casualjoe Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Photons are emitted by electrons that naturally move extremely fast. An electrons energy or direction will change so fast that light is shot out like a bullet. It wants to go faster but there is this damned universal speed limit. Well, yeah, things don't just move by themselves, but there's friction to slow stuff down. How about this, sound isn't radiation, it's a wave. Waves, as in the thing you get in the beach, can be slowed down. Why does the speed of sound, which is the movement of physical particles, remain constant? You can apply friction to particles. I don't think waves slow down, it's just their amplitude dies out after a while. You do apply friction to particles, the speed of sound is faster in a less dense medium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss-Higgy Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) Ha the many nights I've sat debating this with people. Personally i think global warming could be something to do with it, its rather daunting to see all of the extreme weather conditions occurring recently. And as far as predictions go i call bullshit its been predicted to end many a time, and there is no proof at all backing it up! If and when it does end it will be an unpredictable random event. And I don't see that the universe is going to stop expanding that will be a continuous evolution. But i think the end will be something to do with the sun, after all it is a star? And stars are known to burn out. And i think that our sun is likely to burn out causing enough energy to take out most of our solar system. I found this on google could semi confirm it?? "stars burn out when they run out of fuel. Stars fuse lighter nuclei into heaver nuclei, and they will turn hydrogen into helium, and then turn helium into heavier elements toward the end of their life. Through what is called stellar nucleosynthesis, fusion continues to create heavier elements. And as the stars ages (stellar evolution), it will eventually reach a point where it is forming iron. This is where things get difficult for the star. All the fusion reactions that create the elements up through iron release energy. Fusion reactions that create the trans-iron elements require energy to be put into the reaction. Where does this energy come from? Let's review the idea that the massive gravity of stars is always trying to cause them to collapse in on themselves. The energy released in fusion forces the material of the star outward, and these two forces struggle in equilibrium throughout the life of the star. At the end of a star's life, if the star is sufficiently large, when it collapses because it is running out of fuel, it will supply enough energy in the collapse to cause the fusion of elements heavier than iron, and this is the supernova event. A star of insufficient mass will simply collapse and end up a white dwarf. Larger stars might go nova and end up as a white dwarf, a neutron star, or as a black hole (for the really big stars)." But this may take out our solar system but could be like the second big bang? Edited November 3, 2011 by ch@v3tt3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Our solar system is a minuscule spec of near-negligible matter in the grand scheme of things though - as far as stars go its not particularly big, so it'd take something pretty phenomenal to lead to our sun bringing about universal demise. Stars dying is what can lead to black holes though (albeit from generally much larger, denser stars than our own) which may well f**k some shit up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss-Higgy Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) Our solar system is a minuscule spec of near-negligible matter in the grand scheme of things though - as far as stars go its not particularly big, so it'd take something pretty phenomenal to lead to our sun bringing about universal demise. Stars dying is what can lead to black holes though (albeit from generally much larger, denser stars than our own) which may well f**k some shit up. that's what the quote says to be fair, if our sun was to run out of fuel surly were in range of that and a stars average life span with a mass as big as our sun is about 13 billion years so we still have a bit to go. And for all we know there could be a comet hit us or global warming take its tole, causing another ice age or heat wave.. And if fuel is in a short supply then an ice age isn't gonna help it.. I don't think our sun would take the whole universe just most our solar system and would redecorate things slightly Edited November 3, 2011 by ch@v3tt3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Well, yeah, things don't just move by themselves, but there's friction to slow stuff down. How about this, sound isn't radiation, it's a wave. Waves, as in the thing you get in the beach, can be slowed down. Why does the speed of sound, which is the movement of physical particles, remain constant? You can apply friction to particles. It's important to realise that waves, whether radio waves through air or water waves in the sea, do not involve a stream of particles travelling along the path of the wave, rather the particles through which the wave passes move within a limited region with a defined energy and frequency to produce the result which we can see/measure. Obviously where the sea is concerned there is underlying currents which do involved particle transport, but this is different to what causes waves to travel along the surface. Light is just special... It can be treated as both s particle and wave under different circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) It's important to realise that waves, whether radio waves through air or water waves in the sea, do not involve a stream of particles travelling along the path of the wave, It's also important to realise that radio waves do involve a stream of particles moving at roughly the speed of light, very much like light and radiated heat. The only difference between types these of radiation is the frequency at which the energies of the particles oscillate. Edited November 3, 2011 by casualjoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 So waves are more of a mechanism, a means for energy to be transmitted? That way instead of more energy meaning more speed it means more amplitude, which is certainly true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 In the case of sound waves travelling through air, yes. The more energy given to a photon however, the faster it's energy will oscillate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 What's the equivalent effect of amplitude for light? You don't get loud light, ha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsieurMonkey Posted November 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 What's the equivalent effect of amplitude for light? You don't get loud light, ha. As far as I'm aware light travels in straight lines, so it's either direct or less direct. Eg. From my window I can see the planes coming into Liverpool Airport, but they must be a fair few miles away. But for a stretch of their spiral descent, they face directly at my window, the lights from the plane make it look as if it's the brightest start in the sky for a few minutes, but before and after it just looks like a spec. Sorry if I've misunderstood what you were asking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Well you might have a point, because light is like a wave and a particle so it might not have an equivalent of amplitude. What you're experiencing is just that more of the light reflected from the plane reaches your eye when it's directly overhead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 It's also important to realise that radio waves do involve a stream of particles moving at roughly the speed of light, very much like light and radiated heat. The only difference between types these of radiation is the frequency at which the energies of the particles oscillate. I stand corrected, good point, well made! As far as I'm aware light travels in straight lines It is however affected by gravity... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsieurMonkey Posted November 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) Yeah, that was kinda my point, that as the plane shines it's lights directly at me they come across much brighter, in the same way sound can appear louder. Scratch that, leaving it in because it's relevant to the conversation, but the information is shit. Shit, I'm sorry, my brain took some time to get going. Light waves change into the spectrum of light. Infrared is at a bigger wavelength that the visible spectrum etc. So whereas sound gets louder, light changes colour. I think. It is however affected by gravity... How much by? I'm assuming it's almost negligible in the sort of distances we experience and the speed it travels at. But I'm sure in some of the distances it travels it must get distorted. Like maybe from those far reaching stars, could it mean that they aren't actually where they appear to be? Due to other stars bending the light and almost altering the image of our sky? Edited November 3, 2011 by MonsieurMonkey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 So whereas sound gets louder, light changes colour. I think. Sound getting louder depends on the amplitude. For light to change colour it's the frequency (or wavelength) which changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsieurMonkey Posted November 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 But surely sound has different wavelengths? Is that maybe the pitch? Amplitude is the height of the wave, wavelength is the width right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 But surely sound has different wavelengths? Is that maybe the pitch? Amplitude is the height of the wave, wavelength is the width right? Yep, that's right. I wonder what loud light looks like, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsieurMonkey Posted November 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Increasing the amplitude of light would make it brighter. Google says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 It's silly to compare sound and light, they'er two very different things. Waves are only there to serve as a metaphorical understanding of what sound is, and with regards to light it's even more useless because sometimes it doesn't even act like a wave. Sound isn't constant at all, sound's speed can change through ground, water and air. Lightspeed © is always constant no matter what. Light does 'bend', for example, make a shadow with your hand, move it away and close to the light source and you'll see the edges of the shadow become less and more defined. If light traveled in perfectly straight lines the shadow would be perfectly defined at all times. That's about all I know on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Quigley Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) Forgive me if I'm wrong, but, didn't a Nobel Prize go to a Physicist this year for demonstrating that the Universes' expansion is in fact accelorating? Edit: A quick search would reveal I am right, the Nobel Priza was awarded this year for the discovery in 1998 though. I also belive this discovery to help lend creadence to the existence of this 'Dark Matter' or whatever kids are calling it these days........off to search my claims yet again...... Edit 2: *Dark energy Edited November 3, 2011 by James Quigley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsieurMonkey Posted November 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Forgive me if I'm wrong, but, didn't a Nobel Prize go to a Physicist this year for demonstrating that the Universes' expansion is in fact accelorating? Yeah it was, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't necessarily continue to accelerate forever. From what I've read (Most of my info is just bits remembered from New Scientist etc, so my knowledge isn't necessarily dead on) it'll take billions of years before we have enough data to work out what's gonna happen with the universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Lightspeed® is always constant no matter what. So what's the speed of light through steel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsieurMonkey Posted November 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 MDMA, I asked you if you knew how gravity affected light, R J00 IGNOREN, or did you just miss it? And I meant MSMD not MDMA, but whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 So what's the speed of light through steel? Some of the light energy is turned into heat energy, the rest is reflected back off the steel. Light cannot travel though steel unless it's really thin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 MDMA, I asked you if you knew how gravity affected light, R J00 IGNOREN, or did you just miss it? And I meant MSMD not MDMA, but whatever. IR SOZ, missed that one. In our frame of reference light is only affected by gravity by a tiny amount. However the fact that its path is 'bent' by gravity is the reason we can 'see' black holes (I think)... From what I've read, photons are not affected by gravity because they have mass but rather gravity changes the shape of space-time. As such, I'm not convinced by JT's theory about your hand and a light source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaybs41282 Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) This thread bends my head lol Edited November 3, 2011 by kaybs41282 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.