz -- 300 GHz = 0.3 THz, 0.1 cm -- 10**5 km) showing the electric field lines. The electric dipole, in the center, consists of two vertical metal rods with an alternating current (AC) at its resonance frequency applied at its center from a radio transmitter (NOT shown). The electrical potential (AKA voltage) alternately charges the two ends of the antenna positive (+) and negative (-). Standing waves of electrical current (red arrows: ↑ ↓) flow up and down the rods. The alternating electrical potential (AKA voltage) on the rods creates waves of electric field with a loopy structure as shown by the electric field lines in black: the electric field lines pinch off into closed loops and radiate away from the antenna at the speed of light. These are the radio waves. The radiated power is greatest in the horizontal direction, perpendicular to the antenna, and decreases to zero above and below the antenna, on the antenna axis. The animation only shows the electric field in a single plane through the antenna axis: the electric field is actually has axial symmetry about the antenna and we are just seeing a cross section. The action is shown slowed down drastically in the animation: real radio waves oscillate with frequencies in the fiducial range 3 Hz -- 300 GHz = 0.3 THz." (Somewhat edited.)
Features:
In fact, the electric field and magnetic field have values at all points in spacetime, but in animations and diagrams only a representative sample of field lines can be shown of course.
In Image 2, the sample of magnetic fields is rather skimpy.
In fact, the magnetic field lines will be everywhere perpendicular to the electric field lines and form circles around the antenna axis (see Wikipedia: Near and far field: Summary of regions and their interactions).
After creation and before destruction, EMR is a traveling electromagnetic field in the sense that it is independent of source and sink.
EMR can self-propagate across this room, from the Sun to the Earth, and across the observable universe.
Recall EMR is self-propagating electromagnetic field.
A main piece of evidence for it reality the ability of EMR to propagate across the observable universe.
If an electromagnetic field can propagate across the universe and travel long after it's source is destroyed and long before its sink is created, then one has to conclude that electromagnetic fields are as real as anything is real.
Well, you should know since it's all you ever see.
But what you see is your psychophysical response which is NOT much like the mathematical description of physics.
General Caption: Images illustrating electromagnetic waves.
Features:
The ray could be part of a continuum of rays making a beam of finite geometrical cross section such as a plane wave. See Image 3 below for an illustration of a plane wave.
In fact, for definiteness, let's speak of the beam in the animation as a plane wave.
The oscillations being perpendicular to the propagation direction makes EMR a transverse wave phenomenon like waves on a string.
In fact, a time-varying electric field creates a time-varying magnetic field and vice versa---they create each other to paraphrase Jack Nicholson (1937--).
And they must do so for EMR to be self-propagating.
Note for magnetic fields either the symbol E or symbol H may be used. The two symbols do NOT mean quite the same thing, but our purposes they do.
This means that the electric field and magnetic field are confined to two perpendicular planes.
Far from the point source, a small part of a wavefront will approximate a plane wave.
The two parameters convey the same information (at least for vacuum), but in two different ways.
Which one is used depends on convenience---and the history of particular applications.
Caption: Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) wavelength λ and frequency f illustrated.
Credit/Permission: ©
David Jeffery,
2003 / Own work.
Image link: Itself.
Local file: local link: emr_wavelength_frequency.html.
File: Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) file:
emr_wavelength_frequency.html.
To understand the relationship between wavelength and frequency consider a light wave cycle (i.e., a spatial pattern that repeats over and over again) propagating to the right:
Time 1: The wave cycle is just starting to pass point A moving at speed vacuum light speed c. __________ | | |__________| A ---------- λ --------- The length of the wave or cycle is the wavelength which universally symbolized by the small Greek letter lambda λ. Time 2: The wave is just past point A a time P later. __________ | | |__________| A The speed of the wave passing A is c=λ/P which gives P=λ/c . If N waves pass a point A in N periods, the frequency of the waves is N 1 f = ______ = _______ which is the just reciprocal of the period. NP P
The standard unit of frequency is the inverse second which is given the special name hertz (Hz)---but frequently people give frequency as cycles per second---but this is now considered a bit obsolete.
Now
Caption: Examples of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) wavelength to frequency conversion for the visible light band (fiducial range 0.4--0.7 μm).
Note that though you often give visible light wavelength in the units angstrom (Å) = 0.1 nm = 10**(-10) m, nanometer (nm) = 10**(-9) m, or micron (μm) = 10**(-6) m, you usually convert to meters in order to calculate frequency since those are the standard metric units for calculations.
For example:
Credit/Permission: ©
David Jeffery,
2003 / Own work.
Image link: Itself.
Local file: local link: emr_wavelength_frequency_conversion_example.html.
File: Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) file:
emr_wavelength_frequency_conversion_example.html.
As follows from subsection The Relationship Between Wavelength and Frequency, the wave specification of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) can be by either of wavelength or frequency.
A fullish explication of wave specification is given in the figure below (local link / general link: electromagnetic_spectrum_wave_specification.html).
Caption: The electromagnetic spectrum.
Wave Specification: Frequency, Wavelength, Photon Energy, Wavenumber:
Periodic waves can be specified (or characterized) by either wavelength λ or frequency f since they are reciprocals of each other aside from a constant as shown by the generic phase velocity formula fλ=v_phase where v_phase is the phase velocity, the velocity at which a waveform propagates. The 2 specifications have the same information content.
Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) waves are a special case since they can be specified in 4 related ways with the same information content: by wavelength λ, frequency f = c/λ, photon energy E = hf = hc/λ = 1.2398419739(75) eV-μ/λ_μ and wavenumber k = 1/λ, where vacuum light speed c = 2.99792458*10**8 m/s (exact by definition) ≅ 3*10**8 m/s = 3*10**5 km/s ≅ 1 ft/ns, Planck constant h = 6.62607015*10**(-34) J·s = (4.135667696 ...)*10**(-15) eV-s (exact by definition), and the electron-volt (eV) = 1.602176634*10**(-19) J (exact by definition).
Note the most familiar wave specification formula for EMR
Which wave specification you use depends on convenience or convention.
Credit/Permission: ©
Philip Ronan (AKA User:Sakurambo,
2007 /
Creative Commons
CC BY-SA 3.0.
Image link: Wikipedia:
File:EM spectrum.svg.
Local file: local link: electromagnetic_spectrum_wave_specification.html.
File: Electromagnetic Radiation file:
electromagnetic_spectrum_wave_specification.html.
The unit hertz is named for Heinrich Hertz (1857--1894): see the figure below (local link / general link: heinrich_hertz.html).
Caption: Heinrich Hertz (1857--1894) discovered radio waves (a long wavelength form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR)), and thus invented radio, in 1887.
See Heinrich Hertz videos below:
One can think of wavelength or frequency as 1-dimensional spaces---which means they have only two directions positive and negative. However, we do NOT use positive and negative.
Thinking of wavelength, we sometimes say shortward or longward to mean toward the shorter wavelengths or longer wavelengths.
But in astro jargon, blueward means toward shorter wavelength and higher frequency and redward means toward longer wavelength and lower frequency.
The blueward and redward jargon an extrapolation from visible light to all light: i.e., all electromagnetic radiation (EMR) or all of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Violet is the highest frequency visible light.
Probably, because violetward doesn't trip of the tongue.
Form groups of 2 or 3---NOT more---and tackle Homework 6 problems 2--7 on electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
Discuss each problem and come to a group answer.
Let's work for 5 or so minutes.
The winners get chocolates.
See Solutions 6.
Credit/Permission: ©
User:4028mdk09,
2009 /
Creative Commons
CC BY-SA 3.0.
Image link: Wikipedia:
File:Becher Kakao mit Sahnehäubchen.JPG.
Local file: local link: chocolate_hot.html.
File: Art_c file:
chocolate_hot.html.
Well by color, but you do NOT know that color is a manifestation of wave nature by simple direct observations.
A direct manifestation is by following the oscillations of the electric fields and magnetic fields in electromagnetic radiation (EMR), but that is that is NOT easily done for high frequency EMR (e.g., visible light).
Throughout tens of thousands of years of human history, no one noticed the the wave nature of EMR until the 17th century and it wasn't widely accepted until the the 19th century (see Wikipedia: Light: Wave theory).
It turns out that the most obvious and easily accesible manifestation of wave nature is interference and diffraction. (Note the use of the singular verb "is".)
And yes, EMR exhibits interference and diffraction.
One can, of course, imagine wave phenomena without interference and diffraction. They would just be wave phenomena because they oscillate like waves.
Interference is usually thought of as happening with a only a few sources and diffraction with a large set or a continuum of sources.
In fact, the two terms interference and diffraction are synonyms and are used somewhat interchangeably. Convention often decides which term to use.
For example, the term interference is used in the terms constructive and destructive interference fringes (i.e., bands of high and low intensity) that occur with both interference and diffraction.
For another example, the pattern of interference fringes is usually called a diffraction pattern for either of interference and diffraction cases.
In the subsections below, we explicate interference and diffraction.
How interference arises is illustrated in the figure below (local link / general link: wave_interference.html).
Caption: Interference of 2 1-dimensional transverse waves (i.e., transverse waveforms or wave states or fields) at the same place in space.
Features:
Actually, nonlinear interference and diffraction occur too and are common for strong waves. However, for electromagnetic radiation (EMR), the superposition principle applies in almost all usual systems.
Waveforms of the same shape and size out of phase give exact cancellation: complete destructive interference as illustrated in the right panel of the image.
Caption: "Animation of interference of light coming from 2 in-phase point sources of light." (Slightly edited.)
The caption says the animation is for light, but in fact one can say this is a generic interference pattern for generic 2 in-phase point sources in either in 2 dimensions OR in 3 dimensions seen in cross section.
The radial cyan (fidicial range 0.490--0.520 μm) interference fringes made by destructive interference, represent low to zero intensity.
In between the destructive interference fringes are the constructive interference fringes which represent high intensity.
There is a continuum between high and low intensity.
Destructive interference fringes are often called dark interference fringes and constructive ones bright interference fringes.
The animation is similar to the ripple tank interference patterns shown in the first two videos in Diffraction Videos below. With water waves in a ripple tank, we can literally see interference of the waves and interference pattern.
Diffraction can be set up with a large number of discrete sources (e.g., in diffraction grating: see below subsection Spectroscopy).
However, diffraction happens ubiquitously whenever a wavefront is broken by obstacles with apertures being a special class of obstacle.
The diffraction pattern happens downstream from the breaking usually in some sort of complex spreading set of interference fringes.
The breaking of the wavefront can be understood to some degree as the creation of a continuum of pseudo point sources of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) all of which have a definite phase relationship to each other, and so lead to interference (i.e., diffraction).
This model of diffraction on the breaking of a wavefront is called Huygens principle.
Huygens principle is explicated in the figure below (local link / general link: huygens_principle.html).
Caption: The diffraction pattern formed by a broken wavefront can be understood and calculated to some degree using Huygens principle (correctly Huygens' principle, but no one says that).
In the image, one sees diffraction at an aperture. The yellow dots are a representative sample of the continuum of pseudo point sources of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) making up a broken wavefront of plane waves. The continuum of pseudo point sources gives rise to the transmitted and diffracted wave according to the scientific model of Huygens principle---which is only an incomplete model of what diffraction happens NOT a fundamental description.
Features:
However, diffraction happens ubiquitously whenever a wavefront is broken by obstacles with apertures being a special class of obstacle.
The breaking of the wavefront can be understood to some degree as the creation of a continuum of pseudo point sources of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) all of which have a definite phase relationship to each other, and so lead to interference (i.e., diffraction). A definite phase relationship in wave phenomena is called coherence.
The just-described model of diffraction on the breaking of a wavefront is called as a aforesaid Huygens principle.
Both scientists had to introduce extra and somewhat ill-defined hypotheses to make the minimalist Huygens principle yield valid predictions.
Note one should actually say the Huygens principle or Huygens' principle, but customary usage is to just say "Huygens principle".
It's a remarkable fact that the diffraction of light is almost unnoticeable in everyday life and it wasn't until the 17th century that anyone noticed it in the historical record???. Interference/diffraction in water waves had been noticed since forever, but apparently without anyone studying it scientifically or even philosophically. It probably seemed to complex to understand before the idea developed in the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century of controlled experiment in which variables are cleanly identified and varied one at a time.
In constrast to the wave theory of light, Pierre Gassendi (1592--1655) and Isaac Newton (1643--1727) proposed a corpuscular theory of light which was the dominant theory until circa 1800 (see Wikipedia: Light: Wave theory).
In fact, both the wave theory of light and the corpuscular theory of light had much to offer. However, yours truly would judge the wave theory of light to be a true emergent theory, but NOT the corpuscular theory of light. However, geometric optics which is the descendant of the corpuscular theory of light is a true emergent theory in yours truly's opinion. The photon theory of light did NOT historically arise from the corpuscular theory of light although there are, of course, similarities.
Note the statement above is a vague qualitative rule that takes the aforesaid extra and somewhat ill-defined hypotheses to make the minimalist Huygens principle yield valid predictions.
There is an argument that it is (see Wikipedia: Huygens-Fresnel principle: Huygens' principle and quantum field theory).
This is because Kirchoff's diffraction formula provides a quantitative model of light propagation from which Huygens principle can be derived along with extra conditions (replacing the aforesaid extra and somewhat ill-defined hypotheses) needed to make it quantitative (see Wikipedia: Kirchhoff's diffraction formula: Equivalence to Huygens-Fresnel equation).
Kirchoff's diffraction formula itself can be derived from classical electromagnetism which is actually needed for a general exact treatment of the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) in the classical limit.
For the argument that Huygens principle is just a derived result, see Wikipedia: Huygens-Fresnel principle: History.
At the present moment, yours truly thinks the first perspective is best since Huygens principle holds for all physical waves (i.e., mechanical waves, electromagnetic wave, and quantum mechanical waves) and is exact in some limits.
Of course, one needs the aforesaid extra hypotheses (which somehow are well defined) to make it exact in those limits.
Caption: Portrait of Christiaan Huygens (1629--1695).
People in those days went in for lace. I think the hair is fake.
Huygens, among many other great works, discovered the eponymous Huygens principle, was one of early pioneers of the wave theory of light.
He was preceded by Francesco Maria Grimaldi (1618--1663)---who discovered the diffraction of light---and Ignace-Gaston Pardies (1636--1673)---who seems to be the originator of the wave theory of light.
Credit/Permission: Bernard Vaillant (1632--1698,
17th century
(uploaded to Wikimedia Commons
by User:Lord Horatio Nelson,
2008) /
Public domain.
Image link: Wikimedia Commons:
File:Christiaan Huygens-painting.jpeg.
Local file: local link: christiaan_huygens.html.
File: Astronomer file:
christiaan_huygens.html.
Diffraction is very loosely describable as the bending of waves around obstacles or spreading out from apertures (i.e., openings of any kind) plus the interference effects.
The resulting pattern of interference is called a diffraction pattern. The figure below shows a diffraction pattern.
Caption: "Numerical simulation in matlab. Approximate diffraction pattern of a single 4-wavelength-wide slit".
This is a 2-dimensional diffraction pattern.
Waves come from the left and are diffracted through the slit.
Each point in the slit acts sort of like a point source of waves and the combination waves from each source gives rise to interference minima and maxima pattern which is the diffraction pattern.
You would see something like this in a water ripple tank experiment.
Credit/Permission:
Dick Lyon (AKA User:Dicklyon),
2007 /
Public domain.
Image link: Wikipedia:
File:Wave Diffraction 4Lambda Slit.png.
In the case of sound waves, we only hear the sound waves and diffraction, and NOT see them.
Diffraction of sound waves happens all the time and we certainly notice the bending of sound around obstacles and its spreading out from apertures (e.g., doors and windows) which is diffraction in action.
But perceiving a clean sound diffraction pattern is rare though because it is usually washed away (i.e., averaged away) by multiple reflections of sound in the surroundings AND because diffraction is wavelength-dependent. A situation with multiple or a continuum of wavelengths of sound results in overlapping diffraction patterns that tend to wash each other out.
Diffraction is one of the main wave nature manifestions of EMR.
The statements are extreme limits. But which statement is most true?
Answer 2 is right.
Note that you can often see the beam because dust particles reflect light to you, but light NOT headed toward your eyes is NOT seen.
Also the light scattered by the dust and the floor give some general illumination to the room. This light then scatters off the walls etc. and so you see the walls etc.
A laser pointer demonstrates this: you see the reflection of laser light from where the beam hits, but NOT the beam itself.
In the old days, I'd have a student who was a smoker breathe smoke into the laser light beam to demonstrate the reflection by smoke particles---but we can't do that any more.
I could also use chalk dust---but we don't have blackboards anymore.
You can also see a laser beam reflected off water drops as illustrated in the figure below (local link / general link: laser_aerosol.html).
Caption: "5 mW 532 nm (i.e., nearly monochromatic green) laser (class IIIb) directed at a palm tree approximately 30 m away. The laser was offset by about 10 cm to the camera's right. Both the camera and laser were mechanically steadied. Photo cropped only." (Slightly edited.)
A laser pointer beam is only visible because of the scattering of some light off some aerosol (e.g., water drops or dust) in the air. In the case of this image, it's water drops in rain or mist.
In general, light rays NOT directed to the observer are invisible.
Credit/Permission: ©
User:Flip619,
2007 /
Creative Commons
CC BY-SA 3.0.
Image link: Wikipedia:
File:Green-lased palm tree (crop).jpg.
Local file: local link: laser_aerosol.html.
File: Optics file:
laser_aerosol.html.
Why NOT? The explication is in the figure below (local link / general link: diffraction_ratio.html).
Caption: Diffraction and visible light.
The characteristic ratio R shown in the figure is of order the size of the interference fringes relative to the central bright fringe (which is what one usually just calls the light beam itself) or the central dark fringe (which is what one usually just calls the shadow)???.
So if R << 1, the interference fringes will be minute compared to the central fringe.
So for visible light cut by apertures or obstacles of human scale, diffraction is ordinarily unnoticeable.
Additionally, usually there are multiple source of visible light that tend to wash out the diffraction pattern.
Additionally moreover, the visible light forming the diffraction pattern is usually polychromatic light---it consists of a largish continuous range of wavelengths. Each wavelength has its own diffraction pattern. The result is a continuum of overlapping diffraction patterns. To the eye, the result something of a washout. One can largely eliminate, the overlapping diffraction patterns by using a laser beam which is nearly monochromatic light.
So ordinarily we don't notice the diffraction of visible light for several reasons.
Somewhere I've read that on a very clear bright day, one can just see interference fringes at the edges of shadows cast in sunlight if you look really closely, maybe with a magnifying glass
But yours truly has never seen these interference fringes though only in a few desultory attempts to see them.
Credit/Permission: ©
David Jeffery,
2003 / Own work.
Image link: Itself.
Local file: local link: diffraction_ratio.html.
File: Optics file:
diffraction_ratio.html.
Caption: Two animations showing the diffraction of plane waves through apertures of width w_aperture. The first with R = λ/w_aperture = 1/5 and the second R = λ/w_aperture = 1/1.
Features:
Green and faint blue represent the oscillations in low intensity waves.
The caption with the animations is mute on this point.
It is still present, but has very low intensity, except for the central bright fringe. The other fringes, bright and dark, become very narrow.
The central bright fringe approaches being beam-like as if it were just made up of rays executing rectilinear propagation.
In most everyday life situations with human-scale apertures and obstacles, geometrical optics describes the behavior of light to high accuracy.
In fact, the wave nature of light is seldom noticed.
Here the R is significantly less than 1, but most would probably NOT consider R << 1.
Nevertheless, the central bright fringe is strong and rather beam-like and the other fringes are narrow and faint.
If R were made very small, the central bright fringe would become like a straight rectangular beam and the rest of the diffraction pattern would become very faint with narrow fringes visible just near the edges of the central bright fringe.
Here the central bright fringe broadens instead of becoming a beam as when R becomes small.
The off-axis intensity of the diffraction pattern is increased relative to the first animation.
One usually just notices a chopped piece of the wavefront---which looks like a beam to the human eye---and a shadow region.
Multiple sources and overlapping patterns of different wavelength tend to wash out any tiny, narrow-fringed diffraction pattern near shadow edges.
But I've never managed to see this myself. Maybe a magnifying glass would help.
Caption: "A computer simulation of the diffraction pattern formed by a laser beam of wavelength 663 nm = 0.663 μm (1 m = 10**(-6) μm = 10**(-9) nm) incident on a square aperture of 20 X 20 μm visible on a screen placed 1 meter from the aperture." (Slightly edited.)
Features:
But it is NOT a very small aperture. The ratio of wavelength to aperture size scale is 0.663/20 = 0.03315. So ∼1.5 orders of magnitude less than 1 which is smallish, but still NOT tiny. So one gets a noticeable diffraction pattern.
With reflections and other sources of light, the interference fringes would be washed away.
But for visible light, diffraction is NOT readily noticeable, and so we do NOT readily notice light as a wave phenomenon.
The spreading out of a beams from a window say is small and the diffraction pattern is usually washed out by multiple sources and reflections and the spread in wavelength of the beam.
In fact, we can usually just treat visible light as coming in light rays that travel in straight lines: i.e., exhibit rectilinear propagation.
But many useful optical effects and devices depend on diffraction. For example, diffraction from a diffraction grating is used to cause dispersion: see below in section The Dispersion of Electromagnetic Radiation.
Subject to some qualifications on the limits which we discuss below in subsection The Limits of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.
The continuum of EMR is called the electromagnetic spectrum.
To explicate further, there are NO boundaries or gaps in EMR in the dimensions wavelength and frequency as far as we know.
This means that they form continuums---and so EMR forms a continuum---i.e., the electromagnetic spectrum is a continuum.
Rational numbers---which are numbers expressible as ratios of integers---have "missing points": for example sqrt(2) = 1.41421 ... ≅ 1.4 is within the boundaries of rational numbers, but is NOT a rational number: i.e., it CANNOT be expressed as ratio of integers.
Real numbers (which include rational numbers and irrational numbers) have NO "missing points", and thus form a continuum---in fact set of real numbers is the prime example of a continuum.
A more math-jargony way of distinguishing real numbers and rational numbers is to say that real numbers form a complete metric space and rational numbers do NOT.
On the other hand, there are many systems where you can overtake mechanical waves, and so negative frequency is sometimes used for these cases.
Above, we said there are no limits between zero and infinity in wavelength or frequency.
This is what classical electromagnetism predicts.
But there some qualifications:
The electromagnetic spectrum and the conventional wavelength bands are illustrated in the figure below (local link / general link: electromagnetic_spectrum.html).
Caption: The electromagnetic spectrum.
Features:
Some relatively sharp boundaries do occur in particular emission and absorption processes: e.g., absorption edges.
where f is frequency, λ is wavelength, f is frequency and c is the vacuum light speed c = 2.99792458*10**8 m/s (exact by definition) ≅ 3*10**8 m/s = 3*10**5 km/s ≅ 1 ft/ns.
From the formulae, we see that frequency and wavelength are inversely related and contain the same information in different forms.
Human eyes sensitive to EMR wavelength in the visible band (fiducial range 0.4--0.7 μm) which band is illustrated the figure below (local link / general link: visible_band.html).
Caption: The visible band of the electromagnetic spectrum illustrated.
Features:
Other colors can be created by mixing wavelength bands that are adjacent or non-adjacent.
Non-spectral colors include for example:
Our psychophysical sensitivity to visible light is wavelength-dependent: i.e., color-dependent.
This is illustrated in the two figures below (local link / general link: human_luminosity_function.html; local link / general link: human_luminosity_function_prct.html).
Caption: A schematic diagram of psychophysical sensitivity of the average human eye (i.e., luminosity function).
Features:
Luminous flux is the quantity of psychophysical sensitivity of the human eye with units lumens.
Scotopic vision is rather insensitive to color---it's nearly black-and-white vision.
Caption: The psychophysical sensitivity of the average human eye (i.e., the luminosity function).
The vertical scale is just relative to maximum sensitivity set to 100 %.
The colored vertical lines are at the wavelengths of some common laser colors. The yellow line is the unresolved atomic spectral lines the doublet sodium (Na) D lines (588.995 nm, 588.995 nm).
This luminosity function is for photopic vision (i.e., human eye vision under well lit conditions).
There is another luminosity function for scotopic vision (i.e., human eye vision under poorly lit conditions).
Credit/Permission: User:Skatebiker,
2010 /
Public domain.
Image link: Wikipedia:
File:Eyesensitivity.png.
Local file: local link: human_luminosity_function_prct.html.
File: Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) file:
human_luminosity_function_prct.html.
Often we just see light of mixed wavelength (i.e., polychromatic light) and then we have a psychophysical-sensitivity-weighted average response.
For example, the mixtures of colors in sunlight filtered through the Earth's atmosphere gives what we call white light because it looks white or white-yellow.
Not all life sees just in the human visible light band.
Birds see a bit into the UV (Bird vision: Ultraviolet). But what color do they see?
Some snakes (rattlesnakes and other pit vipers and boa constrictors and pythons) have loreal pits on the sides of their heads in addition to eyes.
These loreal pits are sensitive to infrared light out to perhaps 8--12 microns. This allows these snakes to see the light emitted from hot bodies and thus they can see in the dark. See the Eye Design Book and the figure below.
Caption: An infrared thermogram (thermography image) of a mouse being eaten by a snake.
The image is false color, of course.
Darker is colder: i.e., longer wavelength.
Snakes are cold-blooded.
Who could feed a fellow mammal to a snake?
Credit/Permission: ©
User:Arno/User:Coen,
2006 /
Creative Commons
CC BY-SA 3.0.
Image link: Wikipedia:
File:Wiki snake eats mouse.jpg.
Actually, humans can see a bit beyond the fiducial range 0.4--0.7 μm of the visible light band. See the figure below (local link / general link: human_luminosity_function.html).
Caption: A schematic diagram of psychophysical sensitivity of the average human eye (i.e., luminosity function).
Features:
Luminous flux is the quantity of psychophysical sensitivity of the human eye with units lumens.
Scotopic vision is rather insensitive to color---it's nearly black-and-white vision.
Probably NOT answer 4. One can see pretty sharply in the infrared. Diffraction isn't so bad at the shorter infrared wavelengths.
The fact that the Sun radiates most strongly in the visible band (fiducial range 0.4--0.7 μm) and the Earth's atmosphere is very transparent in this band seems coincidental. However, the concidence (which created abundant visible light) may be why vision became such an important sense for terrestrial biota.
We go into details about spectroscopy in IAL 7: Spectra and preview it a bit below in subsection Spectroscopy.
But to give the short answer as to why it is important, spectroscopy is the most important of all chemical analysis techniques and how we know what the cosmic composition is even though most of the observable universe is untouchable.
Now almost any natural or artificial source of EMR gives EMR with a mixture of wavelengths: it is polychromatic EMR as opposed to monochromatic EMR which has single wavelength.
Exact monochromatic EMR is ideal limit that does NOT actually occur.
But the wavelength mixture in polychromatic EMR can be reduced in principle to as small as you like, but there are practical limits????.
An example of near-monochromatic EMR is a emission from a laser. For example, see the nearly monochromatic light green laser beam in the figure below (local link / general link: laser_aerosol.html).
Caption: "5 mW 532 nm (i.e., nearly monochromatic green) laser (class IIIb) directed at a palm tree approximately 30 m away. The laser was offset by about 10 cm to the camera's right. Both the camera and laser were mechanically steadied. Photo cropped only." (Slightly edited.)
A laser pointer beam is only visible because of the scattering of some light off some aerosol (e.g., water drops or dust) in the air. In the case of this image, it's water drops in rain or mist.
In general, light rays NOT directed to the observer are invisible.
Credit/Permission: ©
User:Flip619,
2007 /
Creative Commons
CC BY-SA 3.0.
Image link: Wikipedia:
File:Green-lased palm tree (crop).jpg.
Local file: local link: laser_aerosol.html.
File: Optics file:
laser_aerosol.html.
We'd often like to analyze polychromatic EMR and see what the intensity or flux of the EMR is per wavelength.
An object has particular color because it reflects that color absorbs other colors.
But the reflection process is rather complex and the reflected color is often still a mixture of wavelengths that can come from multiple non-contiguous bands.
Thus, reflection is just NOT a simple analysis tool to use and thus is NOT a good analysis tool to use.
A simple disperser is a prism which uses refraction to disperse the light.
Prisms and refraction are explicated in the figure below (local link / general link: refraction_prism.html).
Image 1 Caption: A diagram illustrating the dispersion of monochromatic light rays by a prism of made from 5 of the 6 conventional spectral color terms (orange is omitted). The black line segments are normals (i.e., the perpendiculars) to the glass medium interface.
Prisms disperse light using refraction which is governed by Snell's law (AKA the law of refraction). In many scientific applications, greater and better dispersion is obtained using a diffraction grating (which relies on diffraction rather than refraction) rather than a prism. A compact disc is incidentally acts as a crude diffraction grating. That is NOT its function, but it disperses light rather prettily. By the by, nowadays the compact disc is a retro technology (Wikipedia: Compact disc: Current_status). For more on compact discs, see Optics file: diffraction_compact_disk.html.
Note monochromatic light is an ideal limit that CANNOT be reached in practice. By monochromatic light, one means polychromatic light with a very narrow wavelength band.
Features:
Actually, the prism disperses light beyond the visible band (fiducial range 0.4--0.7 μm) (i.e., into the ultraviolet band (fiducial range 0.01--0.4 μm) and infrared band (fiducial range 0.7 μm -- 0.1 cm)), but the human eye does NOT notice that. For example, a prism made of fused quartz (AKA quartz glass, silica glass) disperses light beyond the visible band (fiducial range 0.4--0.7 μm). Note for fused quartz (AKA quartz glass, the best transmittance range is 0.18--2.7 μm (Wikipedia: Fused quartz: List of physical properties).
n_1*sin(θ_1) = n_2*sin(θ_2) ,where the n_i are the refractive indexes n_i = c/v_i (n_i ≥ 1 always), vacuum light speed c = 2.99792458*10**8 m/s (exact by definition) ≅ 3*10**8 m/s = 3*10**5 km/s ≅ 1 ft/ns, v_i is the light speed in optical medium i (v_i ≤ c always), and the θ_i are the angles (i.e., incidence angle and refraction angle) of the light ray from the normal (i.e., the perpendicular) to the medium interface.
Note
sin(θ_2) = (n_1/n_2)*sin(θ_1) ,and so θ_2 subceeds/exceeds θ_1 if n_2 is greater/lesser than n_1.
In particular, note that a light ray bends toward a normal going from medium 1 to 2 if n_2 is greater than n_1.
Most common transparent solids and liquids have n_i greater than air's n_air, and so light rays bend toward/away the normal when entering/leaving these common materials when they are embedded in air.
Note incidence angles and refraction angles greater than 90° do NOT happen definitionally and have NO meaning in Snell's law. But what happens for case of incidence angles greater than those that give refraction angles of 90°? Total internal reflection which is illustrated by Image 5 below and which we discuss below Image 5.
For prisms (which are made from some kind of optical glass), the refractive index decreases with increasing wavelength. Thus, in Image 1 and Image 2, violet light refracts more than the red light.
Image 1 and Image 2 actually tell all. But we can supplement the images with some description:
Exiting the prism at short range there is a strong remixing the of the colored light rays, and so the overall emergent light beam will be polychromatic though with a complexly different mixture than the incident light beam.
However, at long range from the prism, the dispersed colored light beams will spread out because they emerge at different angles. So again there will be dispersed spectrum.
By the by,
an common example of such an
optical medium
object
is plate glass.
Note:
Exiting the slab, the colored light rays would be remixed and the exiting light beam would be polychromatic.
A derivation of total internal reflection is beyond our scope, but a derivation of the formula for the critical angle θ_critical is given below.
n_1*sin(θ_1) = n_2*sin(θ_2) .
Say θ_2 = 90°, then sin(θ_2) = 1, θ_critical = θ_1, and
θ_critical = arcsin(n_2/n_1) .Since arcsin(x) is undefined for x > 1, there is only a critical angle for the case of n_2/n_1 ≤ 1: i.e., for the optical medium 1 having having the higher refractive index than optical medium 2.
Total internal reflection occurs in optical medium 1 at the medium interface for θ_1 > θ_critical. Total internal reflection is, in fact, specular reflection (if the medium interface is sufficiently smooth) where reflection angle equals the incidence angle as illustrated in Image 5.
A much older disperser of light than human-made prisms and diffraction gratings (see below subsection How Does a Diffraction Grating Work?) is a cloud of water drops roughly opposite the Sun on the sky. The cloud gives us the rainbow.
The figure below (local link / general link: rainbow_explication.html) explicates the formation of the rainbow.
Caption: The formation of the rainbow.
There is a strong focusing effect of the totally internally reflected light in the raindrop at the special angles from the solar optical axis: the average primary angle is 42.1° and the average secondary is 50.8°.
The primary rainbow has one total internal reflection and the secondary rainbow has two.
There tertiary and higher-order rainbows formed by 3, etc. total internal reflections.
The tertiary and 4th order rainbows can be observed in nature. Higher order ones exist in theory and can be created in the laboratory to some high order. A 200th order one has been observed in the laboratory (see Wikipedia: Rainbow: Higher-order rainbows).
There are also supernumeray rainbows that can appear inside the primary rainbow (rare) and outside the secondary very rare). These arise from interference effects and are NOT easy to explain at our level.
A supernumeray rainbow is the usual form of the 3rd rainbow of a triple rainbow yours truly thinks.
The primary rainbow (rarely) and secondary rainbow (very rarely) can also become twinned rainbows.
So the focussed light is dispersed and we see it each color coming at us from a slightly different angle from the solar axis.
There is circular symmetry around the solar optical axis.
Thus, a full rainbow would be a circle set on a cone with its apex at the observer.
Full rainbows can be seen from high buildings or airplane.
However, there is another atmospheric effect, a glory which is rainbow-like, but is caused by a different effect and has a smaller angular diameter measured from the solar optical axis. Circular glories are often seen from airplanes. Yours truly probably saw a glory once.
Credit/Permission: ©
David Jeffery,
2004 / Own work.
Image link: Itself.
Local file: local link: rainbow_explication.html.
File: Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) file:
rainbow_explication.html.
Caption: The coffee at the end of the rainbow. The end of the rainbow seems to be entering the coffee sitting on the gunwale of a boat.
But if the observer moves, the rainbow moves and you never drink from the Fountain.
Credit/Permission:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Image ID: corp2028, NOAA Corps Collection;
Photographer: Commander John Bortniak, NOAA Corps.
Photo Date: 1992 September /
Public domain.
Image link: Itself.
Local file: local link: rainbow_coffee.html.
File: Electromagnetic Radiation file:
rainbow_coffee.html.
Caption: "Full featured double rainbow in Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Alaska."
Click on image and the next image version for the high-resolution version.
The solar axis runs through the photographer whose shadow is seen at the center bottom. The 2 cones of light rays forming the primary rainbow and secondary rainbow have their apex at the photographer. The fiducial mean opening angle of the primary rainbow cone is 42°; that of the secondary rainbow is 52° (see Wikipedia: Rainbow: Double rainbow).
See Rainbow videos below (local link / general link: rainbow_videos.html):
The rainbow is, of course, the spectrum of the Sun. But the water drops don't spread out (i.e., disperse) the wavelengths very much and give a rather imperfect spectrum.
Astronomers can do better in dispersing sunlight using diffraction gratings as illustrated in the figure below (local link / general link: solar_spectrum_image.html).
We'll discuss the solar spectrum and absorption lines in IAL 7: Spectra.
Caption: The solar spectrum from the Earth's surface in image format (i.e., as the human eye sees it, NOT as an intensity plot) when strongly dispersed.
The spectrum is spread out on a wraparound line.
It is approximately a blackbody spectrum of temperature 5772 K (which is the effective temperature of the solar photosphere: see Wikipedia: Sun) with absorption lines from the Sun and Earth's atmosphere superimposed.
Yours truly is sort of a spectroscopist---but NOT a good one---the only absorption line yours truly is pretty sure of is the strong red Hα line of the hydrogen Balmer lines. Yours truly thinks the two strong yellow absorption lines may be the sodium D lines (AKA Na I doublet) which also provide the near monochromatic light of sodium-vapor lamps (see Wikipedia: Sodium-vapor lamp: Low-pressure sodium).
Credit/Permission: ©
N.A.Sharp, NOAO/NSO/Kitt Peak FTS/AURA/NSF,
NOAO/AURA /
NOAO/AURA Image Library Conditions of Use.
Download link:
N.A.Sharp, NOAO/NSO/Kitt Peak FTS/AURA/NSF.
Image link: Itself.
Local file: local link: solar_spectrum_image.html.
File: Sun file:
solar_spectrum_image.html.
The analysis of dispersed EMR is called spectroscopy.
Spectroscopy is the most useful and important of all chemical analysis tools. In IAL 7: Spectra, we'll go into spectra and spectroscopy more deeply.
The prime instrument of spectroscopy is the spectroscope. A spectroscope is illustrated in the figure below (local link / general link: spectroscope.html).
Caption: A diagram illustrating how a spectroscope (AKA spectrometer) works. The key part is the diffraction grating.
Features:
To analyze with spectroscopy, you do NOT have to have a sample of the substance. You just have to have light from the substance. Thus, we can know what material makes up the observable universe using astronomical spectroscopy while still being stuck on little, old Earth.
How does a diffraction grating work? A partial explication is given in the figure below (local link / general link: diffraction_grating.html).
Caption: A comparison of the spectra obtained by dispersion from a diffraction grating and a prism.
Features:
The slit shape means that diffraction is strong perpendicular to the slit because the slit WIDTH is comparable to the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation (EMR). On the other hand, diffraction is usually negligible parallel to the slit because the slit LENGTH is large compared to the wavelength of the EMR.
The bright fringes for monochromatic light look like lines, and so are called spectral lines or just lines for a shorthand.
There is always a central bright fringe (i.e., spectral line) for all wavelengths---which is the white beam in the image.
The other bright fringes are numbered in order of angular distance from the central bright fringes: i.e., 1st order, 2nd order, etc. as illustrated in the image. The fringes brightness decreases with order, and so the 1st order is brightest and usually the only one used in spectroscopy.
The central bright fringes can be called the 0th order fringes.
On the other hand, if the incident EMR consists of a discrete set of narrow wavelength bands, each order of the diffraction pattern gets spread into a line spectrum consisting of a set of spectral lines each one formed by one of the narrow wavelength bands. This is situation is NOT illustrated in the image.
A dilute gas gives rise to line spectrum and so we say it HAS a line spectrum.
Usually, when one says spectral line one means one from line spectrum. It can also be called a transition line since it usually results from a transition between energy levels in a microscopic particle (e.g., atom, molecule, ion, or nucleus).
A spectral line has a line wavelength (AKA central line wavelength) which is the central wavelength of the narrow wavelength band that makes up the spectral line. It also has linewidth which is a characteristic width for the narrow wavelength band. Such narrow wavelength bands do NOT have sharp edges, and so the linewidth follows from a conventional definition.
As one can see from the figure, with refraction the shorter the wavelength, the greater the angular deviation of the light ray (i.e., the greater the refraction).
Form groups of 2 or 3---NOT more---and tackle Homework 6 problems 7--12 on electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
Discuss each problem and come to a group answer.
Let's work for 5 or so minutes.
The winners get chocolates.
See Solutions 6.
Did you know that cocoa may be the great brain food---see Daisy Yuhas, 2013, Is Cocoa the Brain Drug of the Future?---it makes mice smarter---but maybe only in unprocessed form---just when you thought it was safe to scarf.
More debunking of dark chocolate: The dark truth about chocolate: Nic Fleming, The Guardian, Sun 25 Mar 2018---candy, NOT health food.
Credit/Permission: ©
Simon A. Eugster (AKA User:LivingShadow),
2010 /
Creative Commons
CC BY-SA 3.0.
Image link: Wikipedia:
File:Schokolade-schwarz.jpg.
Local file: local link: chocolate_swiss.html.
File: Art_c file:
chocolate_swiss.html.
There are actually three descriptions of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) all of which are useful in certain limits:
Just to give a bit of science history, the concept of photons has been around since 1900 (originally being called the quantum of light).
But proof that photons are indispensable entities in physics was finally obtained only in the 1970s (e.g., Greenstein & Zajonc, 2005, p. 32--34).
But physicists had believed in them long before that---maybe since the 1920s---photons are just part of the paradigm of quantum mechanics.
In section Photon Propagation in Gases below, we consider a case where it is very useful to treat EMR as photons since the EMR is constantly interacting with free individual atoms, molecules, and/or electrons.
Caption: An ABSTRACT diagram of a hydrogen atom changing energy levels and emitting a photon. In general, a change in energy levels is called a atomic transition.
Features:
Atoms can be imaged directly in various ways. But they do NOT have sharp edges, and so they look like fuzzy balls. In general, a real image of an atom does NOT give a clear picture of its structure in any direct way.
But it is right in that there are NOT a continuum of energy states allowed for the electrons that surround the atomic nucleus which for hydrogen (the simplest of all atomic nuclei) is a single proton represented by the central dot in the diagram. A hydrogen atom also has only one electron represented by a small dot in the diagram.
Instead of a continuum of energy states, there is only a discrete set with discrete energies. This is main reason why we call quantum mechanics quantum mechanics: the energy states are QUANTIZED.
The quantized energy levels in the ABSTRACT diagram are represented by a quantized set of circular orbits.
The larger the circular orbit, the higher the energy of the energy level.
The smallest circle represents the ground state, the lowest energy energy level allowed by quantum mechanics.
The Bohr atom did posit actual circular orbits, but that turned out to be WRONG.
In fact, each energy level is a spread out density distribution for an electron. The electron exists in a continuum superposition of positions with the amount of it at any point being determined by the density distribution.
The electron is usually only one energy level at at time---but it can be in a superposition of energy levels.
The energy of the emitted or absorbed photon is determined by the conservation of energy.
An absorption process requires an incident photon.
In the ground state, the atom simply has no REMOVABLE energy.
It does have an IRREMOVABLE zero-point energy dictated by quantum mechanics.
This means only certain frequencies and wavelengths are allowed for the emitted or absorbed photons.
Wavelength is given by de Broglie relation ΔE=hc/λ, where λ is wavelength.
What is the energy of an individual photon (i.e., the photon energy)?
For wavelength λ, it is given by the de Broglie relation:
E = hc/λ = 1.986445824*10**(-19) J-μm / λ_{μm} = 1.239841974 eV-μm / λ_{μm} ,
where h is the Planck constant, c is the vacuum light speed, λ_{μm} is wavelength is measured in microns (μ), the Joule (J) is the MKS unit of energy, and the electron-volt (eV) is the microscopic unit of energy.
To understand the size scales a bit, we note that the energy to lift a kilogram 1 meter is about 10 J, a Watt-second = 1 J and 1 kW-hour = 3,600,000 J, and a photon from the visible band (fiducial range 0.4--0.7 μm) has photon energy of ∼ 2 eV.
The de Broglie relation is an inverse relation: λ ↑ E ↓ and λ ↓ E ↑ .
Even for gamma rays with wavelengths typically less than 10**(-5) μm (see the figure below: local link / general link: electromagnetic_spectrum.html and Wikipedia: Gamma ray: General characteristics), the energy of a single photon is microscopic: i.e., typically of order and greater than 10**(-14) J.
Caption: The electromagnetic spectrum.
Features:
Some relatively sharp boundaries do occur in particular emission and absorption processes: e.g., absorption edges.
where f is frequency, λ is wavelength, f is frequency and c is the vacuum light speed c = 2.99792458*10**8 m/s (exact by definition) ≅ 3*10**8 m/s = 3*10**5 km/s ≅ 1 ft/ns.
From the formulae, we see that frequency and wavelength are inversely related and contain the same information in different forms.
Now I know what you are thinking.
How big is a photon and what is its shape?
Well, we don't really know.
It may be a point particle---or maybe NOT.
But we think of it as being a point particle in a continuum superposition of positions.
The distribution of those positions is, in fact, a wave phenomenon and gives the wave nature of EMR.
The spread/collapse process is called wave function collapse.
How fast is wave function collapse?
We don't really know. It may exceed the vacuum light speed as one of the quantum mechanical superluminal effects we discussed above in subsection Qualifications About the Vacuum Light Speed as the Fastest Physical Speed.
Yours truly is NOT sure if we know better than that---but maybe yours truly is just out of touch.
Why we do NOT notice the particulate nature of EMR in most situations including all of everyday life?
Any macroscopic amount of EMR contains so many photons that the particulate nature is washed out.
Similarly one does NOT notice that water is made of molecules of H_2O.
Even if you have just one photon, there is a wave-like and spread out nature to the photon because of the wave-particle duality quantum mechanics that we discussed in above in the Introduction.
We explicate the wave-particle duality of single photons with the interference experiment illustrated in the figure below (local link / general link: qm_double_slit.html).
Caption: "Results of a double-slit experiment performed by Akira Tonomura (1942--2012) showing the build-up of a diffraction pattern from single electrons. The counts of electrons are 10 (a), 200 (b), 6000 (c), 40000 (d), 140000 (e)." (Slightly edited.)
Features:
The wave function of each electron passes through both of two slits on a screen. Which means each electron passes through both of two slits on a screen.
The intensity of the electron beam in the experiment is so low that there is only one electron at a time passing through the two slits.
When an absorption occurs, we say there has been a wave function collapse to a point.
EMR from the ultraviolet and blueward in wavelength is dangerous to life.
The further blueward, the more dangerous. So gamma rays are the most dangerous EMR. However in sunlight, ultraviolet is the most most dangerous EMR to penetrate the Earth's atmosphere.
Dangerous EMR can damage organic molecules such as DNA (see figure below (local link / general link: dna_rotating.html).
Caption: "Animation of a rotating DNA structure." DNA is, of course, a very complex organic molecule.
Credit/Permission: User:Brian0918,
before or circa 2005
(uploaded to Wikipedia
by User:Magadan,
2005) /
Public domain.
Image link: Wikipedia:
File:DNA animation.gif.
Local file: local link: dna_rotating.html.
File: Biology file:
dna_rotating.html.
But that does NOT mean that NUMBER OF and ENERGY OF photons are exactly compensatory quantities: many reactions with matter are sensitive to the energy of the individual photons.
Photons from the ultraviolet and blueward region of the electromagnetic spectrum are ionizing radiation.
They are individually energetic enough that they can knock electrons off atoms and molecules in a process called ionization.
Every ionization is done by one high-energy photon. Lower energy photons, no matter how, numerous will NOT ionize atoms and molecules---at least NOT in a direct sense. So they are relatively safe.
If the ejected electron is sufficiently fast, it can ionize further atoms and molecules creating a cascade of fast electrons and ionizations. The resulting ions (i.e., the charged atoms and molecules) can be chemically destructive to organic material.
Other damaging processes besides straightforward ionization also turn up.????
As well as ionizing photons, particles from radioactive decay are also ionizing radiation.
The damage from ionizing radiation can cause long-term health effects: most importantly various kinds of cancer.
Intense ionizing radiation will cause radiation sickness which is actually many things (but some more than others) since ionizing radiation if sufficiently penetrating can cause damage anywhere in the human body and in any other kinds of biota bodies too.
This is because there is lots of photon and gas interaction and interference and diffraction have negligible effect.
The radiative transfer process is explicated in the figure below local link / general link: photon_escape.html).
Caption: Cartoon of photons (more realistically, photon packets) executing a random walk from the interior of a star and then escaping from the photosphere.
Features:
There are also true sources/sinks for EMR in general.
Between interactions, the photons can be modeled as traveling in straight lines.
The upshot of the aforesaid description is that radiative transfer is by a random walk which becomes fully freestreaming only in the limit of zero opacity. The overall motion of individual photons is complex, but in aggregate their behavior can be treated statistically as discussed below. At the macroscopic scale the cumulative effect of all the random walks is a diffusion process.
However, one can model the radiative transfer by photon packets in a Monte Carlo radiative transfer computer simulation of a random walk. The photon packets only lose/gain energy when the EMR field loses/gains energy. Scattering and absorption/reemission of a photon packet changes its frequency/wavelength (scattering only slightly usually) but NOT its energy. Thus, the photon packet is indestructible and propagating through the entire star or other systems of gas by effective scattering. Photon packets, in fact, give the aggregate behavior of large groups of photons on average, capturing both the random walk behavior and the absorption/reemission behavior.
Well, their average position stays in the zone of initial creation in the star's nuclear burning core, but the distribution of any set of photon packets widens until it's broader than the star. So eventually, all the photon packets will be outside of the star freestreaming to infinity---while their average position stays in the star's nuclear burning core.
Note also that star density falls outward from the center, and so this biases a random walk direction toward the surface region (i.e., photosphere and stellar atmosphere) of a star. The bias is because photon packets have longer steps usually in the lower density directions because of usually lower opacity in those directions.
A rough estimate is of order 10,000 years for a photon packet to go from center to photosphere of the Sun (Shu-90).
Recall from above, NO single photon goes very far in a star. Photons are created and destroyed as energy is propagates outward. But computer simulation of radiative transfer by indestructible photon packets gives the aggregate behavior as aforesaid.
However, energy signals do NOT have to rely on radiative transfer. Asteroseismic waves (for the special case of the Sun, these are called helioseismic waves) can travel much faster from center to photosphere of stars (including the Sun) than photon packets random walking though much slower than the vacuum light speed c = 2.99792458*10**5 km/s. Yours truly CANNOT find a source that says how fast at this moment.
Caption: A photon photon packet executing a random walk by scattering off particles (e.g., electrons) in a random direction. Usually, the angular redistribution probability density can be modeled to good approximation as an isotropic one.
Credit/Permission: ©
David Jeffery,
2003 / Own work.
Image link: Itself.
Local file: local link: photon_escape_random_walk.html.
File: Star file:
photon_escape_random_walk.html.
Caption: "This is a simulation of the Brownian motion of 5 particles (yellow) that collides with a large set of 800 particles leaving 5 blue trails of random walk motion with one yellow particle with a red velocity vector represented."
This animation is NOT a photon case, but it gives you the right idea of how a photon does a random walk scattering its way through a gas of atoms and/or molecules.
Credit/Permission: ©
User:Lookang,
2012 /
Creative Commons
CC BY-SA 3.0.
Image link: Wikipedia:
File:Brownianmotion5particles150frame.gif.
The figure below (local link / general link: random_walk_3d.html) illustrates three generic random walks and gives some mathematical insight into the random walk process.
The figure completes our discussion of photon radiative transfer by random walks.
Caption: "Isotropic random walk on the Euclidean lattice. This picture shows three different random walks (red, blue, green paths) after 10,000 unit steps, all three starting from the origin." (Slightly edited.)
"Isotropic" means the traveling particles scattering all directions with equal probability.
The particles do slowly diffuse from the origin though their average position remains the origin.
What changes is the width of their distribution. It increases with number of steps.
Behold:
r_n = r_(n-1) + s*cos(θ) ,
where r_n is the radial distance from the origin after n steps, r_(n-1) is the radial distance from the origin after (n-1) steps, s is the step size, θ is the angle from the radial direction, and the formula is in the limit of r_n >> s.
If we take the average, we get
< r_n> = < r_(n-1)> + s*= < r_(n-1)> + s*0 < r_n> = < r_(n-1)> < r_n> = 0 .
So the average position remains the origin.
But if we take the root mean square (RMS), we get
< r_n**2> = < r_(n-1)**2> + (s**2)*< cos(θ)**2> = < r_(n-1)> + (s**2)*(1/3) < r_n**2> = n*(s**2)*(1/3) σ = sqrt(< r_n>) = sqrt(n/3)*s .
The RMS or σ is the width of the distribution of particles.
As you can see, the RMS increases linearly as the square root of the number of steps.
So for 10,000 steps you expect the particles to of order 100 step lengths away from the origin which is what the image shows.
In many physical cases, the number of steps is proportional to time since the particle started moving. In those cases, the distribution of particles increases linearly as the square root of time.
In many cases, photons in gases approximately random walk like the case in the image.
Credit/Permission: ©
User:Zweistein~commonswiki,
2006 /
CC BY-SA 3.0.
Image link: Wikimedia Commons:
File:Walk3d 0.png.
Local file: local link: random_walk_3d.html.
File: Electromagnetic Radiation file:
random_walk_3d.html.
Form groups of 2 or 3---NOT more---and tackle Homework 6 problems 12--16 on electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and photons.
Discuss each problem and come to a group answer.
Let's work for 5 or so minutes.
The winners get chocolates.
See Solutions 6.
How now can we eat a chocolate Easter Bunny?
Credit/Permission:
Mary Cynthia Dickerson
(1866--1923,
The American Museum Journal, Vol. XVII, 1917
(Natural History (magazine)
(known then as The American Museum Journal until 2002?))
(uploaded to
Wikimedia Commons
by User:Fae,
2015) /
Public domain.
CC BY-SA 2.0.
Image link: Wikimedia Commons: File:The American Museum journal (c1900-(1918)).
Local file: local link: chocolate_easter_bunny.html.
File: Art_c file:
chocolate_easter_bunny.html.