Sunday, 16 August 2009

Rocking Chair Physics

Most of our planet's weather occurs in the troposphere. This image shows a view of this layer from an airplane's window (Photo © 2004 Edward Tsang).

I think light leaves the Sun at a very, very low frequency. I have wondered if the white light we have on the planet is also of a very, very low frequency and that this is why we cannot find a frequency for white light. I have wondered if white light has something to do with the longer wavelengths that we normally attribute to heat. After looking at the mechanism which takes place in a candle flame, I am gradually building up more and more reservations about this idea. I don't think white light has a very, very low frequency at all - in-fact, I think it could be the complete opposite.

The bright yellow part of the flame looks like it is being supported by the blue part of the flame which appears a bit like a cup. The bottom of a candle flame starts out as high frequency UV, and then as we work our way up through the flame, the frequencies step further and further down into the infrared. The flame, it could be said, is acting a little bit like a step-down transformer!

I think that light travels from the Sun to the Earth at a very, very low frequency, but then smashes into the atmosphere like an accordion being thrown across the room. The long, long wavelengths of these very, very low frequencies are squashed, and then transformed into very high frequencies - radioactive frequencies! The upper atmosphere then acts as a step-down transformer, so that these radioactive frequencies are less hazardous to our health, and much better able to substain life. I'm thinking frequencies more in the UV range. I'm thinking this has something to do with why the sky is blue.

I suspect then that white light is indeed UV. White light is pretty much invisible to us until it touches an object. An object acts as another step down transformer, and converts the UV rays into the parts of the spectrum which we know as visible light, and heat.

We are taught that UV rays come from the Sun - but I think they are made here on Earth. UV light ranges from around 400 nm to the extreme end at 10 nm. We are taught that the upper realms of the atmosphere absorb the extreme UV energy and X-rays - but I think they are made there. The lower half of the atmosphere - the stratosphere - supports the ozone layer. It is said that the ozone layer absorbs the high energy UVC rays, but allows the UVB and UVA rays to pass through. Again, I'm unsure about this picture. I think the ozone layer is responsible for stepping down the UVC rays (around 280-100 nm in length) - to the less energetic medium-wave UVB rays (320-286 nm).

Image courtesy of Earth Sciences and Image Analysis Laboratory, NASA Johnson Space Center.

My kitchen has two doubled glazed doors which lead onto the back patio. My garden faces East, so in the morning we have the Sun at the back of the house. Sometimes I have one door open, while the other remains closed. The sunlight which pours unhindered into my kitchen is decidedly brighter than the light which passes through the glass. The light which passes through the glass is definitely a shade darker. The unadulterated sunlight burns my naked leg (don't worry neighbours I've got my underpants on!). If I move to being behind the glass, the sunlight no longer feels like it is burning my skin.

I wonder if the glass is intercepting the high energy UV light and knocking it down to a low energy UV light. Is the glass acting as a step-down transformer? We are taught that common window glass blocks the more intense UVB rays, but is transparent to the longer UVA wavelengths (400-320nm). But what if the glass is converting UVB rays into UVA frequencies? If I put my hand on the glass, I also notice that the surface is warm to the touch.

Objects heated by sunlight emit infrared radiation. The surface of the earth emits infrared radiation even at night - it's not as warm as during the day, but it's present nonetheless. At night, if I go outside without so much as a torch, or moonlight, I will see bugger all. All objects above the absolute zero temperature (0 K) emit infrared radiation. In sunlight, I think an object transforms UV energy into visible light and infrared.

At night, we basically don't see the visible light of the spectrum because it's naturally dark. There is an absence of solar UV radiation at night. An object still emits infrared energy at night though. An object is still converting energy into infrared radiation. Where is the object drawing this energy from? If an object is giving off heat - is that because the object is involved in a combustion process?

Some minerals fluoresce under UV radiation. Fluorescence occurs only while the material is being activated by UV light. The word "fluorescent" comes from "fluorite", the name of a mineral in which this quality was first noted. All matter fluoresces to some extent although it is not always noticeable. No ordinary matter fluoresces strongly enough to exhibit this quality while in sunlight. Most substances when fluorescing produce very little heat. For this reason fluorescence has commonly been referred to as "cold light". Human skin and the lens of the eye are faintly fluorescent.

I'm now sat on a chair on my patio. It's around noon. The Sun is shining directly overhead, and it's warm, but not humid. The warmth on my body feels almost fresh. I'm staring at the play of shadows on the patio floor. As the sunlight falls through the leaves and branches of the apple tree it creates these dancing, tingling shapes. It is a play between the bright light which splashes onto the patio floor, and the shadows which harness the darker shades.

With a camera, a longer exposure generates a brighter light. Basically, as more light reaches the photographic film it generates a brighter, and brighter picture. I wonder if the eye is doing something similar. I wonder if the bright light I see is due to high energy UV hitting my eye, and if the shadows are created by the lesser impact of low energy UV. Is this happening because the high energy and low energy wavelengths both travel - from patio floor to eyeball - at different speeds? The bigger impact of the faster moving high energy UV on photosensitive cells in my eye could generate what I percieve as a brighter light. Or it could be that all light moves at the same speed, but that the high energy UV carries a bigger whallop.

The speed of light in air is almost the same as it is in a vacuum. I think that which we term as the speed of light, is actually a volumetric flow rate - a constant pressure which is being applied by the fluid of the aether. Basically, a vacuum is the fluid of the aether. I think that electromagnetic radiation travels as waves in the medium of the aether.

Do all forms of EMR travel at the same speed - the same flow-rate? This would mean that the Sun could produce extreme UV, and that this energy could travel to Earth at the same speed as low, low frequency wavelengths. For this reason, I don't think that light travels from the Sun through space in low, low frequency wavelengths - simply because it does not need to.

This opens a new line of thinking for me. Low frequency wavelengths become a property of matter. Matter transforms the higher energy radiation into lower energies. These lower energies are more recognisable to us as heat. The high frequency wavelengths need to be generated by a power source. The Sun being the most obvious power source.

I don't think the Sun sends gamma rays or X-rays to our planet. I think these forms of radiation are a property of matter. I think they are generated by the impact of high frequency energy on atomic matter. Gamma rays and X-rays are atomic matter which have been disturbed in some way.

On the electromagnetic spectrum, UV light takes up the space between visible light and X-rays, around 400 - 10 nm. Is 10 nm truly the smallest wavelength of UV light - and if it is - why? UV light below 200 nm is known as vacuum UV radiation basically because it has to be generated in a vacuum. In air, due to the water vapour in air, it will not transmit wavelengths below 190 nm.

The EMR spectrum is considered to blend from UV light into X-rays around the 10 nm mark. But what if this 10 nm boundary is where high energy UV is pulling the very fabric of matter apart? This is by no means a new idea. The following is an extract from the article - "The Discovery And Research of X-rays":

In 1912 Arnold Somerfeld and Koch used a more technically advanced equipment to confirm empirically the results obtained by Haga and Wind - and theoretically by Wien and Stark - concerning the wavelength of X rays. However, not all scientists agreed with the idea that X-rays were waves.

It was discovered that during their absorption certain molecules - similar to beta molecules - were created. William Henry Bragg (1862-1942) and J.P.V. Marsden discovered that those molecules moved in the same direction as originally was the beam of X rays. Moreover their energy is approximately equal to the energy of cathode rays which brought about X rays. They argued that the energy of those molecules was not related to the distance covered by X rays from the source to the place where the molecules emerge. Therefore there is no noticeable energy loss. On the other hand, as Bragg argued, as the distance from the source increases a wave becomes more and more dispersed.

According to the experiments, X rays maintained their properties (energy) many meters from the source and therefore, those two researchers claimed, they were molecules. So on the one hand X rays behaved like regular waves, but on the other hand they behaved like molecules. Those two views as different models survived till 1920ties when they became reconciled by quantum mechanics.

Wouldn't it be interesting to get under the skin of those UV wavelengths of 10 nm? Imagine the energy potential of UV light at 1 nm or less. This is probably just some ramble from my rocking chair, but imagine if it was possible to generate UV light in a perfect vacuum. Would we draw nearer to the very substance of the aether? Where would you get a perfect vacuum? I think it might be possible when we condense water vapour and pull a vacuum.

Aren't those photos from the atmosphere just amazing, or what?

Many thanks:
The Color of Life By Arthur G. Abbott

No comments: