What is the source of photons ?[/QUOTE]
There are lots of sources of photons. Light bulbs, for example. The sun. LEDs. And so on and so forth.
Black Holes .
- Thread starter river
- Start date
- Status
What is the source of photons ?[/QUOTE]
There are lots of sources of photons. Light bulbs, for example. The sun. LEDs. And so on and so forth.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
There are lots of sources of photons. Light bulbs, for example. The sun. LEDs. And so on and so forth.[/QUOTE]
River believes that photons cannot exist without emanating from a physical object. He believes that matter is fundamental, and EM energy is a byproduct.
Wait until he finds out about the microwave background radiation.
River believes that photons cannot exist without emanating from a physical object. He believes that matter is fundamental, and EM energy is a byproduct.[/QUOTE]
This may throw some light [no pun intended] on that question, although knowing the ignorant mindset of river, I truly doubt it.
https://www.amnh.org/ology/features/stufftodo_einstein/lightquest_photon.php
"
To understand where photons come from, let's take a closer look at the atom:
is a tiny, dense nucleus. The nucleus contains two kinds of particles: neutrons, which have no charge, and positively charged protons. Negatively charged particles called electrons orbit around the nucleus in different layers, or orbitals. (Unlike this diagram, there is a vast space between the nucleus and the electron orbitals. In a gold atom, if the nucleus were one foot in diameter, then the outermost electron would be 3.3 miles away!)These orbitals surrounding the nucleus have different levels of energy
- the farther away each is from the nucleus, the more energy it has. In each orbital, electrons are moving at the speed of light. But electrons can also jump between orbitals, a process that takes energy. If electrons jump to an outer orbital, they use energy. But if they jump to an inner orbital, they give up energy. This energy is released as a tiny packet of light energy, or a photon.":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Or left over heat from the BB, and before the first element/s were created, and which was finally released at around 380,000 years after the BB, when temperatures had cooled sufficiently [3000K] to allow electrons to couple with atomic nuclei. But again, this will go in one ear and out the other, and will never make any difference to someone with a mindset that river has.
Last edited:
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Check out subatomic particles, out there a bit but worth entertaining. What if black holes don't exist? What else could it be? That's the question you should be asking.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I'm pretty familiar with subatomic particles.
Protons, neutrons and electrons are pretty common, but there's lots more. Anything catch your fancy?
They do. We've seen them.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. Them are subatomic.
There are lots of others; those just happen to be the most well-known.
Any particle that makes up an atomic nucleus is subatomic....protons, neutrons, are subatomic as that is what an atomic nucleus is composed of.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Photons were created during the Photon Epoch - in the first ten seconds of the Big Bang. Atomic constituents came along much later.
The universe does not care what you believe.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
The breaking of symmetry of the 4 fundamental forces following the Big Bang itself.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Big Bang was not an explosion.
Put down the UFO book and pick up a high school science book.
BB is an explosion Theory of this Universe .
What science book have you read that says differently ; and has no physical aspect to this theory .
None
If BH's did not exist, scientists/cosmologists would have plenty of explaining to do, to explain the effects that we see in the vicinity of BHs. It would need to be something even more weirder and would probably undermine and discredit GR and the vast majority of our cosmological models.
The point is that at this time, BH's are as certain as any scientific theory can be, with the 14 or so listed collisions between BH binaries and the resultant gravitational radiation. Also even more recently the photo taken by the EHT.
BH's of sorts are actually even predicted to exist with Newtonian mechanics and was hypothesised by a bloke called John Michell as far back as 1783, basically by simply applying escape velocities and densities to surfaces of collapsed stars. When density as such, reaches "c" then even light cannot escape. This model though would have a surface just below the EH. Later of course GR told us that when the EH/Schwarzchild radius is reached, then further collapse is compulsory.
The story of how our universe evolved to what we see today, is partly reconstructed by observational data in particle accelerator experiments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
All galaxies have a black hole at its center .
Upon what form of matter is the BH based ? I keep asking this question , no answer .
Last edited:
- Status