scientists measure photonic boom

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by SimonsCat, Jan 21, 2017.

  1. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    Totally wrong. I've explained why. Numbers of times now. The Wiki articles explain the clear and fundamental differences. You are the one who is delusional. Given that, pointless to continue arguing. Hopefully someone else here will take up the baton and drive it home to you. But this is SF.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213
    As I stated, if you want to believe the things you peddle to yourself that's ok. But talking from experience of knowing the formula that describe the two phenomenon, they are formally similar.

    But its ok... you don't have to agree with me.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    Yes thanks, that makes sense, I think. It does seem a bit daft for photons themselves to generate a shock wavefront of, er, photons. But that's not what this really is, evidently, so sanity is restored.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    Apparently there are no charged particles involved in the news items you linked to (I made the same mistake on first reading it). It is just a light beam, evidently. So that explanation does not seem to be the answer to my question.

    As for radiation of charged particles, such radiation is classically* emitted by any accelerating charge, so whether the acceleration is due to gravity or some other force, such as electrostatic attraction or a magnetic field, does not seem relevant.

    *But of course not in QM bound states.
     
  8. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213
    I know the experiment uses light, the phenomenon they experienced is different to what is in the article, a photon boom is not the same thing as a deceleration radiation. It is just simply, the photon equivalent of a sonic boom and has nothing to do with Larmor radiation.
     
  9. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213
    it is possible to draw analogies to a photon or sonic boom, but they are still different phenomenon.
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    Eh? What do you mean by "the phenomenon they experienced is different to[sic] what is in the article"? Do you mean the article has incorrectly written up the research?
     
  11. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213
    No just me writing badly. The phenomenon is different to (Cherenkov radiation or Larmor radiation) than what is in the article.
     
  12. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    Indeed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    OP article reminded me of another example of phenomena that can lead to wrong inferences: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#3
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    The informative paper....................
    http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601814.full

    Single-shot real-time video recording of a photonic Mach cone induced by a scattered light pulse:

    Abstract

    Ultrafast video recording of spatiotemporal light distribution in a scattering medium has a significant impact in biomedicine. Although many simulation tools have been implemented to model light propagation in scattering media, existing experimental instruments still lack sufficient imaging speed to record transient light-scattering events in real time. We report single-shot ultrafast video recording of a light-induced photonic Mach cone propagating in an engineered scattering plate assembly. This dynamic light-scattering event was captured in a single camera exposure by lossless-encoding compressed ultrafast photography at 100 billion frames per second. Our experimental results are in excellent agreement with theoretical predictions by time-resolved Monte Carlo simulation. This technology holds great promise for next-generation biomedical imaging instrumentation.
     
    SimonsCat likes this.
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    Yes thanks this one is much better. I think I understand it now. The diagram helps a lot.
     

Share This Page