If Sunlight is quantity of SUN?/Is the Sun Alive?

[Mojo]

Sorry, if Sun is losing mass due to energy emittance and if energy(wavelengths composing sunlight) has mass, I feel it is quite logical to consider that natural sunlight is quantity of sun.

It is wrong. Photons are just photons. The energy they have is dependent on their wavelength (or alternatively, their wavelength is dependent upon their energy). That is all.

 

[Kumar]

E=mc²

But it is anticipated that E has mass.

 

[Kumar]

Photons are just photons. They do not have properties specific to whatever emitted them.

Can one type of photons(wavelength or frequency) be emmited from two different atoms?

 

[Kumar]

If you had photographs of objects made from different substances, but of the same colour, then you would not be able to tell which is which. There is no information in the photo about the substance, other than its colour. In a black and white photograph there isn't even that.

My wife and other near & dear ones always recognize my photo--coloured or B&W. ?

 

[Big Al]

Can one type of photons(wavelength or frequency) be emmited from two different atoms?

Yes, Kumar. photons of a given quantum number are completely indistinguishable, no matter what type of atom emits them. And this does not mean "superficially similar": they are 100%, completely and utterly identical with no stain, fingerprint or essence to say where they came from.

 

[Big Al]

Can one type of photons(wavelength or frequency) be emmited from two different atoms?

And by the way, it isn't a question of frequency or wavelength. The two are interrelated. The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength and vice-versa. They can't be separated.

 

[Kumar]

Kumar has been told this multiple times, yet he apparently remains unable (maybe unwilling) to understand this.

Try try again we will gain.

Your post now suggest as if, all photons, emitted from all atoms are same eg. like sand partcles in a dessert. I think, people had told otherwise that photons differ in wavelenth or frequency. Is it not confusing to a ayman like me? Pls tell the truth for a layman to understand in one shot. Thanks.

 

[pakeha]

...Now I think, two type of mass are there in photon. 1. Due to wavelength(I think permanent) 2. Due to temporary exposure of energy(temporary).

What do you mean by "velocity of an observer"?

What makes you think there is mass in photons?

Can one type of photons(wavelength or frequency) be emmited from two different atoms?

How many types of photons do you reckon exist?

 

[Kumar]

No.



We're getting ever closer to homeopathy, eh, Kumar?



No.

How No?

No I am trying to understand science may be in Absolute manner. But still it I could make you to push slightly towards science of anything, you should recommend for $ one million prize for me.

 

[Mojo]

Can one type of photons(wavelength or frequency) be emmited from two different atoms?

Yes. That is why they are not, as you keep trying to claim, specific to the atom.

 

[Mojo]

My wife and other near & dear ones always recognize my photo--coloured or B&W. ?

Probably, but they would also recognise a photo of a realistic waxwork model of you as being you. There would be no way of telling the difference between a photo of the waxwork and a photo of you.

 

[Mojo]

Your post now suggest as if, all photons, emitted from all atoms are same eg. like sand partcles in a dessert.

1. No it doesn't. Try reading it again.
2. Sack whoever makes your desserts.

 

[Akhenaten]

Thanks a lot. Since we interact mostly with a specific portion of EM spectrum, we can also say photon has mass to which we commonly interact. Your calculation also suggest that mass of photon is mass of energy/wavelength, hence energy has mass.

Gibberish.

Now I think, two type of mass are there in photon. 1. Due to wavelength(I think permanent) 2. Due to temporary exposure of energy(temporary).

You can think that if you like, but it's completely and utterly wrong.

What do you mean by "velocity of an observer"?

You could avoid asking these embarrassingly stupid questions if you took Agatha's excellent advice in this post.

 

[Mojo]

But it is anticipated that E has mass.

No, see here:

Greenslade:
If that is so, the process must have been a ceaseless and conceivable rapid motion of electrons captured by nuclei, released at a million time per sec per sec, the effect being the radiated thermeo-electrons captured and harnessed as units of liberated satellite electrons, the quantum of which, with the space quotuum of 3.79 plus 10 to the power of 33 ergs per second, with a diathermic of 9 2 7 3 5 to the power of x, is the parllum 3 billion thrice upon 25 billion centigrade...

Henry:
It's not as simple as that! Oh deary me, no!

http://www.thegoonshow.net/scripts_show.asp?title=s05e22_the_fireball_of_milton_street

 

[Kumar]

Sorry guys, after several posts sticking strictly to mass-energy equivalence, I did slip up in one post and say "energy has mass" rather than "energy has a mass equivalent". Sorry if that has prolonged the agony needlessly.

No to regret as some other posters also said it. Even "energy has a mass equivalent", still energy should have mass(as illustrated by Brain M). Look this for example:-

say 1 is energy and 100 is mass. So 100 of 1(energy) if added can only make 100(mass). You can not say that on addition or conversion of any number of 0 it can become 100. Though you can still aurge that if we attach two zeros on right side of one it will also make 100. Still we always require 1 to make 100. I can not say if I could put it logically or not?

With regard to a photon of a given quantum number being identical to another photon of the same quantum number being emitted from a different atom, an analogy to use might be that a bet at a casino..
Regardless of the fact that that is nonsense, it still seems to be the upshot of what Kumar is driving at so obliquely.

Pls tell me about two identical photons from two different atoms and two different photons from same or two different atoms. ?

 

[Akhenaten]

Sorry but is told by Brain M in 3 post back.?

No, it was not.

It's quite obvious that you didn't understand a word Brian wrote.

Which is no real surprise. I'm quite sure that most of us knew that you wouldn't as soon as we saw his post.

 

[Mojo]

No to regret as some other posters also said it. Even "energy has a mass equivalent", still energy should have mass(as illustrated by Brain M). Look this for example:-

say 1 is energy and 100 is mass. So 100 of 1(energy) if added can only make 100(mass). You can not say that on addition or conversion of any number of 0 it can become 100. Though you can still aurge that if we attach two zeros on right side of one it will also make 100. Still we always require 1 to make 100. I can not say if I could put it logically or not?

We're back to the argument about cake and money, aren't we?

Kumar, E=mc².

 

[Akhenaten]

Sorry, if Sun is losing mass due to energy emittance and if energy(wavelengths composing sunlight) has mass, I feel it is quite logical to consider that natural sunlight is quantity of sun.

What you feel is logical has nothing to do with reality.

It seems the major problem in this case is that you have no idea what the word 'quantity' means.

As futile as I'm sure it is to point it out, quantity means 'amount' so your statement above is saying "I feel it is quite logical to consider that natural sunlight is amount of sun."

Which is meaningless.

 

[pakeha]

View Post
How then we can get a photo or vision of a substance?

Is it like it:-

Consider for example a lighted lighted bulb as a photon.

We can not recognize a substance by seeing at one bulb but can recognize a figure if many bulbs are forming that substance's shape. ?

No.

How No?

I think you've confused photons with photos.

...No I am trying to understand science may be in Absolute manner. But still it I could make you to push slightly towards science of anything, you should recommend for $ one million prize for me.

Careful, I'd claim a finders' fee.
In advance!

 

[Daylightstar]

...
We're getting ever closer to homeopathy, eh, Kumar?
...

... and closer:

Sunray therapy or colour therapy may indicate that something is left in water on exposure it to sunlight.