Will CO2 absorb photon in all directions?

[Robittybob1]

This is blatantly false. As an example almost 50 years ago now, one of my sisters took a science project to the national competition, in Minneapolis. She did not win, which at that time may have been in part a reflection of her sex, rather than the project itself. A little over twenty years ago, two researchers looking into disease vectors on one of the Caribbean islands, published a paper identifying for the first time, several disease vectors, insect vectors and cited the basic idea as originating from that very science project, at the Minneapolis Science Fair. A science project from a high school student.

While it is unlikely that anyone considered a lay person, will ever in today's scientific community, be published..., it is not beyond reasonable potential that a lay person might have an idea or perspective that results in a change in perspective or the advancement of knowledge. All that is required is that the idea or perspective be picked up by someone with the social scientific credentials to pursue and publish....

This is as much an encouragement for the lay public to remain engaged in science, as it is a sad stamenet of what could be described as a shortfall, in the "social scientific" community of today.... If Einstein were a patent clerk in today's world, his work would not have been published...

Such a good story. I am thinking that with the internet and Google an idea seems to get out there all right. I see my own threads coming up on Google searches. My main thread was over on Physforum in the biology section.
It is such a long thread now, it takes weeks to read it, but there were 4 major new hypotheses in there. It is a laugh really, but my thoughts have at least got out there. Every few weeks there is something that is discovered that backs me up. Will life ever be traced back to Mercury? Who knows, but I'm proposing it and now there are new suggestions that it could be a possibility now that water has been confirmed there.

This thread where I'm thinking some of the rotational speed of a planet is from its own winds seemed "huge" and "exciting" topic to discuss.

[Billy T]

... I see my own threads coming up on Google searches. ...

Yes that is the main faults of Google - no way to eliminate the nonsense hits. Why if I search, when memory from university learning fails me, I mainly go to Wiki hits as they do have some review to reject nonsense. Even there, in fields I know well I find errors. One of the most serious was in the drawing of how a specrograph works. They had the rulled lines of the grading orthogonal to the slits!

[Robittybob1]

Yes that is the main faults of Google - no way to eliminate the nonsense hits. Why if I search, when memory from university learning fails me, I mainly go to Wiki hits as they do have some review to reject nonsense. Even there, in fields I know well I find errors. One of the most serious was in the drawing of how a specrograph works. They had the rulled lines of the grading orthogonal to the slits!

Hey Billy not to be too hung up on spelling, but I'm lucky at the moment with an inbuilt spell-checker. Your spelling is rather shocking!

[Billy T]

Hey Billy not to be too hung up on spelling, but I'm lucky at the moment with an inbuilt spell-checker. Your spelling is rather shocking!

Yes. I am a little dyslexic and a poor typer to boot. I don´t rember who said it, some famous author, but he claimed that that one who could not spell any word at least five different ways lacked imagination and creativity. Part of my problem is I never went to the same school two years in a row until 7th and the 8th grade and never went to any school for 4th grade but that year, living on very isolated farm I learned a great deal from life and my very well educated parents.

[Robittybob1]

Yes. I am a little dyslexic and a poor typer to boot. I don´t rember who said it, some famous author, but he claimed that that one who could not spell any word at least five different ways lacked imagination and creativity. Part of my problem is I never went to the same school two years in a row until 7th and the 8th grade and never went to any school for 4th grade but that year, living on very isolated farm I learned a great deal from life and my very well educated parents.

So what do you do in the B & E forum? Are you able to cross forum sections in your role?

[OnlyMe]

So what do you do in the B & E forum? Are you able to cross forum sections in your role?

Seems he is a moderator there and a poster like us here.

[Robittybob1]

http://wikivm.boulder.swri.edu/media...nus_Winds_Wiki

Venus Winds Wiki
Introduction

The Venus Winds project at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science seeks to determine wind speeds in the Venus atmosphere by analyzing infrared images taken by the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF). The atmosphere of Venus rotates up to 60 times faster than its solid body. The mechanism that drives this atmospheric 'superrotation' is not understood. A corps of volunteers is processing and analyzing more than 80,000 images of Venus taken since 2001. These images are of the night side of Venus, where heat from the deep atmosphere is observed at a wavelength of 2.3μm. .....

The atmosphere of Venus rotates up to 60 times faster than its solid body. The mechanism that drives this atmospheric 'superrotation' is not understood. OK to me that means there is a very large movement of the atmospheric mass, speeding faster than the planet's surface, but also moving in the same direction as the planet turns.

So what drives molecules to do that? Solar radiant pressure is a possibility, but at first glance the net pressure should be the same on both sides, so not net pressure forward or counter to rotation.
Heat radiating from the planet would have no effective means to cause a net forward motion either.

The only major source of energy for Venus is the Sun.

So out of desperation we are left with discovering in some other field of science a mechanism that will turn the radiant energy of the Sun into a uni-directional force that ultimately adds energy and momentum.
The one thing certain was the winds on one side of the planet blow toward the Sun and opposite on the opposite side. Yet the radiant energy has both energy and momentum (two types), and from multiple sources on the internet, you find you can't just reduce a photon's energy so that its momentum no longer exists.
Both the conservation of the energy and momentum (two types) need to be shown.

The easiest way for this motion to occur was if the molecule and the photon had a common direction to the momentum vector.
[There seems to be other proven science that may lend support to this, but I haven't found it spelt out like this before. So if this happens and it could be proved it would be a minor scientific discovery provided it hasn't been described before. To check this out I'm looking on the net for clues.]
Any ideas most welcome. Are there any particular areas of physics where a similar effect is observed?

[OnlyMe]

Yes, I agree that in the field of biology (not part of physics IMHO) there are still some opportunities for one not an expert in the field as biology is now just where physic was at 1900 - I.e. starting to be understood. My remarks that there is nothing an amateur can add refered specifical to the body of knowledge called physics. Biology is a millions seemingly unrelated facts with few general princples that unify them still. For example once magnetic facts were known as a separate body of knowledge then along came Maxwell and unified them. Biology still needs many "maxwells" Or that may not be possible beyond the general priciples that are now known.

Hell I am only a "classical physics" person with some knowledge of quantum physic* but far too ignorant to do the highly mathematical physics that is the focus of physics today. I could once follow tensor equations, but can´t even read them now. (They have some very compact notational forms, such as sub script repeated imply sumation over them, etc.) I.e. to put into words what is said in a simple looking equation of five or six symbols usually would take a very long and detailed paragraph.

* For example I have derived the uncertainty princple for operators that do not "commute" under the Hamiltonian, etc. Most people do not understand that it applies to specific pairs of observables not to any pair. This is because they have been lead to believe that measurement of one thing necessarily distrubes the measurement of some other aspect of what it being observed - Do not understand that measurment limitations are not the basis of it - the uncertainty is a FUNDAMENTAL property of nature for certain pairs of observables.

I think there is some truth here and some rush to judgement. What I mean is that there are many instances where an idea is presented as "science fiction" that gains the interest of science and ultimately practical application, where if the same were presented today by a lay person, or without a rigous mathematical context, it would be largely ignored, or labeled as crank....

One example is transparent aluminum. The first time I heard of it was from Scotty in Star Trek the Journey Home. It is in use today, likely with a more realistic molecular formula. Staying with Star Trek, they used hand held communicators, fantastic at the time, which were much the same as a cell phone or satellite phone of today. And there many many more instances that do apply to physics and even theoretical physics.

As I attempted to insert in my earlier post, part of the issue with the incorporation of lay perspectives and ideas in physics today, is at least as much a "social scientific" issue as real problems with the potential for a lay contribution. It is certain that the lay person will not likely add to the theoretical basis. The mathematical models. It is also important to keep in mind that those same theories while extremely successful predictive models, remain just that extremely successful predictive models. That does not mean that these same theories represent what our final understanding and conceptual understanding of the underlying structure of either "matter" or the universe will be in a hundred years.

Sometimes we get too hung up thinking we have "the" answer. When what we have is our best approximation of what the world and the universe appears to be, from within our current limitations of observation and understanding. Remembering here that especially in the context of particle physics, the understanding we begin with has a significant affect on how we interpret and understand, our experiments and observations..., the observe is part of the observation, or the act of exploration affects the results... Etc.

But then, this is now diverging significantly for the OP and while I have no issue with these side discussions/debates, it is like something which should be generally agreed as at least perifereally relevant, before continuing.

[Billy T]

To OnlyMe:

I agree with most of your post 148 and certainly note that things which seem like science fiction can and do become reality (Dick Tracy´s wrist watch communicator significantly pre-dates same in Star Wars.) What I am quick to try to stomp out is posts that violate well known and tested physics laws. The US patent office policy too.

Or posts that have known effects backwards.

Yes there are many flaws in what gets published. There was a famous test of this some years ago where essentially identical journal articles were submitted both with a well known author and an unknown. - Guess which were accepted and got positive reviews. There is definitely an "old boys club" in science and it is especially strong when it comes to getting proposals funded.

[Robittybob1]

This radiant pressure or whatever it is proven to be is going to explain planet building and nebula contraction, for it gives a mechanism that can do a task.
Like what pushed the gas/dust proto-planetary disk into the bands that are seen in the Hubble images?
I believe it maybe the same as the force driving the winds on Venus and Neptune. (Different direction of rotation (agreed) but a different but related mechanism that pushes material away.)
Is the same process involved in the heating of gases in combustion, engines fires , jet engines and ram jet.
It seems to me the step missing between chemical combustion and production of hot energetic gases.

Now how about that!

[Emil]

Now how about that!

What is the distance between two molecules of CO2?

[Robittybob1]

What is the distance between two molecules of CO2?

Could you explain the question a bit better?

[Billy T]

... The one thing certain was the winds on one side of the planet blow toward the Sun and opposite on the opposite side. Yet the radiant energy has both energy and momentum (two types), and from multiple sources on the internet, you find you can't just reduce a photon's energy so that its momentum no longer exists. ...

I mentioned to you in earlier post that:
(1) photon momentum is directly proportional to its frequency
And photon energy is directly proportional to its frequency. Thus there is ALWAYS constant and fixed relationship between them.

(2) That the frequency of any particular photon (and its momentum) will vary for observers (or absorbing atoms, molecules) with their speed. I.e. if they are moving towards the approaching photon they get more energy and momentum when they absorbe it than when moving away from it. "More" is called Blue Shift and "less case" is called "red shift." For many distantant stars, spectral lines that are from certain atom, say hydrogen, in the visible when the source lines in the lab with very little or no motion of the source wrt the spectrograph are observed to be in the infra red (IR, very Red shifted) if coming from typical star moving away from Earth.

This is true of gas atmosphere of a planet´s limbs. The limb moving towards the sun gets greater momentum transfer to it than the limb of other side which is moving away as that one "sees" all the photons as "red shifted" with less energy and less momentum.

I don´t know much about Venus, but bet more is known about the winds than your article implies. At the very least, it should be well know if Venus is an exception to the general rule for other planets that the winds blow both pro and anti grade in different latitude bands, with tornado like vorticies appearing between the bands at times.

You mention "two types" of momentum. One is the intrinsic unit of quantum mechanics "spin" - never changed just like the charge on an electron is intrinsic and never changed. When the photon was "born," it probably fell from a "p" type excited state (They have one unit of angular monetum) to an "S" state which has no angular momentum. - The photon is conserving this quantum unit of angular momentum in it intrinsic spin.

The lowest energy state /levels of atoms are S orbitals that if you want to falsely think classically about them, pass exactly thru the atom´s nucleus! (to have zero orbital momentum) I think I have this all correct but it has been a long time since I had occasion to use it and the selection radiation rules for atomic transitions that are "allowed" - i.e. can give rise to radiation of photons.

[OnlyMe]

What is the distance between two molecules of CO2?

At what preassure? Are you talking pure CO2 gas at room temperature or dy ice?

It is a question without sufficient detail to be answered.

[Billy T]

...
Like what pushed the gas/dust proto-planetary disk into the bands that are seen in the Hubble images?...

I think you have two separate questions here, but I can answer both:

(1a)Why did the gas cloud that formed our solar system put all the planets into one plane (Pluto excepted for reasons of a near collision in the distant past when it crossed the orbit of Neptune (I think) and came too close long ago.) I am not sure if still true but a few years ago Pluto was NOT the most distant planet from the sun - it was inside of Neptune’s orbit.
(1b) Why are the rings of Saturn etc. all in one disk, but with dark bands separating the bright rings?

(2) Why are the bands with no matter between the rings of Saturn, etc?

Answer to (1a&b) is that the gas cloud did have a net angular momentum that had to keep as it changed shape. Those particles that happen initially to be in the final disk plane were not as often scatter out of it as those which spent half their time above and half their time below the final disk plane. Every time they passed thru that plane there was a good chance for a collision with particle in the plane that collision that would make their new orbit plane more like the final disk plane and slightly throw the one it collided with out of the final disk plane. Only when all had their orbit planes moved to be in the final orbit plane did these scattering events become rare - little velocity of any particles crossing thru the plane.

Answer to (2) If there is a massive moon, (compared to the dust particles) then a particle orbiting with twice the period of the moon will get periodic pulls towards the Moon, if the moon is closer to the planet (the typical case) or pushes away if moon if farther away from the planet. These periodic forces can and do make the dark bands between the brighter rings.

Very careful studies of Saturn´s rings found some weakly "less bright" bands / rings and this lead to more careful searches for the postulated tiny moons that were driving these particles out of their ring, but had not yet acted long enough to clear their ring.

I think at least three of these tiny moons were discovered by knowing where they could be orbiting to be making these dimmer band rings.

[Robittybob1]

I mentioned to you in earlier post that:
(1) photon momentum is directly proportional to its frequency
And photon energy is directly proportional to its frequency. Thus there is ALWAYS constant and fixed relationship between them.

(2) That the frequency of any particular photon (and its momentum) will vary for observers (or absorbing atoms, molecules) with their speed. I.e. if they are moving towards the approaching photon they get more energy and momentum when they absorbe it than when moving away from it. "More" is called Blue Shift and "less case" is called "red shift." For many distantant stars, spectral lines that are from certain atom, say hydrogen, in the visible when the source lines in the lab with very little or no motion of the source wrt the spectrograph are observed to be in the infra red (IR, very Red shifted) if coming from typical star moving away from Earth.

This is true of gas atmosphere of a planet´s limbs. The limb moving towards the sun gets greater momentum transfer to it than the limb of other side which is moving away as that one "sees" all the photons as "red shifted" with less energy and less momentum.

I don´t know much about Venus, but bet more is known about the winds than your article implies. At the very least, it should be well know if Venus is an exception to the general rule for other planets that the winds blow both pro and anti grade in different latitude bands, with tornado like vorticies appearing between the bands at times.

(1) photon momentum is directly proportional to its frequency
And photon energy is directly proportional to its frequency. Thus there is ALWAYS constant and fixed relationship between them.

That is how I see it too. I don't disagree.

(2) That the frequency of any particular photon (and its momentum) will vary for observers (or absorbing atoms, molecules) with their speed. I.e. if they are moving towards the approaching photon they get more energy and momentum when they absorbe it than when moving away from it. "More" is called Blue Shift and "less case" is called "red shift."

This starts one of those tricky Relativity debates can you move faster toward incoming light? the speed difference was always to be the speed of light, so I'm going to have to be convinced you can blue shift light by moving toward it? (I'll look this up)

This is true of gas atmosphere of a planet´s limbs. The limb moving towards the sun gets greater momentum transfer to it than the limb of other side which is moving away as that one "sees" all the photons as "red shifted" with less energy and less momentum.

So you are saying that if only 1 specific frequency is absorbed you might get absorption on one side but not the other?

Are you saying that from the Sun's perspective it is higher frequency molecules on the red shift side that do the same job as lower frequency photons on the blue shift side?

If affirmed this would mean from a net energy balance (external view) the red shifted side is absorbing more energy and momentum than the blue shift side.
Would this in itself maybe enough to generate the wind effect we need?

[Emil]

Could you explain the question a bit better?

At what preassure? Are you talking pure CO2 gas at room temperature or dy ice?

It is a question without sufficient detail to be answered.

Pure CO2, atmospheric pressure (at the level of ocean) at 20 degrees Celsius.

[Robittybob1]

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=384579 Concensus on this forum states it is the relative velocity that determines whether there is red shift or blue shift. So it is the same effect if the object or the observer is moving.

“This is true of gas atmosphere of a planet´s limbs. The limb moving towards the sun gets greater momentum transfer to it than the limb of other side which is moving away as that one "sees" all the photons as "red shifted" with less energy and less momentum.”

I have to agree if you on this Billy.

[Robittybob1]

Pure CO2, atmospheric pressure (at the level of ocean) at 20 degrees Celsius.

from memory isn't it there is same number of molecules per unit volume, at the same temperature and pressure regardless of gas type.
PV = n R T
n = number of moles
R = universal gas constant = 8.3145 J/mol K
N = number of molecules
k = Boltzmann constant = 1.38066 x 10-23 J/K = 8.617385 x 10-5 eV/K
k = R/NA
NA = Avogadro's number = 6.0221 x 1023 /mol

[Emil]

from memory isn't it there is same number of molecules per unit volume, at the same temperature and pressure regardless of gas type.
PV = n R T
n = number of moles
R = universal gas constant = 8.3145 J/mol K
N = number of molecules
k = Boltzmann constant = 1.38066 x 10-23 J/K = 8.617385 x 10-5 eV/K
k = R/NA
NA = Avogadro's number = 6.0221 x 1023 /mol

So, how many microns is the distance between two molecules of CO2?