Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atoms
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 15 of 80 (161860)
11-20-2004 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by NosyNed
11-18-2004 9:45 PM


Re: Feynman
NosyNed
Okay Ned How much do you want for it?LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 11-18-2004 9:45 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 11-20-2004 3:51 PM sidelined has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 35 of 80 (162273)
11-22-2004 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by JasonChin
11-22-2004 7:10 AM


NosyIsAnUglyMan
Science can no more explain away god than you can explain god.There is nothing there to investigate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by JasonChin, posted 11-22-2004 7:10 AM JasonChin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by YesthisisTrue, posted 11-23-2004 5:29 AM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 38 of 80 (162564)
11-23-2004 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by YesthisisTrue
11-23-2004 5:29 AM


YesthisisTrue
Jason. Though you are banned I must respond to your lack of understanding.
In any arguement the burden of proof is on the one who makes a claim.Theists who argue for the existence of ? are the one who must defend such not the atheiest.If such self evidence existed the arguement would be easily defended.As for societies and atheism the opinion of the majority chasing comforting wishes does not make the wishes real.

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by YesthisisTrue, posted 11-23-2004 5:29 AM YesthisisTrue has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Manywaystohelppeople, posted 11-23-2004 7:43 AM sidelined has not replied
 Message 47 by AdminHambre, posted 11-23-2004 8:34 AM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 50 of 80 (162773)
11-23-2004 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by AdminHambre
11-23-2004 8:34 AM


AdminHambre
My apologies and if Jason wishes to debate he may respond via my email

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AdminHambre, posted 11-23-2004 8:34 AM AdminHambre has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 54 of 80 (163002)
11-24-2004 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Tony650
11-24-2004 4:00 PM


Tony650
Yes, I understand that the properties of colour are inherent in each atom. What I'm not clear on is whether or not those properties actually manifest themselves as colour, in the case of a single atom which is smaller than the wavelength of the colour itself.
Since visible light is dependent upon wavelength and is emitted by the atoms through the photon exchange particles it must be the photons themselves that are colored or rather the photons impinging upon electrons in the color cones of our eyes.The nucleus of the atom does not use photons for an exchange particle and therefore cannot have color nor indeed be seen.The electron itself is not visible except indirectly through the gaining and losing of photon energy.

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Tony650, posted 11-24-2004 4:00 PM Tony650 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Tony650, posted 11-26-2004 6:23 PM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 59 of 80 (163408)
11-26-2004 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Tony650
11-26-2004 6:23 PM


Tony650
I thought that "colour" was simply how our eyes interpret a certain range of frequencies within the visible portion of the spectrum; is this what you mean by the photons themselves being coloured? Are you simply referring to the wavelength of the light in question?
Light in the 400 - 700 nanometer range is the visible light we percieve as colors.At the 400 nm end light is violet and at the 700nm range it is red.Our brain interprets the colors based on their unique wavelength or combination thereof.
There is a site that deals with the application of light and vision in normal people and colorblind people that might help explain things in greater depth and clarity. http://home.pacifier.com/~ppenn/page7sc.html
Something else...I just realized that I'm using the words "frequency" and "wavelength" interchangeably. Are they, in fact, the same thing, in this context?
No they are different but connected.The smaller the wavelength the greater the frequency.Wavelength times frequency equals the speed of light.At the highest frequency/smallest wavelength {most energetic} are the gamma rays at 10*-6 nm while at the lowest frequency/largest wavelength {least energetic} are the radio waves.
Hmm...so an individual atom won't display colour?
The nucleus is not involved in the propogation of electromagnetism only the eletron as they gain and then release energy as photons when transitioning from one energy level to another
What I'm really having trouble with is how a single atom can show colour when the necessary wavelengths are so much larger. I keep falling back (no doubt due to my layman's understanding of particle physics) on the analogy of the cannonballs and the grain of sand. Is this a mistake on my part? Perhaps it's giving me an inaccurate impression.
Well that because the photons come in discrete packets known as quanta and are measurable individually and at the same time they are elctromagnetic waves propogating through space.The individual photons quanta aspect will confuse you but the wave aspect is what will allow the colour to be mediated as its interacts with the color cones in our eyes.the electrons in the color cones absorb the photons and again release them as the information is transmitted through the nervous system to the brain.Poton to electron to photon on and on in a cascade effect throughout our biological pathways.It does take an accumulation of photons to stimulate the cones though I do not at the moment recall how many.
Welcome to the mysteries of our humanity.Deep wonders indeed.Puzzles within puzzles. Hope you enjoy them because it gets better with the depth you go in studying these phenomena.
Just to clear it up in my mind, how does a photon compare in size, roughly, to an atom. Is the grain of sand/cannonball analogy (representing atom/photon, respectively) anything close to reality?
Feynman descrbed it this way.If you were to take an atom and enlarge it to the size of a room in your house the elctrons would occupy the walls while the nucleus would be just a barely visble speck in the center.The electron would be about 10,000 times smaller and invisible at this scale.As for photons though I am not sure if there is a definite size since the energy is dependent on the frequency multiplied by Planck constant.This is getting into an area that is difficult for me due to the mathematics involved. I will try to see if I can get my head around the concepts involved and bring back a satisfactory answer.

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Tony650, posted 11-26-2004 6:23 PM Tony650 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Tony650, posted 12-03-2004 11:58 AM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 66 of 80 (165249)
12-04-2004 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Tony650
12-03-2004 11:58 AM


Tony650
Am I correct in thinking that "red-shifted" does not actually mean "appears red in colour"? That is, the colour displayed by a given light (at least, as far as our eyes are concerned) is not actually related to its red or blue shift, correct?
The red shift for the spectra of atoms refers to the doppler shift that occurs due to the motion of stars relative to us.
I picked this up from the hyperphysics website at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
For light and other electromagnetic waves, the relationship must be modified to be consistent with the Lorentz transformation and the expression becomes {I need to do this part by hand as it does not copy and paste}
V{observed}=[{sqrt 1 - V*2/C*2} / {1 - v/c}] * v{source}
Here v is the relative velocity of source and observer and v is considered positive when the source is approaching.

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Tony650, posted 12-03-2004 11:58 AM Tony650 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Tony650, posted 12-05-2004 12:42 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024