this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
335 points (93.1% liked)

Science Memes

14336 readers
2675 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ziggurism@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[–] Entropius@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Acceleration and Velocity are vectors. Changes in a velocity vector are an acceleration. Therefore when photons change direction technically it’s a form of acceleration.

[–] metallic_z3r0@infosec.pub 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought photons are always moving in straight lines from their perspective, and it's space that's bent. Unless it's through a medium, then they just get absorbed and re-emitted, sort of.

[–] Entropius@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Space bending is a general relativity thing, which isn’t really related much to how mirrors work.

Regarding the medium bit, photons being absorbed and remitted can’t explain how light moves slower in glass. This is just an extremely popular myth. Photons are only absorbed by atoms at very specific frequencies. Also, the entire reason glass is transparent to begin with is that it’s not absorbing the photons (requires too much energy to bump the electron’s energy level so the photon isn’t absorbed and it keeps on trucking). Also photon absorption and remission is stochastic so there’s no way to control the direction it happens in or how quickly it happens. Random directions of remitted light would make glass translucent, not transparent. So for a few reasons, that’s not how it works.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lustyargonian@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

They do at 0m/s^2.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Not with that attitude.

[–] nooneescapesthelaw@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Since photons are indistinguishable, it's hard to say too much concretely, but it some sense a diffracted photon is different photon. In order for a photon to interact with say, a diffraction grating, the interaction is done with "virtual photons".

So for a photon to change course, aka accelerate, it does it by absorbing a virtual photon and emitting another. Whether that is the "same photon" after the interaction is kinda more philosophy than physics, at least to me.

Feynman diagrams are surprisingly accessible for how much information they contain. It's one way to think about photon (and other particle) reactions.

[–] ziggurism@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is no tree level photon-photon interaction. Photons scatter off electrons (or any other charged particle), not off neutral photons.

[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you claiming this is done without a force carrier? If you are working outside the standard model, I guess that's fine, but I don't want to spend time arguing with you.

[–] ziggurism@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The electromagnetic field does have a force carrier. It is the photon.

The photon mediates the force between electrically charged particles. It cannot mediate any reaction between two neutral photons.

[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ah, I see. Sorry for the snark. I was thinking more in line with the Compton effect, and thought you were talking about something like that too. (Even though it's clear that you were explicitly not. I thought you were denying photon-virtual photon interaction because I was talking about it in a funny way.)

I would still say it's still philosophical whether photons experience acceleration, but I concede that photon-photon interaction is not done by virtual photon exchange.

[–] ziggurism@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I am indeed denying the existence of photons interacting with virtual photons. I am also saying there is no tree level photon-photon interaction of on shell photons. Neither Compton scattering nor Bhabha nor pair production nor pair annihilation involves a photon-photon interaction. There is no photon-photon vertex in QED. There is no tree level Feynman diagram that you can look at and say “this is, at least philosophically, a photon changing its momentum”.

There is a 1 loop diagram that represents photon-photon scattering. But even that doesn’t have any photon-photon vertices, instead it is mediated by electron-positron pair.

Non-abelian gauge bosons (gluons) couple to themselves. So does gravity (gravitons). Abelian ones (photons) do not.

Photons don’t accelerate. They are emitted or absorbed. That’s their only interaction.

[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Someone asked if diffracted light accelerated. I said no. A diffracted photon is a different photon.

I gave some lip service to the Feynman "there is but one electron" idea, and you seemed to take that personally.

If someone asks you if diffracted light accelerates, answer them how you want. I just thought it'd be cool to show them Feyman diagrams.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 year ago (17 children)

Does a photon actually accelerate? Sure seems like it always goes at light speed through whatever medium from its creation.

[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

well, if it get reflected and change direction it going to be at light speed, so it can be interpreted (probably incorrectly lol) that it "accelerated instantly to the other direction after the reflection"?

[–] kogasa@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is an interesting question. Instant acceleration is mathematically implausible, but I don't know if there's a better physical interpretation for what happens to a bouncing photon. I'm guessing this is one of those "less particle, more wave" situations where the instantaneous velocity of the photon is undefined.

According to some random internet sources, reflection is the not-quite-instantaneous process of the photon being absorbed and then emitted by the electrons in the mirror.

[–] Entropius@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

As a rule, it’s probably best to avoid “random” internet sources on matters of how light works because there’s so much confidently parroted misinformation out there. For example, this is completely wrong: https://youtu.be/FAivtXJOsiI See here for correct answers to that issue: https://youtu.be/CiHN0ZWE5bk

For how mirrors work see this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-physical-proc/ https://youtu.be/rYLzxcU6ROM

[–] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is acceleration with no mass and no resistance to medium.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Photons are born and die at c. They experience no time and have no frame of reference.

[–] hansl@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The loneliest of experience.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] VonCesaw@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

PHOTONS HAVE MASS

ANYONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE THEY HAVE MASS IS A COWARD

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Photons can have little a mass, as a treat.

[–] statist43@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But every time i put it on a scale, it just flys away. GIVE ME PROOF. I have a kitchen scale to offer.

[–] VonCesaw@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

MEASURE FASTER

IT MOVES REAL QUICK

[–] Squorlple@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who is the dude on the right?

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Squorlple@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Ah, I get the joke now. Classic

[–] Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Because you're so light

[–] SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Without mass how could you do anything else?

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I see you there

[–] satans_crackpipe@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Without mass you have to occupy parts of time and possibly gravity.

[–] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

39 years old... Can confirm that time is perceptibly accelerating

load more comments
view more: next ›