To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Radiation Theory
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Puzzling questions

atfpcop
So its been a while and after many moths of silence I am back to ask more hair-brained questions. so with out further suspense.......

OK seriously, lets talk radiation, well sort of how about radiant energy. the universe is full of a multitude of stars. these stars radiate energy, Ultraviolet energy. As each one spews forth the power to bake the skin off a planet, or a sun bunny in LA, the universe is thus filled with energy, with me so far? OK now the fun questions, would it be safe to be floating in space with out radiation protection? No radiant UV rays do not stop at some point in the solar system, as per the laws of physics with out an equal and opposite force the would neither slow or stop. Oh and for those who would try to say they are scattered due to objects floating in space, well there are lots of stars out there so eventually like I said they would be every where. any how that is not my point. My point is they don't behave as the mass rules predict they should. ever notice that you can close the window and sit in the sun behind the window and still get sun burnt. it just takes longer, wonder why that is.... maybe cause radiant energy has variant mass, or maybe cause after a while the window is sort of lased with the energy and thus becomes like a curtain and admits its own kind. ever notice the wind is not capable of stopping the suns rays wonder why that is. or for that matter the wind cannot stop the photons of light, obviously they are not struck by wind otherwise we could see it, wind that is.

OK cant let all the kittens out of the bag but here is some neat stuff to think about.
buttershug
You do realize that TV signals and wireles signals and other signals are all radiation and all are travelling through your body right now.
Well at least TV signals and radio signals.
sporacle
Questions are always cool.

But most questions can be answered by statistically strong valid and reliable information from oodles of experts and mountains of data. Today it's so great that we can find so much info with a few clicks. Like Google and Wikipedia and way more. A crucial key is understanding basic scientific methodology so you know how to evaluate information.

The fun is taking the time and effort to explore the available info and finding the discrepancies that identify the questions that puzzle everybody. Then the speculations are a real challenge for everyone.

Of course photons are always interesting. Observations of photons are now mathematically modeled with great utility, but no one knows for sure what is actually taking place. They have no observed rest mass, but they do a lot and there is no way to get away from them entirely. How they interact with other things depends on their wavelength and they show a spectrum of effects.

Some photons go through you and most other stuff unnoticed, but they break molecules and maybe you find out later.

Some will fry your skin but don't get inside you.

Some enable you to see what's going on.

Some help keep you warm.

Some cooked a few unlucky sailors doing maintenance on an aircraft carrier superstructure near the radar dish.

Some go through you unnoticed but enable you to watch TV and enable astronomers to image lots of things out there.
magpies
Yes but what is it??? What is it?
atfpcop
OK say lets shrug off the teachings of said great minds as my favorites Plato and Einstein did and think for a moment in a rash state. suppose even photons are radiation of a sort, suppose based on the uncommon belief that the universe is nothing but energy, could it not be postulated that photons crashing into more dense mass such as a car or tree, release just enough energy for our mind to pick up the frequency of said energy and translate it as sight, thus causing every person to have a different perception? I think maybe the energy we see and feel everyday is due to said collisions? are radio waves truly radiation ore simply the excited energy of atoms and molecules agitated by a strong frequency In a said direction? think on it!
AlexG
QUOTE
Yes but what is it??? What is it?


Photons.
atfpcop
oh and another thought I had this one is surely to make a few enemies, we believe in our science as much as religious people believe in their religion. Ask your self this what do we compare the theories to to make them real, to make them say the laws of physics, what would happen if you proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that god was just the answers our un-intelligent minds made up to help deal with the reality of our death. No turn the tables and ask this what if someone broke the laws of physics in front of you, would your rational mind run in fear, would a priest be reduced to a driveling fool? oh and trust that I have no religious honors in any way in fact I am as bored with it as I am modern science.
AlexG
QUOTE
Ask your self this what do we compare the theories to to make them real, to make them say the laws of physics


We compare them with what actually happens in the physical universe.
atfpcop
OK Alex G, but , and please all the math enthusiasts bare with me a moment i do not intend to offend, But say all you have to go on is math as an answer, like the speed of light, how was that actually tested? I have researched it but like some other topics the truth is hidden, no I take that back I have not discovered for my self the truth by finding the reference to any original tests. They elude me as does many things this day. But that is not quite the point, and please do not focus specifically on the speed of light, but the science to find the answer is what I am after.
AlexG
QUOTE
But say all you have to go on is math as an answer, like the speed of light, how was that actually tested?


It was actually tested by sending a beam of light over a measured distance and timing how long it took to arrive.

The predictions of theories are tested by experiment and observation. That is how the theories can be confirmed or falsified. The theory makes a predicition, which is compared against the results of experiment or by observation. If the prediction is accurate, it is a point in the theory's favor. If the prediction is shown to be wrong, the theory is wrong.
buttershug
QUOTE (atfpcop+Jun 4 2009, 11:00 PM)
oh and another thought I had this one is surely to make a few enemies, we believe in our science as much as religious people believe in their religion. Ask your self this what do we compare the theories to to make them real, to make them say the laws of physics, what would happen if you proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that god was just the answers our un-intelligent minds made up to help deal with the reality of our death. No turn the tables and ask this what if someone broke the laws of physics in front of you, would your rational mind run in fear, would a priest be reduced to a driveling fool? oh and trust that I have no religious honors in any way in fact I am as bored with it as I am modern science.

I can make a pendulum.
and check to see if the time of one swing varied by the length of arc.

You can't get a fresh copy of the Ten commandments.

And the religious can't change because their whole foundation of belief is based on believing they are right.

Scientific people on the other hand, change to match information.


It's the religious not the scientific people in danger of running in fear.
atfpcop
Alex, I accept the test was done but, there is a variance that puzzles me here on the light test, did we measure the distance the light traveled or did we measure the time it took for the light source to produce light as I am sure your aware every light source has a different speed at which it is produced hence the wavelength of light. oh and the other thing I was to suggest Alex was what technology was available when this test was done because as I am sure you also know an incandescent bulb must heat to produce light, same as an LED just the LED does it faster.

No disrespect buttershug but I think you missed what I was driving at, there are things in science we an prove time and again by the suggested method for excepting them, how ever can you ask a scientist or a priest to perceive in a different light what we already know? There are very few that can and are either perceived as nut cases or heretics.
buttershug
QUOTE (atfpcop+Jun 5 2009, 01:29 PM)
No disrespect buttershug but I think you missed what I was driving at, there are things in science we an prove time and again by the suggested method for excepting them, how ever can you ask a scientist or a priest to perceive in a different light what we already know? There are very few that can and are either perceived as nut cases or heretics.

How can you compare a priest and a scientist?

A priest "just knows" and a scientists looks.

Suppose you had a box and two people. One gets inspired as to what's in the box, the other looks.

How can you compare the two techniques of saying what's in the box?

And I don't think you understand how measurement of the speed of light works. It's not that they turn a light on and see how long it takes to propigate.

The light is already in motion and is split by a prism and mirrors are also involved.
AlexG
QUOTE
did we measure the distance the light traveled or did we measure the time it took for the light source to produce light as I am sure your aware every light source has a different speed at which it is produced hence the wavelength of light


The wavelength of light has nothing to do with how long it takes the light source to emit a photon. The most recent, and accurate, timings of light use a laser to produce a coherent stream of photons. What was measured was the time it took for the photons to travel from the laser to the detector.
atfpcop
Buttershug, still you miss my point, the depth of what I ask is we assume that our science is correct, because it is the way it is taught, that is how I compare a priest to a scientist. A.E. took teachings to a new level and thought outside the box, then asked why do we care what is in the box.... OK bad humor but my point is that was a man to try to see the science from a point different to the way we learn it he might question if that is really the truth. suppose that a society that hid from the rest for this whole time managed to come to light with different ways of coming up with answers to our same questions, and suppose they had different answers then what we called laws of science, and yet they believed them true. Now do you see where I am heading with this or should I just spoil the fun of the question and spew my theory with no base for why I have it?

Alex you do not truly understand light to say wavelength has nothing to do with speed otherwise you can say all the Astro physic guys are wrong about planet and star speed in other galaxies. look into it more, red and blue shift deal with both direction and speed when discussing stars.
AlexG
QUOTE
Alex you do not truly understand light to say wavelength has nothing to do with speed


this is what you said:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Alex you do not truly understand light to say wavelength has nothing to do with speed


this is what you said:
the time it took for the light source to produce light


How does this equate with the speed of the emitter? I thought you were talking about a lag between production of photons.

And what you're referring to is the relative speed between the emitter and the receiver. In the case of experiment measureing the speed of light, the emitter and the receiver were stationary with respect to each other. Furthermore, the photon source was a laser, meaning that all photons were at a single frequency. And last of all, the wavelength of the light has nothing to do with the speed of light. All wavelengths propogate at the same constant speed, c.

Which is exactly what has been measured
buttershug
QUOTE (atfpcop+Jun 5 2009, 07:37 PM)
Buttershug, still you miss my point, the depth of what I ask is we assume that our science is correct, because it is the way it is taught, that is how I compare a priest to a scientist.


Alex you do not truly understand light to say wavelength has nothing to do with speed otherwise you can say all the Astro physic guys are wrong about planet and star speed in other galaxies. look into it more, red and blue shift deal with both direction and speed when discussing stars.

I've been thinking for a little while that science should be taught slightly differently.
That the underlieing uncertainty of reality should get more emphasis.
Although I remember a chemistry text that explicitly said we are still refining theories.
And I"ve taken lots of "science" classes but they were all one dicipline or other not basic theory of science.
And speak for yourself about assuming.


Blindly accepting science is a corruption of what science is about.
But some people want certainty more than accuracy.

Red shift and blue shift only deal with the speed of the source not the light itself.

*insert standard analogy of a siren on a vehicle speeding past*
oomchu
QUOTE (atfpcop+Jun 4 2009, 12:59 AM)
OK now the fun questions, would it be safe to be floating in space with out radiation protection?

Well, you have to think of this as a heat transfer mechanism. So if you are floating in space, whatever you are floating in only has one way to cool itself and that is by radiation.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.