Spontaneous Energy Loss in Light

[Les Sleeth]

I have a question I hope someone can help me with. Does light ever spontaneously lose energy? What I mean is, would, say, an infrared wave be traveling along and suddenly shift to microwave radiation, and maybe later to a radio wave, without any outside influences having affected it? If external influences do cause EM to lose energy, what natural circumstances would do that?

Thanks in advance for anyone's help.

 

[Alexander]

I never heard about LOSS of energy (=frequency) by a photon.

 

[anil]

Loss of energy?

Light can loose energy but it depends on the medium. Wave spontaneously doesn't loose or gain energy. If that's the case we would have radiowaves from X ray machines and Gamma rays from radio stations. Only time photons loose energy is when they collide with a particle

 

[Les Sleeth]

So I might assume then, that if the universe were to expand eternally, any light that's ever been emitted and not colliding with a particle will continue forever at the same frequency?

 

[anil]

Yeah and No! most likely

Remember tired light theory. The wavelengths of the all photons lost energy through interactions with matter en route to earth. This means that almost all photons that interact with Earth must have atleast once collided with a matter or even a particle. So it's extremely rear you find a photon not collide with a matter continuing at their original frequency. I believe you will never find a photon not come in contact with matter ever since they have been emmited. If at all a photon never comes in contact with matter it should continue to move in the same frequency that they have been emitted. But let's wait till astrophysicists tell their ideas. Matter of fact Universe is expanding and galaxies are moving farther away from each other.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
So I might assume then, that if the universe were to expand eternally, any light that's ever been emitted and not colliding with a particle will continue forever at the same frequency?

Compared to the Universe as a whole - yes.
BUT, to us, being inside the Universe, the
frequency of EM waves decreases due to the
Universal expansion. An example is the Cosmic
Microwave Background Radiation. Shortly
after the BB the CMBR was EXTREMELY energetic
but then as the Universe expanded the frequency
and hence energy of these waves decreased until
it reached its current microwave frequency
spectral range (and it will keep decreasing).

Live long and prosper.

 

[anil]

drag: really?

So you are saying as the universe expands the frequency decreases?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by anil
Remember tired light theory. The wavelengths of the all photons lost energy through interactions with matter en route to earth. This means that almost all photons that interact with Earth must have atleast once collided with a matter or even a particle.

Not true. It simply means that you are in moving differently than the source reference system (Doppler effect as a mathematical coordinate transformation result).

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth

I was thinking about that because I wonder if there are lower states of energy possible for light than that of a radio wave, and if so, what might light be like in its absolute lowest state of energy.

Obviously only speculation is possible about most of that, but I thought if light had ever been observed spontaneously dropping to a lower energy state, that might be clue. [/B]

Lower than radiowave state is still radiowave (just with lower frequency: 1000000 Hz, 60 Hz, 0.00001 Hz). No additional speculations needed.

 

[anil]

Oh...ok!

So in reality a photons cannot loose all of it's energy?

 

[Integral]

Photons exist due the change in energy created when an electron changes orbitals. Likewise all photons cease to exist when they induse the reverse transition within an atom. Thus photons are pure energy, they are our conceputalization of how atoms exchange energy, this is the case for all photons. So do not attempt to consider photons without some understanding of the nature of atoms.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by anil
So in reality a photons cannot loose all of it's energy?

Nope. Energy concerves.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Integral
So do not attempt to consider photons without some understanding of the nature of atoms.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Integral
So do not attempt to consider photons without some understanding of the nature of atoms.

I don't think all that is necessary. Sure, atomic transitions emit light, but that is not the only source. There is also Brehmssrahlung, which is readily understandable without the gory details of atomic physics.

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by anil
So you are saying as the universe expands the frequency decreases?

Anil, this is true.

this post of yours did not get a response in the thread.
You were replying to what Drag said about some very old light that has declined in frequency and quantum energy over the years:

Drag said:
[[...the
frequency of EM waves decreases due to the
Universal expansion. An example is the Cosmic
Microwave Background Radiation. Shortly
after the BB the CMBR was EXTREMELY energetic
but then as the Universe expanded the frequency
and hence energy of these waves decreased until
it reached its current microwave frequency
spectral range (and it will keep decreasing).]]

So you said "does the frequency really decrease as space
expands" and yes indeed it does. The frequencies in the
CMBR have declined by a factor of 1000.

Space stretching out makes their wavelengths longer and
that lowers their frequency by the same factor. Space
has expanded by a factor of 1000 since those photons were emitted
and so their wavelengths are 1000 times longer and
their frequencies correspondingly lower.

That light which drag was talking about is believed to be
almost as old as the universe----having been emitted only
some 300 thousand years into its history.

interesting stuff, i think

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by anil
So in reality a photons cannot loose all of it's energy?

Maybe not all, without being absorbed, but a photon can lose 999/1000 of its energy and there are
trillions of photons in the space around us which have already done that----Cosmic Microwave Background photons.

Someone already replied to this post, but in a misleading way, suggesting that a photon can NOT lose any energy because
of something called "energy conservation" but this is untrue.
They CAN lose nearly all their energy.

In principle one can lose everything but a tiny remnant like a millionth of its energy. Or even all but a billionth. This is simply with the expansion of space---not by interacting or being absorbed by anything.

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by Integral
Photons exist due the change in energy created when an electron changes orbitals. Likewise all photons cease to exist when they induse the reverse transition within an atom. Thus photons are pure energy, they are our conceputalization of how atoms exchange energy, this is the case for all photons. So do not attempt to consider photons without some understanding of the nature of atoms.

Radiowaves are a form of light which is made by antennas.

Shall I not attempt to consider photons unless I have made a study of antennas?

X-rays and radiowaves are forms of light. X-rays are not made by orbital-change in atoms but by a beam of electrons hitting the wall and having to stop abruptly.

I think I must understand abrupt stopping before I try to understand light.

It seems that light has something to do with the acceleration and deceleration of charge---electrons in particular.

Changes in momentum---maybe there are changes in momentum inside atoms when they emit and absorb light.

Might be understandable in a general way without studying atoms specifically.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by marcus
The frequencies in the CMBR have declined by a factor of 1000. Space stretching out makes their wavelengths longer and
that lowers their frequency by the same factor. Space
has expanded by a factor of 1000 since those photons were emitted and so their wavelengths are 1000 times longer and
their frequencies correspondingly lower. . . . interesting stuff, i think

Is this true? I'm unfamiliar with it . . . . could you recommend something I might read to get up to speed about it? I agree, interesting stuff, to me anyway.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Tom
There is also Brehmssrahlung, which is readily understandable without the gory details of atomic physics.

Brehmssrahlung? . . . I'll do a Google search and read up on it.

EDIT: No hits at Google . . . is that the correct spelling?

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by marcus
So you said "does the frequency really decrease as space
expands" and yes indeed it does. The frequencies in the
CMBR have declined by a factor of 1000.

Space stretching out makes their wavelengths longer and
that lowers their frequency by the same factor. Space
has expanded by a factor of 1000 since those photons were emitted
and so their wavelengths are 1000 times longer and
their frequencies correspondingly lower.

Wait, just only 1000 times?? 13billion lightyears radius that was once singularity, expanded just 1000 times?
And, if even photon looses energy due to expansion, then anything should loose energy to expansion. Or, even, which is first, expansion causing loss of energy, or loss (dissipation) of energy causing expansion?

LW, google for bremsstrahlung

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by marcus
Maybe not all, without being absorbed, but a photon can lose 999/1000 of its energy and there are
trillions of photons in the space around us which have already done that----Cosmic Microwave Background photons.

Someone already replied to this post, but in a misleading way, suggesting that a photon can NOT lose any energy because
of something called "energy conservation" but this is untrue.
They CAN lose nearly all their energy.

In principle one can lose everything but a tiny remnant like a millionth of its energy. Or even all but a billionth. This is simply with the expansion of space---not by interacting or being absorbed by anything.

Incorrect. Light can not lose its energy without interaction with something. Energy and momentum must conserve.

I think, Marcus misunderstands how energy transforms from one reference system to another (coordinate transformation results in what we label as Doppler shift).

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by Alexander
Incorrect. Light can not lose its energy without interaction with something. Energy and momentum must conserve.

I think, Marcus misunderstands how energy transforms from one reference system to another (coordinate transformation results in what we label as Doppler shift).

Heh heh
The cosmological redshift is not a Doppler shift
I am pretty sure you misunderstand from the things you keep
saying.

The "coordinate transformation" you refer to is probably
a Lorentz transformation.

The "Doppler shift" formula resulting from that is

1+z = sqrt [(1+beta)/(1-beta)]

This is correct in the context of Special Relativity---as the doppler shift resulting from relative radial velocity beta.

But you would be laughed at on Usenet for suggesting that formula be applied to the cosmological redshift.

You might like to read some threads on sci.physics.research about this very misconception---a lot of people have it including, apparently, yourself. A google search should do it for you.

In fact, why don't you go on use net and argue that this is the appropriate formula to use for the redshift? Treat yourself to a real argument.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by marcus

X-rays and radiowaves are forms of light. X-rays are not made by orbital-change in atoms but by a beam of electrons hitting the wall and having to stop abruptly.

Not correct. X-rays which are used to study crystal structure ARE made by orbital change (see Mozely law). They call them K, L, M... lines. Very bright lines, by the way. They are orbital transitions of electron between inner shells. Electron states in inner shells of heavy atoms are way deep in Coulomb potential of almost unscreened (by outer electrons) strong charge of nucleus, thus their energy states are no longer in few eV but often in few KeV range. Photons originated in such orbital transitions thus also have energies in KeV range, thus we label them "x-rays".

Also, when electron beam is hitting a "brick wall" it does not stop abruptly. Instead, electron wanter in Coulomb fields of other electrons and nucleii around and begin to chenge its original direction of propagation and magnitude of its velocity (kind of randomly wandering and wiggling around). The varying electric field (between this electron and surrounding electrons and nuclei) is what we call "e/m radiation" - in the case of fast moving in the brick wall electron the electric field changes so rapidly that we call this it "x-rays".

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by marcus


But you would be laughed at on Usenet for suggesting that formula be applied to the cosmological redshift.

You might like to read some threads on sci.physics.research about this very misconception---a lot of people have it including, apparently, yourself. A google search should do it for you.

In fact, why don't you go on use net and argue that this is the appropriate formula to use for the redshift? Treat yourself to a real argument.

Markus, I think your "losing energy light" hypothesis is layman crackpottery laughted at: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

My advice - start reading good textbooks. And not just reading, (and cutting and pasting). Do homework exercises - they help way way better than just reading.

Heh heh heh...

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by Alexander
Markus, I think your "losing energy light" hypothesis is layman crackpottery laughted at: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

My advice - start reading good textbooks. And not just reading, (and cutting and pasting). Do homework exercises - they help way way better than just reading.

Heh heh heh...

You sound as if you have completely missed the point.

If you believe in the "tired light" hypothesis and that
"tired light" explains the cosmological redshift, then it
is hopeless. Cant have a reasonable discussion.

Likewise if you believe it is a Doppler redshift.

Sorry but must cut off discussion. Bye.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by wimms
LW, google for bremsstrahlung

Thanks . . . found it.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Interesting.

So do you say photons do not lose energy due to the universe's expansion? If so, is the low energy state of CBMR due only to it having collided with so many particles during its long journey?

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Interesting.

So do you say photons do not lose energy due to the universe's expansion? If so, is the low energy state of CBMR due only to it having collided with so many particles during its long journey?

Sleeth, Alexander's "tired light" idea is totally wacko!
Do not listen to him. He only seems to want to argue and
believe himself to be right.

Indeed the loss in energy in the CMBR is due to the expansion of the universe---best seen as having stretched out the wavelengths of CMB photons. There is a very broad consensus among cosmologists about this.

The "tired light" people must be a very small minority indeed, one never hears from them directly but only indirectly through references to the idea

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Is this true? I'm unfamiliar with it . . . . could you recommend something I might read to get up to speed about it? I agree, interesting stuff, to me anyway.

Hello Sleeth,
sorry I just noticed your reply to an earlier post of mine
I had said:

[[The frequencies in the CMBR have declined by a factor of 1000. Space stretching out makes their wavelengths longer and
that lowers their frequency by the same factor. Space
has expanded by a factor of 1000 since those photons were emitted and so their wavelengths are 1000 times longer and
their frequencies correspondingly lower. . . . interesting stuff, i think]]

And you replied to that, asking for a reference.
Ned Wright's tutorial and cosmology FAQ are the easiest places to begin, probably.

The 1000 figure (sometimes given more precisely as 1100) is the factor by which the universe has expanded since the event called "recombination" or "last scattering" which is ordinarily dated as being 300 thousand years after the beginning.

Let's say 1100 instead of 1000.

This is the same as 1+z where z is the redshift.
1+z is the ratio by which wavelengths have been stretched out and so it is the same as the factor by which space has expanded.

I have to go for the moment but will get back to this. Glad you asked. Perhaps I can find a link for you to something online.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by marcus
Sleeth, Alexander's "tired light" idea is totally wacko!
Do not listen to him. He only seems to want to argue and
believe himself to be right.

Indeed the loss in energy in the CMBR is due to the expansion of the universe---best seen as having stretched out the wavelengths of CMB photons. There is a very broad consensus among cosmologists about this.

The "tired light" people must be a very small minority indeed, one never hears from them directly but only indirectly through references to the idea

I am a little confused I think. The article Alexander referred to reasons against the tired light theory. It says:

"Tired light models invoke a gradual energy loss by photons as they travel through the cosmos to produce the redshift-distance law. This has three main problems:

* There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work.
* The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves. This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1
* The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences. The local Universe is transparent and has a wide range of temperatures, so it does not produce a blackbody, which requires an isothermal absorbing situation. So the CMB must have come from a far away part of the Universe, and its photons will thus lose energy by the tired light effect. The plot below shows what happens if the CMB comes from z = 0.1. "

So from what Alexander is saying, it seems he disagrees with it too. Are you advocating it or disagreeing with it? Or are you saying the tired light issue has nothing to do with CMBR and the loss of energy by photons due to expansion?