Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Will 'O The Wisp

  1. Oct 1, 2005 #1
    I learned that Will 'O The Wisp is a weather phenomena that glows and can go inside and outside of structures. Ball Lightning is probably in the same catagory. "Foo Fighters" have been reported. I learned about "Foo Fighters" from the abcnews.com message forums, Science & Technology. I've seen on T.V. that pilots/Airforce personnel are afraid of coming froward with their accounts for fear of losing their jobs. The few that have come forward with a report, their reports are filed in the UFO category. Does physics explain these formations? Any thoughts? Thanks.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 1, 2005 #2

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    John Cramer has an article describing of a new theory, actually a development of an old theory, for ball lightning in this months' (December 2005) issue of Analog Sciece Fiction-Science Fact. I don't think he has it online yet.

    Basically the charged water droplets in the atmosphere over a fairly broad area get "population inverted" by extensive lightning and they form a cavity which "lases" to produce a coherent EM field, which has within it some spikes - solitons - long lasting wave forms which are what the ball lightning are in this theory. I would assume the foo fighters and other anomalous radar targets could be produced by the same mechanism. This is really classical physics, not quantum.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2005
  4. Oct 1, 2005 #3
    Thank you. I guess your point means that light phenomena (many UFO sightings) can be explained through classical physics. I looked up Quantum Theory in the encyclopedia. It says "the theory that radiant energy is emitted (given off) and absorbed in units, or quanta, rather than in a steady stream." So quanta means the affect of radiant energy on matter? Please explain what quanta means and is there scientific proof to support what quanta becomes. Maybe it is just a methematical concept. I thought Quantum meant to try and support new and unexplained matters of energy. Please correct me if I am wrong.
     
  5. Oct 1, 2005 #4

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Quantum means a chunk. It's a Latin word and we use its Latin plural: one quantum, many quanta.

    Planck, back in 1899, discovered that you couldn't get the right formula for the intensity of radiation at differnt frequencies unless you assumed energy was absorbed and emitted in chunks, the physical term for this absorbing/emitting of energy in a given length of time is action and Planck was able to determine the size of the minimum chunk of action. He called it a quantum. It is now called Planck's constant and denoted by h.

    Einstein, in one of the OTHER papers that he published in 1905 showed that the photoelectric effect could be explained if you assumed the radiation travelled in chunks; these were Planck's quanta in motion. So it became a complete theory of radiation, and had many successes in predicting spectrum (that's another word with a Latin plural: spectra) details. Further history of quantum physics would just take too much space for a post. It makes many detailed predictionsthat are seen in the laboratory, for example in experiments at atom smashers and so on.

    Maybe your library has some good popular introductory books on quanta? I know Isaac Asimov wrote some.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2005
  6. Oct 1, 2005 #5
    Thank you. I just found and watched 100 Greatest Physics Moments on the Science Channel on "ON DEMAND" on Comast. That show helped me more than any library! Wow, I am amazed at Sir Newton Laws, Einstein Quantum (E=MC2), and Quarks, and Electron/Proton/Neutron, etc., etc., etc. It still appears to me that Quantum means to explain the unexplained through physic equations, I guess. I'm not a mathematician. I just see and ask questions and of course, would like answers. So are the affects of Will 'O The Wisp, Ball Lightning, UFO Light Phenomena answers to the equation E=MC2? I've gotta go and will return tomorrow. Thanks for your thoughts.
     
  7. Oct 2, 2005 #6

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed


    Not really. On the theory I mentioned they would be results of nonlinear electrodynamics, the same physics that produces lasers. This can be seen as a part of Quantum Electrodynamics - that's what explains how the "population inversion" happens and how the coherent radiation is produced. Google on laser or maser to find intros. But the key soliton feature is a product of nonlinear classical dynamics - old fashioned nineteenth century physics brought up to date with twenty-first century mathematics. Conversion of mass into energy doesn't play a part.
     
  8. Oct 2, 2005 #7
    Thank you. So now I have to research electrodynamics, laser or maser. Mass does not turn into energy? How interesting. But we see light formations form as documented by Will 'O the Wisp, Ball Lightning, UFO Light Phenomena. So there must be an electrodynamic function taking place? Right now, I'm reading Mr. Juan R. Gonzalez-Alvarez's "Evalution of The String Theory" A Canonical Science Project. I think this man is a genius! I think that Canonical Science is a new "birth" of Science as we know it. Someone on the abcnews.com message board where I have been posting said that Mr. Gonzalez-Alvarez is just self-promoting himself. Wow. I don't know what to think, but I will do some research on lasers after I finish reading about The String Theory. Thank you again.
     
  9. Oct 2, 2005 #8
    Well, at this point, electrodynamic phenomena takes on new meaning in this article. Just being a high-school grad, I think what Mr. Gonzalez-Alvarez is saying is lasers, what's known about electrodynamic function? pertaining to phenomena?, is pretty much up for discussion in Canonical Science. I'm not sure if I'm comprehending it right, but I'm following Mr. Gonzalez-Alvarez's reports from now on. I kinda think that physics as we know it, which I think explains little about Will 'O The Wisp, Ball Lightning, and UFO Light Phenomena, has changed with new equations and everything in Canonical Science. But, if I have to read about current electrodynamic function I will. Just right now, I think I'm on to something. Thank you for any thoughts.
     
  10. Oct 2, 2005 #9

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    May I suggest you be VERY careful about adopting something that isn't part of accepted physics. Based on what you have described as your background, you should alwasy consider the possibility that due to your lack of knoweldge about physics that you could easily be fooled into accepting something unverified. Don't be too quick to make grandiose proclamation.

    I would also strongly suggest you reread the PF guidelines on posting that you have agreed to upon joining this forum.

    Zz.
     
  11. Oct 2, 2005 #10
    Thank you.
     
  12. Oct 2, 2005 #11
    Quite Honestly, I cannot find the PF guidelines, I will keep trying. Are all LASER Lights Red? Don't Street Lights, Flood Lights, Illuminate the background? Laser light only shows it light? I'll be back tomorrow. Thanks.
     
  13. Oct 2, 2005 #12

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

  14. Oct 3, 2005 #13
    Thank you. I will keep doing research on light, but all I really wanted to know is if the Physic Community can explain Will 'O The Wisp, Foo Fighters, Ball Lightning, UFO Light Phenomena or does the Physic Community consider these light formations unverifiable? I can do research, but my understanding of how light works will never be able to fully explain the aforementioned light formations. That is why I came to you. Thank you. Any thoughts?
     
  15. Oct 3, 2005 #14

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Ball lightning:

    1. The nature of ball lightning, S Singer - New York, Plenum Press (1971).

    2. Ball lightning and other meteorological phenomena, D.J. Turner, Physics Reports, v.293, p.1, (1998).

    3. The properties and the nature of ball lightning, B.M. Smirnov, Physics Reports, v.152, p.177 (1987).

    Shall I go on?

    Go to a library, and do a literature search on any of the topics above. There are TONS of physics journals. How did you know you covered all of them?

    Zz.
     
  16. Oct 3, 2005 #15
    Thank you.
     
  17. Oct 3, 2005 #16
    I am planning to go to the Library and also surf the web on Ball Lighting. FYI - I just sent an email to the Forum Administrator. Thank you.
     
  18. Oct 3, 2005 #17
    I just looked up Quantum in the Dictionary. It says: A. The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discrete quantity of electromagnetic radiation. B. This amount of energy regarded as a unit. So my question is: Can this tinyest amount of energy collide with atoms ( I guess) and produce light formations? Maybe this explains UFO Light Phenomena?
     
  19. Oct 3, 2005 #18

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Think about it. If all it takes to understand "Quantum" theory is a quick reading off a dictionary, there would be no reason to have all those books and all those semesters in college taking quantum mechanics course, would it?

    Please pay attention to the Speculative posting in the Guidelines. You are doing just that.

    Zz.
     
  20. Oct 3, 2005 #19

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You will not be able to learn quantum mechanics by looking up the definition in the dictionary. Quanta (and quantum mechanics) are involved in the production of any light.

    If you would like to discuss "UFO Light Phenomena", the best place to do that is in the Skepticism and Debunking forum.
     
  21. Oct 3, 2005 #20
    Thank you. I do not know how to ask you questions that I have without breaking a PF Guideline. FYI - I have sent another email to the Forum Administrator. I am not here to cause trouble, just to understand. I will go look in the Skepticism and Debunking forum to see if I can answer some of my questions. Thank you.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Will 'O The Wisp
  1. O Plus symbol (Replies: 2)

Loading...