Will CO2 absorb photon in all directions?

[Billy T]

You missed the point completely. I was looking to see if you could think a way of the Sun powering up winds through the absorptions and release of the photons at random angles.
I'll have to go back a few days and find my post on that.

Why would I waste time trying to find support for your theory that is based on wild guesses and ignorance - i.e. is nonsense?

Again - read and learn what is known; don´t start in ignorance and invent things that contradict what is known (except by you).

 

[OnlyMe]

Why would I waste time trying to find support for your theory that is based on wild guesses and ignorance - i.e. is nonsense?

Again - read and learn what is known; don´t start in ignorance and invent things that contradict what is known (except by you).

Billy, it seems to me that your posts are becoming more personally directed and verging on insult.

The above post would have been just as accurate by just saying, that the subject is too complex and that you don't have the time it would take to properly explain... Leaving out the personal subjective assements...

Robittybob1 began this thread and explored the question on his own for quite a while before anyone jumped in. The effort seems to me to have been a genuine search for some understanding. While I don't agree with all of his assumptions and conclusions, he does appear to me to be searching for some understanding.

Getting personal in response does not further any discussion.

 

[Billy T]

Billy, it seems to me that your posts are becoming more personally directed and verging on insult.

The above post would have been just as accurate by just saying, that the subject is too complex and that you don't have the time it would take to properly explain... Leaving out the personal subjective assements. ...

Not trying to insult, but I have sevaral times explained why both this and his original ("it GHG absorption of Earthshine" than makes winds) are not only nonsenses but contradict well known facts - I have been encouaging him to read and learn. He does not seem to understand he is very ignorant of several well known areas he is inventing ideas in.

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant - In one post I noted I was too ignorant to do work in the area physic is now focused in - That once I could follow tensor equations, but now can not even read them.

What is to be thought poorly of is being ignorgant and not wanting to put for the effort to learn while posting completely unfounded ideas in the area you are ignorant of. - I would never make posts about how general relativity describes gravity etc. as I am too ignorant to do that, but know others are not and are posting, with the equations, etc.

 

[Robittybob1]

You missed the point completely. I was looking to see if you could think a way of the Sun powering up winds through the absorptions and release of the photons at random angles.
I'll have to go back a few days and find my post on that.

I found the post again but can't tell the post number, but here it is in full.

"There were questions previously as to why the planets further out had different wind patterns to Venus and Jupiter.
Now i have been watching and thinking about this YouTube video on Hydrogen atom orbiting the earth and the effects of sunlight at 121.6 NM wavelength has on these atoms.
titled "Effects of Solar Radiation Pressure on Satellite Orbits"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVO42b7QLNM

Now it happens when atoms in the atmosphere absorbed photon and the electron jumps up an energy level, when the radiation is released it is released at random directions. This is therefore a form of radiation pressure.
As the planet turns the pressure on the side moving toward the Sun would therefore have the highest pressure and the atmosphere being dragged around the planet would slow. This is the same as have retrograde winds.
It is the opposite effect as when the infrared radiation is absorbed for in this case the momentum of the radiation stays in line with the IR photon.
You don't and can't get random direction scattering. Due to conservation of the linear momentum.
Watch it a few times and you might see what I'm on about.

(This is my initial analysis of the situation - criticisms welcome.) "

So this You Tube was a very scientific one designed for those that design satellites, and showing them that radiation pressure can change the orbits of satelites. They use the Hydrogen atoms as example and showed how when it absorbed the wavelength of light and released it, this was akin to radiation pressure.
I know that the same absorption of photons will be occurring on Hydrogen atmospheres and this pressure which would be higher on the side approaching the Sun (Billy's logic) will tend to cause retrograde winds.

On Jupiter there are bands with prograde and retrograde winds. Now if the retrogade winds were a different composition to the prograde you can just about guarantee the composition is a factor in the wind direction.

 

[Robittybob1]

No, I´m not going to try to teach you any quantum physics, but here is link to discussion of quantum numbers of bound electrons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_number
That is place you can start and them seach on some of the terms found there.

Thanks for the informative link - that was exactly what I needed.

 

[Robittybob1]

Not trying to insult, but I have sevaral times explained why both this and his original ("it GHG absorption of Earthshine" than makes winds) are not only nonsenses but contradict well known facts - I have been encouaging him to read and learn. He does not seem to understand he is very ignorant of several well known areas he is inventing ideas in.

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant - In one post I noted I was too ignorant to do work in the area physic is now focused in - That once I could follow tensor equations, but now can not even read them.

What is to be thought poorly of is being ignorgant and not wanting to put for the effort to learn while posting completely unfounded ideas in the area you are ignorant of. - I would never make posts about how general relativity describes gravity etc. as I am too ignorant to do that, but know others are not and are posting, with the equations, etc.

To me that was the trouble with most of your responses to me Billy; somehow you thought I was saying "it (was) GHG absorption of Earthshine" than makes winds" when I don't believe I said that at all. You might have slightly misunderstood my OP so you have struggled to treat me as an equal.

 

[RealityCheck]

When a molecule is ionised there are two parts at least with opposite charges.
So there will be equal amounts of positive and negative charges on the ions, and even if they are of different masses the ideal gas law (PV = NRT) the pressure from the lighter molecules matches that of the heavier particles.
So from my limited knowledge of magnetism there should not be any torque from the ionised gas molecules.

Hi Rbb1.

It's not the gas pressure or other statistical factors I pointed to, mate. It's the charged nature of the ionised particles and their 'sorting' and 'accelerations' by the polarity of the magnetic field lines into opposite directions.....positive particles one way, negative particles the other way.

Just as the Earth's magnetic field lines sort out the incoming charged particles into the direction of the North/South poles, hence the Aurora Borealis and the Aurora Australis phenomena.

That's what I was pointing out about the motion possibilities/components of the ionised particles given what Billy T said about the ionisation probability increae on the 'approaching' limb of the atmosphere/planet. I wasn't commenting on the other usual 'neutral particle' gas motion stats/effects being duiscussed between you and Billy T et al. See?


So....does this increases ionisation effect due to the doppler frequency shift to the 'blue' have any consequences for what the flow of particles will be as a result of insolation onto the approaching limb atmospheric layers? That was the aspect I wanted to point out for your ongoing discussion. The question implied is: will it tend to decelerate those layers on that limb as suggested by Billy T, or not, depending on the charged motions of the ionised particles along field lines which would not normally affect the neutral particles on the other limb going away from the sun because of the doppler redhifting there, etc etc? Just wnted to point out that there was another asymmetry between the limbs beyond what was already being discussed. That's all.


Cheers guys!

.

 

[Robittybob1]

Hi Rbb1.

It's not the gas pressure or other statistical factors I pointed to, mate. It's the charged nature of the ionised particles and their 'sorting' and 'accelerations' by the polarity of the magnetic field lines into opposite directions.....positive particles one way, negative particles the other way.

Just as the Earth's magnetic field lines sort out the incoming charged particles into the direction of the North/South poles, hence the Aurora Borealis and the Aurora Australis phenomena.

That's what I was pointing out about the motion possibilities/components of the ionised particles given what Billy T said about the ionisation probability increae on the 'approaching' limb of the atmosphere/planet. I wasn't commenting on the other usual 'neutral particle' gas motion stats/effects being duiscussed between you and Billy T et al. See?


So....does this increases ionisation effect due to the doppler frequency shift to the 'blue' have any consequences for what the flow of particles will be as a result of insolation onto the approaching limb atmospheric layers? That was the aspect I wanted to point out for your ongoing discussion. The question implied is: will it tend to decelerate those layers on that limb as suggested by Billy T, or not, depending on the charged motions of the ionised particles along field lines which would not normally affect the neutral particles on the other limb going away from the sun because of the doppler redhifting there, etc etc? Just wnted to point out that there was another asymmetry between the limbs beyond what was already being discussed. That's all.


Cheers guys!

.

Well could we start with a very simple situation and you tell me what might happen so I can start understanding it as it gets more complex.
Start with a slowly spinning planet with a magnetic field and no wind. When atoms are ionised by UV light since the Magnetic field lines are moving at the same rate as the planetary gas cover I imagine there is no sorting between the positive and negative ions.
Was that right?

 

[RealityCheck]

Well could we start with a very simple situation and you tell me what might happen so I can start understanding it as it gets more complex.
Start with a slowly spinning planet with a magnetic field and no wind. When atoms are ionised by UV light since the Magnetic field lines are moving at the same rate as the planetary gas cover I imagine there is no sorting between the positive and negative ions.
Was that right?

Any ions will move towards the north or south depending on charge positive/negative. But of course, they will collide with other ions coming/going in opposite directions and will 'recombine' to neutral particle until any further ionisation. This is of course only in the 'approaching sun' limb of the planetary atmosphere where the doppler shift is 'blue' and ionisation such as Billy T has alluded to is present. The situation in the 'away from sun' limb, with its doppler redshifting of insolation will not be as greatly affected by ionisation as in the other limb.

This is of course above and beyond the normal nsolation effects on the atmosphere if the planet/atmosphere was not 'spinning' at all. So start from that basis and see what the circulation tendencies are for insolation on a non-spinning plante/atmosphere and go from there introducing each separately identifiable variable/factor incrementally and see what your modeling shows up 'net-net' at each incremental stage.

However, when dealing with magnetic fields, I'm not sure that any 'surface spin' of a planet is as 'locked into' between the field lines and the spin of the ground like you indicate. There are interactions and twistings and reconnections etc etc and wanderings over geological time due not only to interactions with the sun's magnetic field but also due to internal dynamo variations in 'axial orienttion' and geographical 'wanderings' and 'reversals' over long periods.

And of course, elecro-magnetic acceleration of charged particles to whatever speeds depends on mag field/line strength and orientation rather than source system velocity (unless that source velocity is relativistic, which is not the case here of course).

Anyhow, I haven't much time left, so I'll leave all that to you and Billy T et al to pursue! I just point out other possible variables/factors as I observe the discussion progress along its way and byways! Interesting. I shall keep coming back to see what's happening! Cheers!

.

 

[Robittybob1]

Before you go please explain why "Any ions will move towards the north or south depending on charge positive/negative."?
The North Pole is not electrically charged that it will attract ions to it. I've never heard that before.

 

[RealityCheck]

Before you go please explain why "Any ions will move towards the north or south depending on charge positive/negative."?
The North Pole is not electrically charged that it will attract ions to it. I've never heard that before.

The Earth has a dipolar emag field pattern. This is why incoming ions from the sun are separated along the field lines depending on their charge (pos/neg) and electrons are funneled along and directed down towards one pole and protons are funneled along the opposite way and eventually directed down to the other pole. Hence the Auroras have different particles creating the lightshows. One pole aurora is predominantly the rsult of concentrated proton impacts while the other is the result of concentrated electron impacts. Both having travelled from the equatorial regions towards the poles because they were constrained to follow the earth's dipolar mag field lines surrounding the planet.

Look up Auroras and you should see some explanation of which aurora is which and what causes them.

I really must go now. Cheers!

.

 

[Robittybob1]

The Earth has a dipolar emag field pattern. This is why incoming ions from the sun are separated along the field lines depending on their charge (pos/neg) and electrons are funneled along and directed down towards one pole and protons are funneled along the opposite way and eventually directed down to the other pole. Hence the Auroras have different particles creating the lightshows. One pole aurora is predominantly the rsult of concentrated proton impacts while the other is the result of concentrated electron impacts. Both having travelled from the equatorial regions towards the poles because they were constrained to follow the earth's dipolar mag field lines surrounding the planet.

Look up Auroras and you should see some explanation of which aurora is which and what causes them.

I really must go now. Cheers!

.

I can imagine that is a completely different situation for as the Solar Wind approaches the Earth it will be moving through the Earth's magnetic field. You could be then right about it sorting the charges.
I'll look it up with that in mind.

 

[Billy T]

Just a few quick comments about ions & electons in Earth´s magnetic field (assuming they were neutral particle that got ionized by UV to not get into how they could get there if that is not the case) They "gyrorate" about the field line with the Lamor radius. (look that up)

Whether or not they also move towards the N pole does NOT depend upon their charge. It is a funcion of the component of their velocity which is parallet to the field line and thus not feeling any magnetic forces.

It gets a little more complex as they get near the poles as the field lines are convergent - becoming closer together. I.e. The effect of this is to reduce that component of velocity which was along the field line steadily to zero.

Then they are sort of "sequzed back" out of the region where the field was more concentrated. (said to "mirrow") and then travel all the way towards the other pole (assuming they don´t have a collision). Over head anywhere, not too close to either pole, there are ions & electrons that make up the "ionisphere" which reflects radio waves. Normally this bouncing back and forth between near pole regions has them turning around (mirrowing) before the get down to denser air, but when there has been a solar storm, the field lines get push around and the mirrow points can be lower - making nice displays of Northern Lights as ions and electrons normally trapped between the mirrow points hit air atoms. This weakens the ioniosphere so radio waves don´t reflect as well after a solar storm, until the UV can build up the density of charges particles in the ionosphere again.

Read about the Van Allen belts.

 

[Robittybob1]

Just a few quick comments about ions & electons in Earth´s magnetic field (assuming they were neutral particle that got ionized by UV to not get into how they could get there if that is not the case) They "gyrorate" about the field line with the Lamor radius. (look that up)

Whether or not they also move towards the N pole does NOT depend upon their charge. It is a funcion of the component of their velocity which is parallet to the field line and thus not feeling any magnetic forces.

It gets a little more complex as they get near the poles as the field lines are convergent - becoming closer together. I.e. The effect of this is to reduce that component of velocity which was along the field line steadily to zero.

Then they are sort of "sequzed back" out of the region where the field was more concentrated. (said to "mirrow") and then travel all the way towards the other pole (assuming they don´t have a collision). Over head anywhere, not too close to either pole, there are ions & electrons that make up the "ionisphere" which reflects radio waves. Normally this bouncing back and forth between near pole regions has them turning around (mirrowing) before the get down to denser air, but when there has been a solar storm, the field lines get push around and the mirrow points can be lower - making nice displays of Northern Lights as ions and electrons normally trapped between the mirrow points hit air atoms. This weakens the ioniosphere so radio waves don´t reflect as well after a solar storm, until the UV can build up the density of charges particles in the ionosphere again.

Read about the Van Allen belts.

I find it really hard to comprehend, so I'm just tempted to ask someone ; "do you think these will contribute to any wind generation?

 

[Robittybob1]

This quote puts the energy of the Sun is perspective; In an article discussing the electrical power in the solar wind. http://www.physorg.com/news205411403.html

Quantum_Conundrum stated:
Oct 04, 2010

While I applaud the fact that yet another group has recognized this potential, this certainly isn't anything new.

They have not even offered any new solutions of how to build and deploy these devices.

Personally, I think the most cost-effective means is through self-assembling robots mining asteroids, etc.

At any rate, the sun produces more than 1.5 billion times more energy than what the earth actually recieves from the sun, while the earth itself recieves more than 10,000 times more energy from the sun as we actually currently need to power our machines.

So I get the sense there is power in it but nothing like what strikes the Earth as EM radiation.
Good educational video: http://www.teachersdomain.org/asset/ess05_vid_solarwind/

 

[Robittybob1]

The secret is still the understanding of whether a photon can remove momentum from mass as mass can?
Two massive objects impacting each other can result in the momentum canceling part on the basis of MV-mv = (M+m)v(3) where they stick together at a new velocity.
What evidence have you got that the momentum of a massless photon can lower the net momentum when it is absorbed by that massive particle. Does an electron absorb a photon and it drops an electron level since the momentums and energy cancelled each other. No the absorption raises the energy and momentum not lessening it.
Billy thought the IR would be affecting the whole molecule but how often does a photon raise 2 electron levels at once where the energy is split? (it might on occasions - have you heard of it?)
Now that would be rare in my opinion. Look if it could happen it would be known by now, for these photon absorption - electron energy level changes have been extensively studied.
Billy T Can you prove to the forum that a photon can excite the whole atom and not just one electron on part of the molecule?

It's a shame I'm banned from Physicsforum for they were discussing this issue there in 2005
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=105335

Can anyone relate to the maths there and see if there is a connection between a stationary electron not being able to absorb a photon because of a momentum issue and an electron attached to a molecule going the wrong way?

 

[Robittybob1]

Here is sample of the maths

I personally like to use 4-momenta in that type of problem.
By conservation of four-momentum, we have

P γ +P i =P f

where P_i and P_f are the four-momenta of the electron before and after. Squaring both sides, we get

P 2 γ +2P γ ⋅P i +P 2 i =P 2 f

which means (using P^2 = m^2 c^4) that
2P γ ⋅P i =0
Considering the frame in which the electron before the collision was at rest, we get
2E γ mc 2 =0
which is impossible.

I find the use of four-momenta very powerful in those types of problems.

Regards

Patrick

Which doesn't look that difficult. Just that it doesn't mean anything to me. Who can not only do the algebra but say what the expressions mean?

 

[Billy T]

... Billy T Can you prove to the forum that a photon can excite the whole atom and not just one electron on part of the molecule? ...

I´m busy now starting to do US taxes (mine are complex - many stock trades, foreign tax credits to claim, SS and retirement plan RMD payments, AMT form, etc.) but anyway I would not try to prove what prove what has been know for at least 100 years and widely used by thousands of organic chemists nearly that long. Go here:

http://www.chemguide.co.uk/analysis/ir/interpret.html#top And then to their introduction link at top, etc.

The below molecule shown at the link is used as it has five different molecular bonds (The C-C bond and 3 C-H bonds are not explicitely shown, but the C of the methal group (CH3) is with a C-C bond to the other C and then three Hs bond to it.

The absorption graph shows what wavelengths excite which bonds, but not always just one as I will discuss. Here is some text from the link I will comment on, but first Note wavenumbers are directly proportional to the photon energy.

"... The carbon-oxygen single bond also has an absorbtion in the fingerprint region, varying between 1000 and 1300 cm-1 depending on the molecule it is in. You have to be very wary about picking out a particular trough as being due to a C-O bond. ...

The C-H bond (where the hydrogen is attached to a carbon which is singly-bonded to everything else) absorbs somewhere in the range from 2853 - 2962 cm-1. ..."

Note that the light hydrogen proton vibration against the rest of the molecule is energetic but not able to shake (and thus excit many other bonds as the momentum in its motion is not large as if it were heavier. The range of photons that can excite it is relative narrow in energy - about as pure excitation of only part of the molecule as happens. When the photon is absorbed it initially just shakes one bond but that soon spreads to others, like a set of many springs joining many different masses.

In None of these IR absorption case is and electron removed or even transfered from one atom of the molecule to another.

Again you need to learn what has been well known for more than 100 years. I note you did not understand my post telling that electorns (an +ions the came form) are trapped in the ionsphere as they gyrate around magnetic field lines. I was just correcting the false idea that electrons went to one pole and the +ions the other.

Surely you did not read about Van Allen belts as I suggested to in all probablity even see an animation of these charged particles "mirrowing" near the poles as they bounce back and forth between the poles. So I will cease trying to help´- just note serious physic error. as warning to others.

Long ago I became the self apointed "Sheriff of Nonsense" and still try to tell innocent readers not to take as truth some of the nonsense that gets posted.

 

[Robittybob1]

.....
Again you need to learn what has been well known for more than 100 years. I note you did not understand my post telling that electorns (an +ions the came form) are trapped in the ionsphere as they gyrate around magnetic field lines. I was just correcting the false idea that electrons went to one pole and the +ions the other.

Surely you did not read about Van Allen belts as I suggested to in all probablity even see an animation of these charged particles "mirrowing" near the poles as they bounce back and forth between the poles.

As I explained yesterday the magnetism side of physics is not my forte so I did not agree or disagree about what RealityCheck and yourself posted. So if there were errors there I don't take responsibility for them.
I tried reading up on it but it wasn't sinking in so I left it. But I was of the opinion it was a sidetrack in any case.

I am going back over the thread again and will try again to read them as my understanding improves.

 

[Robittybob1]

.... but anyway I would not try to prove what prove what has been know for at least 100 years and widely used by thousands of organic chemists nearly that long. Go here:

http://www.chemguide.co.uk/analysis/ir/interpret.html#top And then to their introduction link at top, etc.

The below molecule shown at the link is used as it has five different molecular bonds (The C-C bond and 3 C-H bonds are not explicitely shown, but the C of the methal group (CH3) is with a C-C bond to the other C and then three Hs bond to it.

The absorption graph shows what wavelengths excite which bonds, but not always just one as I will discuss. Here is some text from the link I will comment on, but first Note wavenumbers are directly proportional to the photon energy.

"... The carbon-oxygen single bond also has an absorbtion in the fingerprint region, varying between 1000 and 1300 cm-1 depending on the molecule it is in. You have to be very wary about picking out a particular trough as being due to a C-O bond. ...

The C-H bond (where the hydrogen is attached to a carbon which is singly-bonded to everything else) absorbs somewhere in the range from 2853 - 2962 cm-1. ..."

Note that the light hydrogen proton vibration against the rest of the molecule is energetic but not able to shake (and thus excit many other bonds as the momentum in its motion is not large as if it were heavier. The range of photons that can excite it is relative narrow in energy - about as pure excitation of only part of the molecule as happens. When the photon is absorbed it initially just shakes one bond but that soon spreads to others, like a set of many springs joining many different masses.

In None of these IR absorption case is and electron removed or even transfered from one atom of the molecule to another.....

I've made bold the bit that gels with me. The whole atom vibrates ultimately but the energy entered via the one bond. That is clearly what it says in my opinion.
So I would go so far as to propose it was the electron on that bond that took in the energy and momentum in the first instance and then the energy spread outward like a earthquake from it's point of origin (epicenter).
(But this is just the initial response to what you wrote and not from reading the article.)

Now that I have looked at the reference, there weren't many principles that we haven't already covered.