Is it possible to create light?

  • Thread starter fredreload
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Light
In summary: Yes, it is possible to create light with an electric field and magnetic field, as light is a type of electromagnetic radiation. This can be done using an antenna and a radio transmitter, which are commonly found in cell phones and Wi-Fi communication. However, generating visible light directly through oscillating electric fields is currently not possible. Recent research has shown progress in creating visible light rectennas, which could potentially improve photovoltaic efficiency. Despite the slowing down of light to 38mph using laser cooling, there is no change in its fundamental properties. The speed of light, often referred to as "c", is a constant of nature and is not dependent on the medium it travels through. Additionally, it is not possible to have the frame of reference
  • #1
fredreload
250
6
Is it possible to create light with electric field and magnetic field since light is a type of electromagnetic radiation?

P.S. With laser cooling you can slow down light to 38MPH.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #2
fredreload said:
Is it possible to create light with electric field and magnetic field since light is a type of electromagnetic radiation?
Yes it is. In fact, you might have posted the message above by creating light. All you need is an antenna and a radio transmitter (both commonly used in your cell phone's Wi-fi communication): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_(radio)

If you mean visible light, we don't yet (as far as I'm aware) have a good way of directly generating oscillating electric fields at that frequency.
 
  • #3
TeethWhitener said:
If you mean visible light, we don't yet (as far as I'm aware) have a good way of directly generating oscillating electric fields at that frequency.

https://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/en/sonstiges/meldungen/detail/artikel/die-erste-elektrisch-betriebene-lichtantenne-der-welt/
 
  • Like
Likes puf_the_majic_dragon, QuantumPion, phinds and 3 others
  • #4
Well whaddaya know? Neat.
 
  • #5
DrStupid said:
https://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/en/sonstiges/meldungen/detail/artikel/die-erste-elektrisch-betriebene-lichtantenne-der-welt/
Very cool. Now if we can just turn that around into visible light rectennas, we might have the next step in photovoltaic efficiency improvement... :smile:
 
  • #8
berkeman said:
I wonder how efficient the conversion was.

0,00005 %
 
  • #9
DrStupid said:
0,00005 %
Ouch! Okay, you just saved me $36... :smile:
 
  • #10
I was thinking by passing light through electric field or magnetic field the wavelength might change, since they are made from these two components, but I can't seem to find any source on it on Google. Now that we've slowed down light to 38mph, is there a change in relativity sense of light? I've heard that someone mentioned this concept can be used for data storage but I haven't really looked into it.
 
  • Like
Likes universe1111
  • #11
fredreload said:
Now that we've slowed down light to 38mph, is there a change in relativity sense of light?
Nothing has changed about the properties of light. It still travels at c in a vacuum and at lower speeds in other materials.
 
  • Like
Likes universe1111
  • #12
How about this formula? Just speculating, well I thought it is interesting to put 38^2 in the formula.
 
  • #13
You should not think of "c" in most relativity-related formulas fundamentally as the "speed of light (in a vacuum)", but rather as the "universal speed limit" or "universal invariant speed". Light happens to travel at that speed because it's associated with massless particles. Other massless particles also travel at that speed. If photons had mass, light (in a vacuum) wouldn't travel at speed c.
 
  • #14
fredreload said:
How about this formula? Just speculating, well I thought it is interesting to put 38^2 in the formula.

Interesting but meaningless, as the ##c## in that equation is the speed of light in vacuum, not a medium.

However, it's mostly for historical reasons that we say "##c## is the speed of light". ##c## is a constant of nature in its own right, and if it ever turned out that light in a vacuum did not move at ##c## (which is not going to happen) we wouldn't say that we were wrong about the value of ##c##, we'd say that we wrong about the behavior of light.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
How about this one? If I am a photon (it doesn't need to be in a vacuum right?) I would see that any distance I want to travel to is close to zero (if I remember what was taught in high school Physics). Then suddenly I am slowed down to 38mph and an entire universe appeared. Now this doesn't mean you need to be in an Einstein-Bose condensate to feel this? Then again why do I need to create more distance for myself by putting myself inside an Einstein-Bose condensate.
 
  • #16
fredreload said:
How about this one? If I am a photon (it doesn't need to be in a vacuum right?) I would see that any distance I want to travel to is close to zero (if I remember what was taught in high school Physics). Then suddenly I am slowed down to 38mph and an entire universe appeared. Now this doesn't mean you need to be in an Einstein-Bose condensate to feel this?
There is no such thing as the frame of reference of a photon so your question is not meaningful.
 
  • #17
Well, there is a frame of reference for an object close to the speed of light right? Is having a mass a requirement?

Credit:
 
  • #18
There is a series of severe misunderstanding here that should have been corrected.

First of all, one needs to clearly understand what is meant by "the speed of light" that the OP is referring to, and this is especially the case when we are talking about the speed of light in a medium. This is the group velocity of light! That is what being slowed down in a medium.

Secondly, light has been slowed down, but has been slowed down to ZERO m/s. This means that it has been stopped, held for some time, and then "replayed" back (this is different than light being absorbed completely by an opaque object).

Thirdly, an antenna generating EM radiation is the same as having a bunch of charge, such as a bunch of electrons, being jiggle up and down (or left and right, etc.). This is similar to what is being done in the numerous synchrotron light sources all over the world, and in the many FEL facilities around the world. Most of the light being generated (including, in principle, visible, UV, IR, etc.) are bunches of electrons passing through an insertion device such as a wiggler or undulator that causes the passing bunches to jiggle back and forth, just like what you do in an antenna due to the moving current.

Zz.
 
  • #19
fredreload said:
Well, there is a frame of reference for an object close to the speed of light right?
Yes there is. What does that have to do with the current discussion?

Is having a mass a requirement?
A requirement for what? Having a frame of reference? Then, yes, in that massless objects travel at c and have no frame of reference.
 
  • #20
Well, here's a discussion about Photon's frame of reference. So I suppose I'll just leave it at laser cooling, sorry about that. How about anything at high temperature? Anyone got a video on that?
 
  • #21
fredreload said:
Well, here's a discussion about Photon's frame of reference.

That discussion simply re-enforced the idea that such a reference frame doesn't exist in Relativity (look at the postulates of Special Relativity). You need to understand that first and foremost before attempting to use anything from Relativity. Otherwise, you'll be using it in places where it wasn't meant to be used.

Zz.
 
  • #22
Well yes, that's why I left my idea at laser cooling and laser cooling is done before. And now I want some information about atom at super high temperature.
 
  • #23
fredreload said:
Well yes, that's why I left my idea at laser cooling and laser cooling is done before. And now I want some information about atom at super high temperature.

That's super vague. Atoms at "super high temperatures" are no longer atoms. They could be a plasma!

Zz.
 
  • #24
Cool, I'll look into it!
 
  • #25
fredreload said:
Well, here's a discussion about Photon's frame of reference.
No, this quickly became (after the misleading title) a thread about the fact that a photon does not HAVE a frame of reference.
 
  • #26
Hmm, it seems light can be condensed in the same way.
 
  • #27
The most obvious source for light is an atom in an excited state and the emission of a photon as the excited state. The emission of energy as a photon by the excited electron as it changes state is the result of the interaction of the excited atom with the electromagnetic vacuum field. See Weisskopf-Wigner QED theory of spontaneous emission or Quantum Optics, Scully and Zubiary,pp23- (https://books.google.com.au/books?i...en#v=onepage&q=atom transition photon&f=false) should give you a link to the eBook.
 
  • #28
DaveC49 said:
The most obvious source for light is an atom in an excited state and the emission of a photon as the excited state. The emission of energy as a photon by the excited electron as it changes state is the result of the interaction of the excited atom with the electromagnetic vacuum field. See Weisskopf-Wigner QED theory of spontaneous emission or Quantum Optics, Scully and Zubiary,pp23- (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=20ISsQCKKmQC&pg=PA430&dq=atom+transition+photon&hl=en#v=onepage&q=atom transition photon&f=false) should give you a link to the eBook.

I'm not sure by what you mean as "the most obvious source for light". For most people, the most obvious source is the old incandescent light bulb. This is definitely not a source that is due to atomic transition (look at the spectrum from such a source). One may make an argument that the fluorescent light bulbs may be such a source, but now with LEDs starting to be more prevalent, we are again moving away from sources involving atomic transitions.

Zz.
 
  • #29
In the case of an incandescent filament, the emission is black-body radiation which in Einsteins explanation of blackbody emission is as the result of excitation and relaxation of a set of discrete energy states in the surface of the metal. These are transitions of electrons associated with the conduction band of the metal and the electrons in the conduction band have a distribution of energies given by the Bose-Einstein distribution. It is still an atomic transition not from a single isolated atom but from an ensemble of atoms in such close proximity that their outer electron shells overlap to form a band of energy states.
 
  • #30
DaveC49 said:
Ithe electrons in the conduction band have a distribution of energies given by the Bose-Einstein distribution.
You mean Fermi-Dirac, right?
 
  • #31
DaveC49 said:
In the case of an incandescent filament, the emission is black-body radiation which in Einsteins explanation of blackbody emission is as the result of excitation and relaxation of a set of discrete energy states in the surface of the metal. These are transitions of electrons associated with the conduction band of the metal and the electrons in the conduction band have a distribution of energies given by the Bose-Einstein distribution. It is still an atomic transition not from a single isolated atom but from an ensemble of atoms in such close proximity that their outer electron shells overlap to form a band of energy states.

This is not right. To be able to make a transition to produce light emission, it cannot be in intraband transition. Otherwise, you violate conservation laws.

Incandescent light bulb has vibrational states transitions. You cannot call it "atomic states" anymore than you can call metallic bands as atomic states. It is why atomic/molecular physics is different than solid state/condensed matter physics.

Zz.
 
  • #32
@Dr Claude Agree. The original explanation by Einstein was in terms of Bose Einstein statistics, but when Dirac developed the quantum mechanical treatment of electrons as fermions where the electrons cannot occupy exactly the same energy state. This of course is what creates the band of states known as the conduction band in metals.
@ZapperZ I have to admit to not knowing the exact mechanism involved. As the filament is at a high temperature, I would guess that phonon (lattice vibration) interactions are producing vacancies in the atomic states which are localised on each atom and that these vacancies are in turn filled by transitions from the conduction band states which are not localised on an ndividualatom which result in the emission of light. As the conduction band states have a Fermi-Dirac distribution of states as a function of energy, the resulting emission spectrum has a correponding energy-frequency-wavelength distribution. I am trying to check this out further. You're right in that any transitions must obey the selection rules which are essentially conservation rules ( energy, angular momentum(spin and orbital)).
 
  • #33
Again this is incorrect.

If you have solved the simplest 1D chain that is a standard exercise in any undergraduate solid state class, you would have seen two types of phonon modes: acoustic and optical. The optical mode has a vibration similar to the electric dipole oscillation. In other words, this mode is optically active. It can absorb and it can emit photons.

This is not an atomic transition.

Zz.
 
  • #34
ZapperZ said:
If you have solved the simplest 1D chain that is a standard exercise in any undergraduate solid state class, you would have seen two types of phonon modes: acoustic and optical.
This is, strictly speaking, incorrect. Acoustic phonon modes are inter-unit cell motions, while optical modes are intra-unit cell motions. A system with only one atom per unit cell necessarily has only inter-unit cell modes, so it's all acoustic phonons by definition.
ZapperZ said:
The optical mode has a vibration similar to the electric dipole oscillation. In other words, this mode is optically active. It can absorb and it can emit photons.
If optical modes were the important ones in blackbody emission, then the blackbody spectrum would be 1) discrete, and 2) material-dependent. Instead, what we observe is that blackbody radiation is (to a good approximation) material-independent and continuous across the entire frequency range, meaning that once something is heated to roughly 800K, it'll glow dull red no matter what it's made of. This tells us that the emission is incoherent (there's a roughly continuous distribution of emitting modes), which means that the important modes for blackbody radiation are typically acoustic phonons (because their spectrum is continuous to a good approximation, especially at lower energies). Basically, in order for Rayleigh-Jeans to hold at low temps, you need a spectrum that has a roughly continuous density of states all the way down to zero energy. Acoustic modes fulfill this role rather elegantly.

EDIT: The above is true at low temperatures. Obviously, once temps start to get much higher, you do see optical modes, and eventually atomic transitions, being excited. But for blackbody radiation at more mundane temperatures, the continuous spectrum of the acoustic modes puts out the most power.
 
  • #35
I didn't specify the configuration of the 1D chain. I stated it in general to illustrate that there are 2 distinct modes that are possible.

Why would the optical mode be discrete at low temperatures? The phonon dispersion is continuous. You can see this when you do a UV-VIS measurement. You do not get a discrete spectrum.

Zz.
 
<h2>1. Can light be created from scratch?</h2><p>Yes, it is possible to create light from scratch using various methods such as electric discharge, chemical reactions, and nuclear reactions.</p><h2>2. Is it possible to create light without heat?</h2><p>Yes, it is possible to create light without heat through a process called luminescence, where light is produced by a substance without the need for high temperatures.</p><h2>3. Can light be created in a vacuum?</h2><p>Yes, light can be created in a vacuum through the use of lasers, which can produce light without the need for a medium.</p><h2>4. Is it possible to create light that is brighter than the sun?</h2><p>Yes, it is possible to create light that is brighter than the sun using powerful lasers or nuclear reactions, but it is not currently feasible on a large scale.</p><h2>5. Can light be created without electricity?</h2><p>Yes, light can be created without electricity through chemical reactions, such as in glow sticks or fireflies, or through biological processes, such as bioluminescence in certain organisms.</p>

1. Can light be created from scratch?

Yes, it is possible to create light from scratch using various methods such as electric discharge, chemical reactions, and nuclear reactions.

2. Is it possible to create light without heat?

Yes, it is possible to create light without heat through a process called luminescence, where light is produced by a substance without the need for high temperatures.

3. Can light be created in a vacuum?

Yes, light can be created in a vacuum through the use of lasers, which can produce light without the need for a medium.

4. Is it possible to create light that is brighter than the sun?

Yes, it is possible to create light that is brighter than the sun using powerful lasers or nuclear reactions, but it is not currently feasible on a large scale.

5. Can light be created without electricity?

Yes, light can be created without electricity through chemical reactions, such as in glow sticks or fireflies, or through biological processes, such as bioluminescence in certain organisms.

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
41
Views
2K
  • Optics
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
11K
Replies
3
Views
969
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top