Greenhouse gases are gases in the Earth’s atmosphere that can absorb and emit radiation, primarily infrared radiation. These gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and water vapor, absorb infrared light, preventing it from escaping the Earth and trapping heat in the atmosphere. Some IR radiation escapes to space, while others are absorbed by the atmosphere’s greenhouse gases, especially water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane, and reradiated in all directions, some even to space.
Greenhouse gases absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation, causing the greenhouse effect. They are transparent to visible light but not transparent to infrared light. The outgoing long wavelength radiation emitted by the Earth is partially or totally absorbed by the greenhouse gases of water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and other trace gases.
The Earth presents a variety of radiation, including ultraviolet, visible, infrared, and microwave radiation. Most of the ultraviolet, visible, infrared, and microwave radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, with the dark parts showing radiation absorbed by each type of greenhouse gas.
In summary, greenhouse gases are essential for the Earth’s climate, as they absorb and re-emit infrared radiation from the Sun, contributing to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse gases, such as CO2, methane, and water vapor, absorb energy from infrared radiation, causing the Earth’s surface and atmosphere to warm.
📹 Light waves, visible and invisible
Each kind of light has a unique wavelength, but human eyes can only perceive a tiny slice of the full spectrum — the very narrow …
What EMR is absorbed by CO2?
Carbon dioxide serves as a gatekeeper, facilitating the passage of visible light while absorbing infrared (heat) energy.
Does CO2 absorb UV light?
UV radiation is a significant environmental issue, with the sun being the strongest source. Solar emissions, including visible light, heat, and UV radiation, are divided into three regions: UVA, UVB, and UVC. As sunlight passes through the atmosphere, most UVC and most UVB are absorbed by ozone, water vapor, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. UVA is not significantly filtered by the atmosphere. Ozone is a particularly effective absorber of UV radiation, but as the ozone layer thins, the protective filter activity of the atmosphere is progressively reduced, increasing exposure to higher levels of UV radiation, especially UVB.
Ozone depletion is caused by human-made chemicals released into the atmosphere, and international agreements, such as the Montreal Protocol, are gradually phasing out the production of ozone-depleting substances. However, the long life span of the chemicals already released will continue to cause problems, and a full recovery of the ozone level is not expected until 2050.
Do greenhouse gases absorb shortwave or longwave radiation?
Water vapor and carbon dioxide are the most abundant greenhouse gases, absorbing long wave radiation from the Sun and re-emitting it in all directions. About half of the re-emitted long wave radiation escapes into space, contributing to the planet’s radiative equilibrium. The other half is directed back toward the Earth’s surface, causing a continuous exchange of long wave radiation between the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere above it. This causes the greenhouse effect, which traps the energy beneath the atmosphere, resulting in a warmer climate on Earth than would be possible without an atmosphere.
The greenhouse effect is a result of the atmosphere trapping the energy beneath it, allowing solar energy to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere but preventing much of the long wave radiation from escaping to space.
Which rays are absorbed by CO2?
Carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules can absorb and re-emit infrared (IR) radiation, making them an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. In an animation, a CO2 molecule absorbs an incoming infrared photon, causing it to vibrate. The energy from the photon then causes the molecule to emit another infrared photon, releasing the extra energy. Once the extra energy is removed, the CO2 molecule stops vibrating.
In the more complex real-world process, a CO2 molecule might bump into several other gas molecules before re-emitting the infrared photon. The faster motion of a molecule that results from the IR photon increases the temperature of the gases in the atmosphere. Not all gas molecules can absorb IR radiation, such as nitrogen and oxygen, which make up over 90% of Earth’s atmosphere. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, allowing them to capture the IR photons.
In summary, CO2 molecules are effective heat-trapping greenhouse gases due to their ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy. However, not all gas molecules can absorb IR radiation, making CO2 molecules more susceptible to its effects.
What wavelengths are absorbed by CO2?
Carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs energy at a range of wavelengths between 2, 000 and 15, 000 nanometers, which overlaps with infrared energy. As CO2 absorbs infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits it back in all directions, with about half going into space and half returning to Earth as heat. The reason why some molecules absorb infrared waves depends on their geometry and composition. Oxygen and nitrogen molecules are simple, with only two atoms of the same element, limiting their movements and wavelengths.
However, greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane have three or more atoms, allowing them to absorb a wider range of wavelengths, including infrared waves. To see for yourself that CO2 absorbs heat, Smerdon recommends filling one soda bottle with CO2 and filling a second bottle with ambient air. Exposure to a heat lamp will warm up the CO2 bottle more than the bottle with ambient air. Check the bottle temperatures with a no-touch infrared thermometer and ensure the same bottle style and amount of light are used.
Which EM wave is used in greenhouse effect?
The greenhouse effect is caused by the absorption of infrared rays by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The sun emits various types of radiation, including UV, infrared, and visible, which are absorbed by the Earth’s surface. Some of this energy is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds, while the rest is absorbed by the Earth’s surface, causing it to warm and convert into heat. This heat is then trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere, increasing its temperature. The greenhouse gases absorb more infrared radiation than UV, X, and radio waves, resulting in the greenhouse effect.
Is UV light absorbed by greenhouse gases?
The greenhouse effect is a phenomenon where the Earth’s atmosphere heats up its surface to higher temperatures than normal due to the radiatively active gases in the atmosphere, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. These gases radiate heat energy in all directions, some of which is directed towards the Earth’s surface, leading to surface heating. The rate of heating depends on the temperature of the atmosphere and the amount of greenhouse gases present.
The sun releases UV, infrared, and visible radiation, which is received by the Earth. The atmosphere and clouds redirect most of the incoming solar radiation, some of which is absorbed by the clouds and atmosphere, while the rest is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. This part of the radiation absorbs, heats up the Earth, and converts it into heat, leading to global warming.
The greenhouse gases contribute differently to the greenhouse effect, with water vapor contributing 36-70%, carbon dioxide 9-26%, methane 4-9%, and ozone 3-7%. The greenhouse effect can be natural or man-made, with human activities leading to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. This leads to global warming, depletion of the ozone layer, smog and air pollution, and acidification of water bodies.
What type of UV light is mostly absorbed by the atmosphere?
The Sun provides the full spectrum of ultraviolet radiation, which is classified into UV-A, UV-B, and UV-C. UV-C rays are the most harmful and are almost completely absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere. UV-B rays cause sunburn and increase the risk of DNA and cellular damage in living organisms. About 95% of UV-B rays are absorbed by ozone in the Earth’s atmosphere. Scientists study astronomical objects and use different subdivisions of ultraviolet radiation, such as near ultraviolet (NUV), middle ultraviolet (MUV), far ultraviolet (FUV), and extreme ultraviolet (EUV).
NASA’s SDO spacecraft captured an image of extreme ultraviolet radiation, showing different gas temperatures. In 1801, Johann Ritter conducted an experiment to investigate the existence of energy beyond the violet end of the visible spectrum, exposing photographic paper to light beyond violet, proving the existence of ultraviolet light.
What type of electromagnetic waves can be absorbed by greenhouse gases?
Greenhouse gases, which emit radiation in all directions, contribute to the increase in Earth’s surface and atmosphere temperature. They act like a giant greenhouse, allowing sunlight to enter and warm the Earth without letting all the heat escape. Not all greenhouse gases are created equal, and some are better at absorbing infrared radiation. The amount of the gas in the atmosphere is also important, with more being more effective.
Another key feature of an effective greenhouse gas is its “lifetime”, which is the length of time it stays in the atmosphere, allowing it to continue affecting the climate system. The greenhouse effect is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires careful consideration and understanding to mitigate its negative impacts.
Do greenhouse gases absorb long or shortwave radiation?
Greenhouse gases absorb most of Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere and emits longwave radiation, some of which radiates toward the Earth’s surface. As concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, the lower atmosphere’s temperature is restricted, leading to global warming or climate change. To understand climate change, scientists must determine the drivers of changes within the Earth’s radiation budget.
NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instrument accurately measures shortwave and longwave radiation, while other NASA instruments monitor changes in other aspects of the Earth’s climate system, such as clouds, aerosol particles, and surface reflectivity.
Does CO2 absorb UV radiation?
UV radiation is a significant environmental issue, with the sun being the strongest source. Solar emissions, including visible light, heat, and UV radiation, are divided into three regions: UVA, UVB, and UVC. As sunlight passes through the atmosphere, most UVC and most UVB are absorbed by ozone, water vapor, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. UVA is not significantly filtered by the atmosphere. Ozone is a particularly effective absorber of UV radiation, but as the ozone layer thins, the protective filter activity of the atmosphere is progressively reduced, increasing exposure to higher levels of UV radiation, especially UVB.
Ozone depletion is caused by human-made chemicals released into the atmosphere, and international agreements, such as the Montreal Protocol, are gradually phasing out the production of ozone-depleting substances. However, the long life span of the chemicals already released will continue to cause problems, and a full recovery of the ozone level is not expected until 2050.
📹 What Is Light?
We are so used to some things that we stopped wondering about them. Like light. What is light? Some kind of wavy thing, right?
The whole time I was perusal this, I could only focus on how abusive these people are being towards this girl. 0:13 Glad she isn’t a guy 0:57 she was definitely set up 1:06 they made her believe that there was actual fishing wire on that rod. 1:21 thats just mean. 1:41 SOUP CANS HURT! and is that wine? 2:24 they definitely spiked her drink… 3:47 VR gone wrong 4:00 they stranded her in the desert and tried to drop things on her head. 4:44 Youtube Rewind TIME 2019! 5:30 her reminiscing the time before she got captured by TED-Ed…she was told that she is going to be beheaded the following day. Can we get some F’s in the chat? R.I.P wooden lady…
Light can be powered by thermo-nuclear fusion like we see in stars, however their are other ways to power light like nuclear fission, chemical molecular reaction, mass colliding with other forms of mass, etc., etc. Light particles/waves can move so fast because they have almost no mass, making it relatively easy for those waves/particles to move at the speed of light.
the energy comes from various places. sometimes it’s an electron jumping between orbits with the difference in energy being released as light. So if one orbit requires 3x energy to be in and then the electron drops to an orbit that requires only 1x energy, light with energy 2x is released. And it moves so fast because it is massless and everything that is massless moves at the same rate (popularly called the speed of light)
“do they convert the wave lengths that are usually out of our spectrum in order for us to see them?” Yeah, you can say that. In order to see the picture we must use visible light, yes.All you need to do is to multiply or divide the values, so you get wave lengths you can see. The cool thing here is that there’re more colors than we can experience and see. There are more colors than we know. That’s quite mind blowing, actually.
I know that there are a few other replies to this, but I think this one is better. Imagine your favorite song, and imagine you play it at 1/100 the speed. The pitch is lowered and it isn’t likely to be recognizable. But if someone in the room records it in full, and then speeds it up by 100 times, they will essentially have the original track. In the same way, if the frequency of light is too high for the eye to see, they will stretch it out until it is in the visible spectrum.
I think the idea of the article was how blind we are and how much we cannot see. If we evolved differently we could maybe see magnetic waves, gamma waves or radio waves. They say the amount of the Electromagnetic spectrum that we can see, if you extended it from New York to Los Angeles is only the size of one single golf ball. That is completely mind blowing.
I wonder why we have all kind of uses not directly related to seeing for the invisible vawe leghts, such as microvawe or radio, but we only use visible light for seeing? Why there’s no other useful characteristics for the visible light, but we have found these other uses for the wave lengths of the light we can’t even see? Haven’t we just figured them out or is there simply none? 🤔 Also, not seeing some wave legths doesn’t mean we wouldn’t see items that have these colors (we wouldn’t be blind to them)? But we should see them just as different color. For example, many animals have colors we can’t see (but these animals can), and we still see them. But the invisible wave leghts seem to not just change the color, but actually have additional information, such as internal vision to human body. The wave leghts we see are just colors, but the other wave legths seem to be “more” than just the color. I kinda don’t get that 😄
Jesus said “So it will be at the end of the age,the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous,and will throw them into the furnace of fire,in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”Matthew 13:49-50.Jesus also said “You are my friends if you do what I command you.” John 15:14. Jesus taught that the only way to be saved is to choose him as your Lord and Master, repent and believe that he died for the sins of his people on the cross see John 14:6.
Nice article, but … by definition, light IS visible. It is that part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible (to us, humans), covering wavelengths between 380 and 780 nm. There is no such thing as UV light, IR light, Röntgenlight, gamma light, radio light, .. . Use UV radiation, IR radiation, gamma radiation, radio wave radiation please.
There is a mistake in how you depicted so called Twinned rainbow (around 2.55 in the article). First, one couldn’t see two rainbows that are not concentric (yours aren’t), but even more generally, we can see such two rainbow rings only in case of ‘twinned rainbow’ – however, in this case their colors are in different order (purple to red for the inner one, but red to purple in the outer). A bit shameful too see such mistakes from TED.
You want to learn more about science? Check out our sciency products on the kurzgesagt shop – all designed with love and produced with care. Getting something from the kurzgesagt shop is the best way to support us and to keep our articles free for everyone. ►► kgs.link/science (Worldwide Shipping Available)
When you think about it, we never see things immediately, there is always postponement that depends on how much time needed for the light to touch the surface of the thing and then reflect towards your eyes, but we don’t feel this postponement because the time needed is just too short for our kind to notice it, however the longer the distance is the more noticeable it becomes, take for example the dead stars that are hundreds of millions light years away from us but we are still witnessing the light that is still travelling through the universe carrying the star’s image . It’s like perusal a livestream of match through an extremely slow internet, you are still waiting for your favourite player to make his move while the match in reality ended 10 minutes ago
I think light behaves as the wave-particle duality, because it travels outside of our observable time frame. Due to physical limitations, observers can only observe things that have already happened. By the time they detect something, it has already happened in the past. Light, on the other hand, moves so fast that it’s always at the present moment as things happen in the linear time and physical space. Basically, light will always move slightly faster than a physical observation, so it seems to exist all over the place as a wave of probabilities until it has finally been observed, at which point the light has already become a part of the past(time frame we can observe) as a particle, or an information of a fixed position of light that has been observed in this particular space-time. Looking at it that way, light perhaps exists at the borderline between matter with mass and non-matter. C, the speed of light, would most likely be the maximum frame rate of the material universe, because it exists right on the speed limit. Anything slower than light would produce mass(a fixed position in space-time which is perhaps what creates gravity), and anything faster would probably leave our linear time frame and become unobservable by direct physical means. Meaning light would appear as a wave of probabilities the moment before we detect it due to light being outside of our fixed space-time, and it would appear as a particle after we do observe it and it becomes a part of the past. But it only appears as wave-particle from our linear time perspective for both cases.
God here. When we do some maths with differential forms of Faraday’s and Ampere’s laws you’ll get an equation of a wave. from this equation we get c^2=1/u*e, where u, magnetic permeability of vacuum and e, electric permeability of vacuum so, the speed of light is a square root of the product of these two constants.
Suggestions for improvement: I suggest green be shown in the visible light spectrum I suggest if you use a cent as a reference you say ‘US cent’ if that’s what it is. However as an Australian I have no idea how big that is, so why not choose something more international? It would be worth mentioning that the retina has the ability to absorb photons – that is how we see. I’d like to see something on the properties of light but that could be a separate article 😀
Hi, thanks you for your articles, i like pretty all of them. I have to say that in this particular case i do not agree 100 % with the definition of light that is showed here. In many places light is understood as all the wavelenghts of the electromagnetic spectrum and not only the visible light. So it may cause a little confussion if someone goes and find the other definitions of light.
It’s probably really stupid question, but for example when we look at stars, we ofc see how they looked in the past. So let’s say, we travel in the direction of the star at the speed of light. So we will be perusal the star age 2 times faster, because we would receive the photons faster because we are travelling in the direction of the light source ? Sorry for my english.
“The smallest quantity of energy that can be transported” is pretty misleading. It implies an universal quantization of energy, which isn’t really an accepted notion. Frequency and wavelength are, as far as we know, continuous quantities. This means you could in principle have a photon with an arbitrarily small energy, or two photons with an arbitrarily small energy difference.
Photons experience no time, from it’s moment of creation to absorption as far as it is concerned no time has passed. This is why it’s speed is exactly C, it can’t go faster as it would experience time backwards and it can’t go slower because it would experience time forwards. So the question isn’t why is the photon going at C, because it has to, the question is why isn’t a photon allowed to experience time?
I’ve always wondered if photons actually ‘move’, or are they constantly present and they are just the medium in which em waves travel through. As for the speed limit – maybe there is a maximum amount of energy which can be at given point in space and a maximum amount of energy that can be transferred between points (photons). Real question revolves more around the photons themselves. Now time for the tin foil hat part of the comment – what if a photon is the fundamental particle of space?
One note for this regarding the “visible light spectrum”. When you “see” when a light photon strikes a cell in the eye. As I understand it, the problem is that in order to detect IR waves, the cell would have to be extremely sensitive. So sensitive, in fact, that your own body heat can trigger the cell to think it picked up a photon when it actually didn’t.
3:43 Idk if anyone has said this yet, and I’m pretty sure there is a new article explaining this but the reason that light (and all other things on the electromagnetic spectrum) can travel that fast is because light has no mass and in order for a mass to accelerate, it needs energy. So if you want to go the speed of light (and you have mass) you would need a VERY huge sorce of energy (and hope you don’t disintegrate in the process). It is also theorized that you’d need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate at the speed of light, but that’s still up to speculation in my opinion.
if you stop to think about it, the wave-particle duality thing could mean that waves and particles are actually the same thing, and that we are studying energy and how it behaves in two different moments: when its moving and when its interfacing with other energy… maybe we just dont see the bigger picture yet
how do we make light? simplest explanation for this is, we make light by (heating elements). elements has to be heated to to a point they glow. this is visible light. how do we heat and what element we heat is our choice. We measure light with temperature. even in chemical reactions heat is involved. after this ignored or intentionally missing fundamental part we can move on to other explanation. CRT doesn’t work if fully vacuumed, light bulb doesn’t work if filament is broken and fully vacuumed. i can extend this much further and deeper but it wouldn’t make difference since everyone seams to ignore this intentionally. can you please produce light any other way in full vacuum to prove that i am wrong? thank you
From what i have seen from Vsauce The reason why light is moving that fast is that the faster you move the slower the time moves in your perspective. And for light. The time doesnt move at all. But on earth we can barely experience this since the fastest speed we reached on earth was only 2000 m per second. While light reaches hundreds of millions of meters per second
Thanks this article helped, I was confused in how light is supposed to be a wave, I understand sound is a wave since it ripples through the air and any other object which then hit our ear drums, transferring those ripples. But light was a bit confusing, since I checked sources and it said that light is neither a wave, nor a particle, but I was then confused how it is supposed to be a wave.
Most likely if the answer is “it’s just build this way” is because we are unable to see beyond, maybe c is the fastet speed we can “observe” at this moment, just like before the speed of sound was the highest speed, maybe electromagnetic waves travel faster than c, it is just that we can mesaure it properly at this time.
Here’s why light or physical information transfer has a finite speed. If it had instantaneous infinite speed then the amount of energy would be same at all points for all things. There’d be no distance decay of energy or wavelength decay of light as again all be same at every point throughout space or path.
We should redefine a a meter to be equal to (one meter *(299,782,458/300,000,000)) so that the speed of light will be 300,000,000 meters per second. It wouldn’t change much so people who use the metric system wouldn’t have to adjust by much and then we’d have a nice round, easy-to-remember number for C.
If light is just one small part of the electromagnetic spectrum, all elements of which move at the same speed (the speed of light). All of which can’t be pushed or pulled by mass. Doesn’t that mean that since it has no force acting on it, it is really stationary and only appears to move because it is swept along by the expansion of spacetime? If I’m wrong please point me at the relevant info.
The most interesting part was when you said, “we don’t have a smart answer here”, because the answer we don’t have is required to answer the rest of all the questions. We have a one-legged Barstool and don’t even know which end to sit on. If you think you’ve got it figured out, have a seat and relax. I’ll bring a bucket of ice ; )
fun fact: speed of light = is not actually the speed of “light” – it’s the speed of fastest possible causality in this universe (there are other things that also travel at c) it’s limited because someone has decided that causality in this universe cannot be instant, which is a good call because if it is instant, all events in the history of the universe would have happened instantly and there would be no more universe
How do we fill a giant black hole in space called ignorance (greed) with light (love)…so that it’s darkness (misery, murder, mass shootings, suicides, war, etc.) goes away and it’s heavy gravitational pull stops sucking the joy out of life? Then life can become a celebration with joy spilling out of the smiles of everyone. Like Love (god) intended for life to be in the first place.
My favorite fun fact about light is that just how there is a multimillion year delay in when a star creates light and it reaches our eyes in a way we can look back in time. This also means if we were able to somehow travel far enough away in the universe, we could look back at Earth and see dinosaurs and wouldn’t it be neat? Of course there is also a problem. As light leaves it spreads out wider and wider. This means that you need a larger and larger lens to capture all the light which has spread. And I read somewhere that if it was possible to create a telescope lenses larger enough to capture all that spread out light, it’s mass would be so huge it would immediately collapse into a black hole. So we can only imagine it. Too bad. Still, kinda neat to think about. We could still look back in time, just not quite that far. Did you ever want to witness a specific historic event in recent history? (If by “recent” you means tens of thousands of years ago.)
Question: When scientists tried to see quarks, they smushed some visible light up so that they had smaller waves that would be able to bounce off the quark particles better. Unfortunately, the extra energy in the smushed light waves made them so strong they pushed the quarks out of the way instead of bouncing off them toward our eyes. Is this why the left hand side of the electromagnetic radiation field is harmful to humans? Do the smaller wavelengths have more energy and are stronger so push our molecules/ atoms/ whatever out of the way a little bit?
So at 2:28 you mention observing the drop of electrons from one energy level to another. You described this as being on the “microscopic” level but wouldn’t you only be able to observe that kind of thing on the subatomic level since you can’t observe said action in a microscope? No expert but it did ping for me.
When we ask “what is the fastest way for something to travel in the universe” withought specifying who is making the observation, we ask an incomplete question. Infact there are 2 questions that we can ask: 1) “what is the fastest way for something to travel in the universe from our perspective” 2) “”what is the fastest way for something to travel in the universe from its own perspective” Also, when we ask that question we never care about the passage of time… So the actual questions should be” 1 but better) “what is the fastest way for something to travel in the universe from our perspective regardless of how much time its clock shows” 2 but better) “what is the fastest way for something to travel in the universe from its own perspective regardless of how much time our clock shows” And that has 2 answers: 1) C = 1ls/s or “the speed of light” 2) Infinity = ∞ Explanation: C = 1ls/s (1 lightsecond per second) is the speed of C or the speed of causality. But it will be that number ONLY if whoever measures it, IS NOT, the one traveling at that speed! If I’m traveling at C and try to measure my speed, I won’t find it to be C! I will find it to be infinity! Because from my perspective, time doesn’t tic, therefore I can reach any distance at zero time, which MEANS, that my speed is infinite (from my perspective…). But if Im not the one doing the measurement, then my speed is indeed C = 1ls/s. So we can’t just ask, “how fast can something go in the Universe?” withought specifying who’s making the measurement.
Sooo if a long wavelength light only travels at C And a super high frequency light still travels at C Is it traveling “forward” at C or traveling at C while traveling it’s curving path? Because long wavelength (lets say 4x) light traveling X distance would basically be flying in a straight line where as light with wavelength 36,000 waves per X would have traveled farther because of all of the up and down detours it took while traveling X length… how does this work if they’re all going the same speed? Is it total distance traveled or is it always the same forward distance (never mind the extra length of detours… those don’t count)?
Foton adalah matrial yg sama seperti ruang dan waktu seperti benang tipis yg menyelimuti alam semesta itu bisa di buktikan saat cahaya menembus kaca bening tapi gelombang suara hanya menabraknya sebab gelombang suara hanya melengkungkan ruang dan merambat sampai energinya hilang sementara foton memiliki pola yg sama seperti benang ruang danbwaktu seperti pasel yg pas dengan bentuknya
In the past, the appearance of infinite values has always signalled a breakdown of our theories, rather than extreme behavior on the part of the universe. It has been a sign of lack of imagination on our part, rather than a property of nature itself. Quote by Thuan My suggestion is that the infinite values are correct, and that renormalization was a mistake. The infinities are correct. Follow that and everything starts being a unified theory not a patchwork of solutions on separate specific problems. My suggestion is that PHOTONS and ELECTRONS / POSITRONS are the same thing. They are two Versions of the same thing. Photons create electron positron pairs. Electron positron annihilate into energy, photons Let’s rephrase. Photons turn into electron positron pairs under certain conditions. Electrons and positrons turn into photons under certain conditions. Photons is the speed of light version. Positron / electron are the space time version. Furthermore the electron and positron are entangled and swich back and forth under changing conditions. Some thoughts ; Are photons created by electrons or the other way around? The movement of electrons is responsible for both the creation and destruction of the photons, and that’s the case for a lot of light production and absorption. An electron moving in a strong magnetic field will generate photons just from its acceleration.Apr 19, 2016 The fact that pair conversion is more active at higher temperatures is a clue to what could have happened at post Big Bang temperatures For an electron to quantum jump it needs a photon for energy.
The yinyang is a real principle. Thought it is not substance It is the nature of all things An eternal game of little endless cycles that oppose each other constantly. Thus a balance gives shape to everything Even your core being has these characteristics. Sadness and happiness, anger and peace, craving and contentement, life and death, male and female, newborn to child, child to teen, teen to adult, adult to elder, the air is a dance inbetween animal/fungi and plants. Name it, i don’t need to believe, i just know it. Look for it there is nothing to see, hear for it there is nothing to hear. Everything is balance.