Ask a physicist anything. (2)

[Chesterton]

So why does an electron produce a photon? Is there a reason the energy takes that form and not another?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So why does an electron produce a photon? Is there a reason the energy takes that form and not another?

Various numbers have to be conserved, so there's not a whole lot the energy can do. Photons are massless, charge-less, they have no lepton numbers or baryon numbers, they have nothing which violates any conservation law.

All they need is energy, and that's given to them by the electron.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I was under the impression g-force was just acceleration scaled against g ("force" is a misnomer).

You're right, there would be a force felt due to the difference in applied forces, but that's not g-force. Additionally, something not experience this difference in forces will still feel an applied acceleration.

G-force is a measure of acceleration, with 1g being equal to the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface. In general, the g-force felt by something is the amount by which it's accelerated due to some object pushing it, for example the chair of a car. The axle of a car would feel a slight g-force from the rest of the car, because, by hook or by crook, the main body of the car is accelerating it.

 

[Jazmyn]

Does the structure of atoms in a diamond or other gem stone affect its colour?

Since the structure of a diamond is carbon atoms in a grid or something, it makes it transparent because all the light can pass through it unhindered, and clear in colour, except at certain angles because the entire spectrum wavelength can also pass through it freely, at least that's how I think it happens.

So, is a red diamond slightly altered so only red light escapes the prism?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Does the structure of atoms in a diamond or other gem stone affect its colour?

Yep. Diamonds, for instance, are graded on their crystalline structure, which is essentially how their atoms are arranged. There's also a great deal of importance placed on purity and whatnot.

Since the structure of a diamond is carbon atoms in a grid or something, it makes it transparent because all the light can pass through it unhindered, and clear in colour, except at certain angles because the entire spectrum wavelength can also pass through it freely, at least that's how I think it happens.

So, is a red diamond slightly altered so only red light escapes the prism?

Any chemical impurity or structural defect will cause some colouration of the diamond. Red diamonds arise from Nitrogen impurities and from structural defects during the growth of the crystal. These work by absorbing and re-emitting particular wavelengths of light; a red diamond, then, is one which only re-emits red light.

In reality, it's extremely unlikely for light to pass uninterrupted through a medium. Rather, it's just absorbed and re-emitted in such a way that there is very little net change. Crystals are very regular, so they're much better at letting light 'through', thus are more likely to be transparent.

But it's nothing to do with 'holes' in the crystal lattice.

 

[Cabal]

So why does an electron produce a photon? Is there a reason the energy takes that form and not another?

There are other ways to de-excite. If the electron is in a crystal, it can deexcite by emitting a packet of vibrational energy called a phonon.

 

[Cabal]

G-force is a measure of acceleration, with 1g being equal to the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface. In general, the g-force felt by something is the amount by which it's accelerated due to some object pushing it, for example the chair of a car. The axle of a car would feel a slight g-force from the rest of the car, because, by hook or by crook, the main body of the car is accelerating it.

Indeed - your examples are more practical. I'm doing my usual "imagine things in a vacuum" routine so I'm not taking the effect of dissipative forces into account

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Indeed - your examples are more practical. I'm doing my usual "imagine things in a vacuum" routine so I'm not taking the effect of dissipative forces into account

The effect would be the same in a vacuum, though, would it not?

 

[Cabal]

The effect would be the same in a vacuum, though, would it not?

Well, you wouldn't have a dissipative force like friction causing a force difference between the head and the feet of a rollerskater, say. But I guess there's always the tension of the object being accelerated. I don't consider this anything to do with "G-force" as it's defined, though.

 

[TerranceL]

I don't know about the 17[sup]th[/sup] century, but Daniel mentions what would someday be called television and rapid mass transportation.

No he doesn't.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No he doesn't.

I've seen AV say something like this before. It's a quote like "And he will tell all the world at once" or something, which, if you squint your eyes and look at it from the right angle, looks vaguely similar to global telecommunications.

 

[TerranceL]

I've seen AV say something like this before. It's a quote like "And he will tell all the world at once" or something, which, if you squint your eyes and look at it from the right angle, looks vaguely similar to global telecommunications.

Sounds about right.

It's funny but with all these "discoveries first found in the bible" they all had to be found by scientists and inventors before theologians found them in the bible.

 

[Cabal]

Sounds about right.

It's funny but with all these "discoveries first found in the bible" they all had to be found by scientists and inventors before theologians found them in the bible.

Ah but see that just shows how great the Bible is, it allows you to make stuff up retroactively and still treat it as a good point.

Whereas when scientists make actual predictions, you can accuse them of post hoc retrofitting, No True Scotsman, and lots of other big words and names of logical fallacies you don't really understand but make you cry when the big boys throw them at you.

amidoinitrite?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sounds about right.

It's funny but with all these "discoveries first found in the bible" they all had to be found by scientists and inventors before theologians found them in the bible.

Ya --- I call'em Easter Eggs.

 

[Split Rock]

Ya --- I call'em Easter Eggs.

Are you sure they aren't Paradoxes?

 

[TerranceL]

Ya --- I call'em Easter Eggs.

Of course you do.

We call them, "making it up as you go along".

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course you do.

We call them, "making it up as you go along".

Did [the late] Henry M. Morris do so as well?

Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

From the Defender's Study Bible:

One of the most remarkable discoveries of modern engineering science is that electrical currents may be used (radio, television, etc.) to transmit information with "lightning" speed.

 

[Split Rock]

Did [the late] Henry M. Morris do so as well?From the Defender's Study Bible:

Yeah. He was pretty much wrong about everything.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah. He was pretty much wrong about everything.

Sounds fair to me.

If he can be "wrong" in your eyes --- so can I.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sounds about right.

It's funny but with all these "discoveries first found in the bible" they all had to be found by scientists and inventors before theologians found them in the bible.

Took the words right out of my mouth .

AV, I'm still curious what Daniel said that predicted TV, etc.