# Visible rays under Magnetic field of the earth

1. Jun 30, 2012

Good afternoon friends,
I was wondering, "if the visible radiations coming from sun get charged say positively charged, then what will happen?"
I am sure that most of its part will not reach the ground but some.
But can we obtain the location of black zones for the radiation?
Is it possible to say that the radiation will never reach the pole or the equator ?

2. Jun 30, 2012

### Matterwave

You can't charge photons, they are neutral particles.

3. Jun 30, 2012

Yes I know that.

4. Jun 30, 2012

### Staff: Mentor

It is pointless to discuss charged photons, unless you present a physical model where those particles exist (do not forget to publish it first).
However, the earth could not exist in its current shape if photons would be charged.

Charged, massive particles get deflected by the magnetic field of the earth, and do not reach the surface unless they have a very high energy. Near the poles, some particles can reach the upper atmosphere and produce aurorae.

5. Jul 1, 2012

Ok If I talk about the cosmic rays. There is 89% protons exist in cosmic radiation.

6. Jul 1, 2012

### Staff: Mentor

High-energetic cosmic radiation does not care about the magnetic field of the earth - sure it is influenced by this, but the effect is negligible if the energy is high enough.

For low-energetic particles, see above.

7. Jul 1, 2012

If I say the lower energy particles enter the earth's magnetic field and now they require more kinetic energy to reach at the poles then equator then how much this statement is true?

8. Jul 1, 2012

### Staff: Mentor

It is wrong, and in fact the opposite effect is true. This is the reason why aurorae happen close to the poles. There, particles can move along the magnetic fields and reach the atmosphere. Close to the equator, they hit the field perpendicular and get deflected.

9. Jul 1, 2012

But somewhere I were reading some book that it'll require more K.E. to reach at the equator then poles. That's why I am pretty confuse in that.

10. Jul 2, 2012

### Staff: Mentor

This is in agreement with my previous posts, and different from your other posts.
Where does the confusion come from?

11. Jul 3, 2012