Where do photons originate in a vacuum filament?

[Byron Forbes]

Filament in a vacuum

Take a quick look at this!

Now, can the glow be explained in any other way than concluding that photons are being emitted from somewhere other than directly from the filament? i.e. is it not obvious that photons are being emitted from points of origin other than the filament itself (from off to the side?).

Is it an imperfect vacuum and thus there is some reflection from low density air? Is that really possible? I think not.

Something to do with the glass bowl? Again, I think not.

 

[Ibix]

Looks cool. The glow is coming from evaporating tungsten, would be my guess. I gather that's one reason why they usually fill bulbs with inert gas, because it retards evaporation compared to vacuum operation. Whatever it is, you can see it being blown around in the slow-mo when he let's air back in.

Don't know why this is in Relativity. You're more likely to get authoritative answers in one of the engineering forums. I'll suggest it be moved.

 

[Dale]

Summary:: Photons from a filament?

Filament in a vacuum

Take a quick look at this!

Now, can the glow be explained in any other way than concluding that photons are being emitted from somewhere other than directly from the filament? i.e. is it not obvious that photons are being emitted from points of origin other than the filament itself (from off to the side?).

Is it an imperfect vacuum and thus there is some reflection from low density air? Is that really possible? I think not.

Something to do with the glass bowl? Again, I think not.

It is very clearly not a vacuum. When the broken bulb is turned on you can immediately see a vapor of material fill the bowl. I presume that the material is mostly ablated tungsten, but it could be some powder or coating from the inside of the original bulb that got on the filament. In any case, it is clearly no longer vacuum so I suspect most of the light is scattering and some incandescent vapor particles. Plus there is likely some glare on the lens and in the camera.

 

[Byron Forbes]

Don't know why this is in Relativity. You're more likely to get authoritative answers in one of the engineering forums. I'll suggest it be moved.

It is in this section because if photons are emitted from anywhere other than the filament then contemporary science cannot explain it. It would be the end of Relativity and evidence that the photons are longitudinal pulses, the product of the magnetic field pulses around the filament rather than emissions from electrons within the filament.

And are you suggesting you haven't seen this in other bulbs? Can all this "glow" really be explained by evaporation or reflections? I put a huge ? over that!

 

[Ibix]

contemporary science cannot explain it.

Hot gas is a well known source of light.

 

[Byron Forbes]

It is very clearly not a vacuum. When the broken bulb is turned on you can immediately see a vapor of material fill the bowl. I presume that the material is mostly ablated tungsten, but it could be some powder or coating from the inside of the original bulb that got on the filament. In any case, it is clearly no longer vacuum so I suspect most of the light is scattering and some incandescent vapor particles. Plus there is likely some glare on the lens and in the camera.

If you look at the video from 47-57 sec, it is a very stable glow. If this was vapour you'd think it would look a bit more vapoury i.e dynamic. :) The pump is still going also - shouldn't that vapour be pretty much sucked straight out of the bowl?

Do you really think every photon in that video, or any other glow you've ever seen about a filament, can be entirely accounted for by ablation and/or reflection?

 

[FactChecker]

It is obviously not acting the same as a normal lightbulb, which lasts a million times longer without burning out. The vacuum is not total and it is burning in the remaining air.

 

[kuruman]

I used to do a classroom demonstration that was similar to the one shown in the video but with a twist. Instead of placing the filament in a jar which was evacuated, I placed it under liquid nitrogen and turned the juice on. The filament glowed happily as long as it was submerged although the LN₂ (understandably) boiled more rapidly. Specifically, the outline of the filament was well defined without the diffuse glow seen in this video. It looked like the wires in a toaster only brighter. I would agree with @Dale that it has something to do with residual air or the way the video was recorded.

 

[Dale]

If you look at the video from 47-57 sec, it is a very stable glow. If this was vapour you'd think it would look a bit more vapoury i.e dynamic.

I disagree. He is almost certainly exceeding the dynamic range of the pixels. I would expect it to be completely uniform and maxed out, but that cannot be confirmed without the original data.

The pump is still going also - shouldn't that vapour be pretty much sucked straight out of the bowl?

Good point. That indicates that ablated tungsten is more likely than powder. Tungsten would continue to ablate, whereas any powder or coating would burn off.

Do you really think every photon in that video, or any other glow you've ever seen about a filament, can be entirely accounted for by ablation and/or reflection?

No. I also think there is substantial glare. There may also be other sources that I haven’t considered.

Why? What other mechanism comes to your mind?

 

[Ibix]

Why? What other mechanism comes to your mind?

Post #4, I would imagine. Not that it makes any sense.

 

[Byron Forbes]

No. I also think there is substantial glare. There may also be other sources that I haven’t considered.

Why? What other mechanism comes to your mind?

I was suggesting it might be evidence of photons being created outside of the filament by the magnet field. This in turn might suggest a longitudinal wave in the luminiferous aether. A luminiferous aether that is comprised of particles that are a magnetic analogue of electric matter.

Ignorantly enough, I somehow overlooked evaporation of the filament that clearly goes a long way to explaining such observations. But does it go all the way?

And now that I think on an experiment along these lines, it is no doubt impossible to find any material that could be heated to a point where it might glow but wouldn't evaporate, so this looks like a dead end as far as trying to show any photon emission from a point of origin other than the filament.

 

[Dale]

I was suggesting it might be evidence of photons being created outside of the filament by the magnet field. This in turn might suggest a longitudinal wave in the luminiferous aether. A luminiferous aether that is comprised of particles that are a magnetic analogue of electric matter.

So there is a scientific adage that says “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. So for a theory like what you describe, a you tube video of something glowing would never reach that threshold.

It would require a really carefully controlled experiment and a similarly careful quantitative derivation which showed that the experimental results are quantitatively incompatible with relativity but explained by this alternative theory.

FYI, there has recently been somewhat of a renaissance of experimental tests of relativity. Some candidates of quantum gravity violate relativity in specific ways. These are exquisitely careful experiments with solid theoretical analysis and motivation. So far they have all simply confirmed relativity to even higher precision.

What you seem to want to do is extraordinarily difficult, and is being attempted but unsuccessfully to date. It will not happen on YouTube

 

[phinds]

A luminiferous aether that is comprised of particles that are a magnetic analogue of electric matter.

Uh ... seriously ?

 

[FactChecker]

It depends on the surrounding environment. The filament certainly provides the energy, but anything that receives that energy can also respond by emitting light. In the case of that video, I think that the filament is burning in the remaining air. That is a chemical reaction that is an entirely different process from the normal lightbulb.

 

[weirdoguy]

This in turn might suggest a longitudinal wave in the luminiferous aether. A luminiferous aether that is comprised of particles that are a magnetic analogue of electric matter.

Instead of searching for things that "violate" relativity, I would recommend learning it first. Alongside with some electrodynamics and quantum mechanics to understand what photon is (not).

 

[Byron Forbes]

Uh ... seriously ?

Uh...yeah!

 

[Byron Forbes]

Instead of searching for things that "violate" relativity, I would recommend learning it first. Alongside with some electrodynamics and quantum mechanics to understand what photon is (not).

Photons are easy - a piece of energy traveling through the magnetic aether.

Is everyone here disciples of the 2nd postulate are they?

 

[Dale]

With that I think we will close the thread. The reason physicists accept relativity is because of the overwhelming experimental evidence. It has met and surpassed the “extraordinary evidence” requirement I mentioned above. Here is my favorite summary.

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_the_poR

Please note, this forum requires that all posts be consistent with the professional scientific literature. If you wish to argue a violation of relativity on this forum then the burden of proof required here is a published scientific source. Ad hominem cries of “discipleship” are wholly insufficient.