The atom has mass by moving below light speed.
Light is stored in the moving atom. Does light
take on mass like the atom by that slower than c
movement? Mass less is only from c movement.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 1:29:37 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> The atom has mass by moving below light speed.
> Light is stored in the moving atom. Does light
> take on mass like the atom by that slower than c
> movement? Mass less is only from c movement.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Light where stored inside of an atom shares below C motion.
Does that give light there mass? If anything below c does have mass?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:55:33 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 1:29:37 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The atom has mass by moving below light speed.
> > Light is stored in the moving atom. Does light
> > take on mass like the atom by that slower than c
> > movement? Mass less is only from c movement.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> Light where stored inside of an atom shares below C motion.
> Does that give light there mass? If anything below c does have mass?

An atom has mass because it is made of particles which have mass.
Light is NOT stored in an atom. When energy in the form of HEAT is applied
to an atom, that heat causes the electrons in the atom to gain energy they
cannot hold. The "excited" electrons then cause the atom to EMIT photons
to get rid of that excess energy.

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:55:33 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 1:29:37 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > The atom has mass by moving below light speed.
> > > Light is stored in the moving atom. Does light
> > > take on mass like the atom by that slower than c
> > > movement? Mass less is only from c movement.
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > Light where stored inside of an atom shares below C motion.
> > Does that give light there mass? If anything below c does have mass?
> An atom has mass because it is made of particles which have mass.

It has mass because it moves below C. So if light is stored in it
light moves below C so does light then get mass like the atom it is in?

> Light is NOT stored in an atom.
What happens after it is absorbed?
You are a nut. Heat is higher EM light energy and it waits to come out
after absorbed.

?When energy in the form of HEAT is applied
> to an atom, that heat causes the electrons in the atom to gain energy they
> cannot hold. The "excited" electrons then cause the atom to EMIT photons
> to get rid of that excess energy.

Your heat is getting stored in the atom.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 12:48:16 AM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:

<snip>

> > Light is NOT stored in an atom.

> What happens after it is absorbed?
> You are a nut. Heat is higher EM light energy and it waits to come out after absorbed.

Are you really a retired physicist with a PhD, Mitch?

HEAT is generated in two flavors. Even by Newton's time that was known.

1) Radiant Heat: That's the heat carried by EM waves. Kirchoff posted a challenge in 1859, and Planck provided the final stroke in 1900.

2) Kinetic Heat: The other flavor, when you lit a fire. Gas molecules become more and more agitated, and it generates Convective Heat.
Maxwell solved the puzzle in 1860, with his statistical distribution of gas vs. speed. Wien and Planck used this model for 1)

A derivation of 2) is Conductive Heat, which happens along the body of metals.

Excess energy of atoms is delivered as HEAT under BOTH FORMS, depending on temperature. Light emission appears when Heat 2)
cross a threshold of temperature, and atoms (besides colliding or vibrating) get rid of energy excess by emitting Radiant Heat (EM waves).

Basic Thermodynamics by the end of XIX Century.

> ?When energy in the form of HEAT is applied
> > to an atom, that heat causes the electrons in the atom to gain energy they
> > cannot hold. The "excited" electrons then cause the atom to EMIT photons
> > to get rid of that excess energy.
> Your heat is getting stored in the atom.

Depend on the kind of heat and the type of substance, Mitch. If Heat is Type 2), your assertion is incorrect. It's provided by KE.

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 10:48:16 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:55:33 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 1:29:37 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > The atom has mass by moving below light speed.
> > > > Light is stored in the moving atom. Does light
> > > > take on mass like the atom by that slower than c
> > > > movement? Mass less is only from c movement.
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > Light where stored inside of an atom shares below C motion.
> > > Does that give light there mass? If anything below c does have mass?
> > An atom has mass because it is made of particles which have mass.
> It has mass because it moves below C. So if light is stored in it
> light moves below C so does light then get mass like the atom it is in?
> > Light is NOT stored in an atom.
> What happens after it is absorbed?
> You are a nut. Heat is higher EM light energy and it waits to come out
> after absorbed.
>
> ?When energy in the form of HEAT is applied
> > to an atom, that heat causes the electrons in the atom to gain energy they
> > cannot hold. The "excited" electrons then cause the atom to EMIT photons
> > to get rid of that excess energy.
> Your heat is getting stored in the atom.

When heat is applied to an atom, the atom does NOT "store" that heat.
It CANNOT STORE the heat, so it MUST IMMEDIATELY get rid of it. Instantly.

When you plug in a lightbulb, electricity applies heat to the tungsten atoms
in the lightbulb filament. That heat is then immediately gotten rid of by the
tungsten atoms turning the heat into photons. The light bulb emits photons
which light up the room.

When you turn off the electricity, the lightbulb instantly goes dark. Atoms in
other parts of the lightbulb will more slowly cool down by emitting heat.
And gradually everything gets back to normal temperature.

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 9:23:38 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 10:48:16 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:55:33 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 1:29:37 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > The atom has mass by moving below light speed.
> > > > > Light is stored in the moving atom. Does light
> > > > > take on mass like the atom by that slower than c
> > > > > movement? Mass less is only from c movement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > Light where stored inside of an atom shares below C motion.
> > > > Does that give light there mass? If anything below c does have mass?
> > > An atom has mass because it is made of particles which have mass.
> > It has mass because it moves below C. So if light is stored in it
> > light moves below C so does light then get mass like the atom it is in?
> > > Light is NOT stored in an atom.
> > What happens after it is absorbed?
> > You are a nut. Heat is higher EM light energy and it waits to come out
> > after absorbed.
> >
> > ?When energy in the form of HEAT is applied
> > > to an atom, that heat causes the electrons in the atom to gain energy they
> > > cannot hold. The "excited" electrons then cause the atom to EMIT photons
> > > to get rid of that excess energy.
> > Your heat is getting stored in the atom.
> When heat is applied to an atom, the atom does NOT "store" that heat.
> It CANNOT STORE the heat, so it MUST IMMEDIATELY get rid of it. Instantly.
>
> When you plug in a lightbulb, electricity applies heat to the tungsten atoms
> in the lightbulb filament. That heat is then immediately gotten rid of by the
> tungsten atoms turning the heat into photons. The light bulb emits photons
> which light up the room.
>
> When you turn off the electricity, the lightbulb instantly goes dark. Atoms in
> other parts of the lightbulb will more slowly cool down by emitting heat.
> And gradually everything gets back to normal temperature.

It looks like this is going to turn into another argument over word definitions.

From: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/store
Definition of "store":

transitive verb
1 : lay away, accumulate store vegetables for winter use an organism that absorbs and stores DDT
2 : furnish, supply especially : to stock against a future time store a ship with provisions
3 : to place or leave in a location (such as a warehouse, library, or computer memory) for preservation or later use or disposal
4 : to provide storage room for : hold elevators for storing surplus wheat

Light is NOT "stored" by an atom. An atom ABSORBS heat which it cannot hold,
so it immediately gets rid of it by emitting a photon.

Does "absorb" mean "to store"? Sometimes.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absorb

But it also means:
"to transform (radiant energy) into a different form especially with a resulting rise in temperature"

An atom TRANSFORMS heat into photons. When you go through that process
step by step, "transform" becomes two steps: (1) "absorb" and (2) "emit".
But an atom NEVER "stores" heat.

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 10:29:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 12:48:16 AM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Light is NOT stored in an atom.
>
> > What happens after it is absorbed?
> > You are a nut. Heat is higher EM light energy and it waits to come out after absorbed.
> Are you really a retired physicist with a PhD, Mitch?
>
Heat is outside the atom moving and inside the atom moving with it.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 7:49:34 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 9:23:38 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 10:48:16 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:55:33 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 1:29:37 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > The atom has mass by moving below light speed.
> > > > > > Light is stored in the moving atom. Does light
> > > > > > take on mass like the atom by that slower than c
> > > > > > movement? Mass less is only from c movement.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > > Light where stored inside of an atom shares below C motion.
> > > > > Does that give light there mass? If anything below c does have mass?
> > > > An atom has mass because it is made of particles which have mass.
> > > It has mass because it moves below C. So if light is stored in it
> > > light moves below C so does light then get mass like the atom it is in?
> > > > Light is NOT stored in an atom.
> > > What happens after it is absorbed?
> > > You are a nut. Heat is higher EM light energy and it waits to come out
> > > after absorbed.
> > >
> > > ?When energy in the form of HEAT is applied
> > > > to an atom, that heat causes the electrons in the atom to gain energy they
> > > > cannot hold. The "excited" electrons then cause the atom to EMIT photons
> > > > to get rid of that excess energy.
> > > Your heat is getting stored in the atom.
> > When heat is applied to an atom, the atom does NOT "store" that heat.
> > It CANNOT STORE the heat, so it MUST IMMEDIATELY get rid of it. Instantly.
> >
> > When you plug in a lightbulb, electricity applies heat to the tungsten atoms
> > in the lightbulb filament. That heat is then immediately gotten rid of by the
> > tungsten atoms turning the heat into photons. The light bulb emits photons
> > which light up the room.
> >
> > When you turn off the electricity, the lightbulb instantly goes dark. Atoms in
> > other parts of the lightbulb will more slowly cool down by emitting heat.
> > And gradually everything gets back to normal temperature.
> It looks like this is going to turn into another argument over word definitions.
>
> From: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/store
> Definition of "store":
>
> transitive verb
> 1 : lay away, accumulate store vegetables for winter use an organism that absorbs and stores DDT
> 2 : furnish, supply especially : to stock against a future time store a ship with provisions
> 3 : to place or leave in a location (such as a warehouse, library, or computer memory) for preservation or later use or disposal
> 4 : to provide storage room for : hold elevators for storing surplus wheat
>
> Light is NOT "stored" by an atom. An atom ABSORBS heat which it cannot hold,
> so it immediately gets rid of it by emitting a photon.
>
> Does "absorb" mean "to store"? Sometimes.
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absorb
>
> But it also means:
> "to transform (radiant energy) into a different form especially with a resulting rise in temperature"
>
> An atom TRANSFORMS heat into photons. When you go through that process
> step by step, "transform" becomes two steps: (1) "absorb" and (2) "emit".
> But an atom NEVER "stores" heat.

Your problem is with a word?
Prove that the word store is the problem.
When absorbed light can be stored for some time.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 12:24:51 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 7:49:34 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 9:23:38 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 10:48:16 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:55:33 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 1:29:37 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > The atom has mass by moving below light speed.
> > > > > > > Light is stored in the moving atom. Does light
> > > > > > > take on mass like the atom by that slower than c
> > > > > > > movement? Mass less is only from c movement.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > > > Light where stored inside of an atom shares below C motion.
> > > > > > Does that give light there mass? If anything below c does have mass?
> > > > > An atom has mass because it is made of particles which have mass.
> > > > It has mass because it moves below C. So if light is stored in it
> > > > light moves below C so does light then get mass like the atom it is in?
> > > > > Light is NOT stored in an atom.
> > > > What happens after it is absorbed?
> > > > You are a nut. Heat is higher EM light energy and it waits to come out
> > > > after absorbed.
> > > >
> > > > ?When energy in the form of HEAT is applied
> > > > > to an atom, that heat causes the electrons in the atom to gain energy they
> > > > > cannot hold. The "excited" electrons then cause the atom to EMIT photons
> > > > > to get rid of that excess energy.
> > > > Your heat is getting stored in the atom.
> > > When heat is applied to an atom, the atom does NOT "store" that heat.
> > > It CANNOT STORE the heat, so it MUST IMMEDIATELY get rid of it. Instantly.
> > >
> > > When you plug in a lightbulb, electricity applies heat to the tungsten atoms
> > > in the lightbulb filament. That heat is then immediately gotten rid of by the
> > > tungsten atoms turning the heat into photons. The light bulb emits photons
> > > which light up the room.
> > >
> > > When you turn off the electricity, the lightbulb instantly goes dark. Atoms in
> > > other parts of the lightbulb will more slowly cool down by emitting heat.
> > > And gradually everything gets back to normal temperature.
> > It looks like this is going to turn into another argument over word definitions.
> >
> > From: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/store
> > Definition of "store":
> >
> > transitive verb
> > 1 : lay away, accumulate store vegetables for winter use an organism that absorbs and stores DDT
> > 2 : furnish, supply especially : to stock against a future time store a ship with provisions
> > 3 : to place or leave in a location (such as a warehouse, library, or computer memory) for preservation or later use or disposal
> > 4 : to provide storage room for : hold elevators for storing surplus wheat
> >
> > Light is NOT "stored" by an atom. An atom ABSORBS heat which it cannot hold,
> > so it immediately gets rid of it by emitting a photon.
> >
> > Does "absorb" mean "to store"? Sometimes.
> > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absorb
> >
> > But it also means:
> > "to transform (radiant energy) into a different form especially with a resulting rise in temperature"
> >
> > An atom TRANSFORMS heat into photons. When you go through that process
> > step by step, "transform" becomes two steps: (1) "absorb" and (2) "emit".
> > But an atom NEVER "stores" heat.
> Your problem is with a word?
> Prove that the word store is the problem.
> When absorbed light can be stored for some time.

NO! Light CANNOT be "stored for some time." Heat is INSTANTANEOUSLY
transformed into a photon inside an atom, and that photon is
INSTANTANEOUSLY emitted by the atom. There is no "storage" time,
and the transformation time is too small to measure.

On 6/15/22 2:42 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Light CANNOT be "stored for some time."

Not true. Light can easily be stored for nanoseconds to milliseconds in
media with large indices of refraction; there are reports of
Bose-Einstein Condensates storing light for a few seconds. And of
course, light can be converted to energy that can be stored for very
much longer times.

When an atom absorbs a photon, it stores energy for a while before
releasing it as an emitted photon (if it emits one; there are other ways
the energy can be released). The delay can be femtoseconds to hours,
depending on the details.

> Heat is INSTANTANEOUSLY transformed into a photon inside an atom,
> and that photon is INSTANTANEOUSLY emitted by the atom.

This is just plain not so -- you REALLY don't understand this at all.

Heat in a material is manifested as atomic motions (entire atoms moving
around). Those motions can cause atoms to collide and interact, and it
can happen that an atom becomes excited to a state above its ground
state. When that happens, the atom usually then emits a photon to relax
back to its ground state -- this happens after a delay related to the
lifetime of the excited state, which can be femtoseconds to hours. For
some materials, molecular excitations and collective actions can be more
important than individual atomic excitations.

So heat can cause atoms to become excited, and then emit photons related
to the excited states involved. Higher temperatures mean the collisions
and interactions are more energetic and can reach excited states with
higher energies, so the atoms can then emit photons of higher energies
-- when heating metals above 400C or so the perceived color is related
to the temperature (below ~400C the emission is infrared and humans
cannot see it).

An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it absorbs a photon that
matches the energy difference between its ground and excited states.
Then, after a delay, it can emit a photon, or perhaps multiple photons,
relaxing back to its ground state. Depending on the details of the
atomic (molecular) structure involved, the delay can be femtoseconds to
hours.

Haven't you ever seen phosphorescent toys that absorb light and then
glow in the dark for hours (usually blue-green)? Don't you ever think
about what you write, and relate it to your experience of the world?

> There is no "storage" time, and the transformation time is too small
> to measure.

Nonsense. You're just making stuff up out of ignorance.

You CLEARLY do not understand this, and should stop attempting to write
about it until you learn something about the subject.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/15/22 2:42 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Light CANNOT be "stored for some time."
> Not true. Light can easily be stored for nanoseconds to milliseconds in
> media with large indices of refraction; there are reports of
> Bose-Einstein Condensates storing light for a few seconds. And of
> course, light can be converted to energy that can be stored for very
> much longer times.
>
> When an atom absorbs a photon, it stores energy for a while before
> releasing it as an emitted photon (if it emits one; there are other ways
> the energy can be released). The delay can be femtoseconds to hours,
> depending on the details.
> > Heat is INSTANTANEOUSLY transformed into a photon inside an atom,
> > and that photon is INSTANTANEOUSLY emitted by the atom.
> This is just plain not so -- you REALLY don't understand this at all.
>
> Heat in a material is manifested as atomic motions (entire atoms moving
> around). Those motions can cause atoms to collide and interact, and it
> can happen that an atom becomes excited to a state above its ground
> state. When that happens, the atom usually then emits a photon to relax
> back to its ground state -- this happens after a delay related to the
> lifetime of the excited state, which can be femtoseconds to hours. For
> some materials, molecular excitations and collective actions can be more
> important than individual atomic excitations.
>
> So heat can cause atoms to become excited, and then emit photons related
> to the excited states involved. Higher temperatures mean the collisions
> and interactions are more energetic and can reach excited states with
> higher energies, so the atoms can then emit photons of higher energies
> -- when heating metals above 400C or so the perceived color is related
> to the temperature (below ~400C the emission is infrared and humans
> cannot see it).
>
> An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it absorbs a photon that
> matches the energy difference between its ground and excited states.
> Then, after a delay, it can emit a photon, or perhaps multiple photons,
> relaxing back to its ground state. Depending on the details of the
> atomic (molecular) structure involved, the delay can be femtoseconds to
> hours.
>
> Haven't you ever seen phosphorescent toys that absorb light and then
> glow in the dark for hours (usually blue-green)? Don't you ever think
> about what you write, and relate it to your experience of the world?
> > There is no "storage" time, and the transformation time is too small
> > to measure.
> Nonsense. You're just making stuff up out of ignorance.
>
> You CLEARLY do not understand this, and should stop attempting to write
> about it until you learn something about the subject.
>
> Tom Roberts

Tj? Turn off the light bulb and where does all the light go to in the room?
Its a lot of stored light...

Mitchell Raemsch

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 4:41:27 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/15/22 2:42 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Light CANNOT be "stored for some time."
> Not true. Light can easily be stored for nanoseconds to milliseconds in
> media with large indices of refraction; there are reports of
> Bose-Einstein Condensates storing light for a few seconds. And of
> course, light can be converted to energy that can be stored for very
> much longer times.
>
> When an atom absorbs a photon, it stores energy for a while before
> releasing it as an emitted photon (if it emits one; there are other ways
> the energy can be released). The delay can be femtoseconds to hours,
> depending on the details.
> > Heat is INSTANTANEOUSLY transformed into a photon inside an atom,
> > and that photon is INSTANTANEOUSLY emitted by the atom.
> This is just plain not so -- you REALLY don't understand this at all.
>
> Heat in a material is manifested as atomic motions (entire atoms moving
> around). Those motions can cause atoms to collide and interact, and it
> can happen that an atom becomes excited to a state above its ground
> state. When that happens, the atom usually then emits a photon to relax
> back to its ground state -- this happens after a delay related to the
> lifetime of the excited state, which can be femtoseconds to hours. For
> some materials, molecular excitations and collective actions can be more
> important than individual atomic excitations.
>
> So heat can cause atoms to become excited, and then emit photons related
> to the excited states involved. Higher temperatures mean the collisions
> and interactions are more energetic and can reach excited states with
> higher energies, so the atoms can then emit photons of higher energies
> -- when heating metals above 400C or so the perceived color is related
> to the temperature (below ~400C the emission is infrared and humans
> cannot see it).
>
> An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it absorbs a photon that
> matches the energy difference between its ground and excited states.
> Then, after a delay, it can emit a photon, or perhaps multiple photons,
> relaxing back to its ground state. Depending on the details of the
> atomic (molecular) structure involved, the delay can be femtoseconds to
> hours.
>
> Haven't you ever seen phosphorescent toys that absorb light and then
> glow in the dark for hours (usually blue-green)? Don't you ever think
> about what you write, and relate it to your experience of the world?
> > There is no "storage" time, and the transformation time is too small
> > to measure.
> Nonsense. You're just making stuff up out of ignorance.
>
> You CLEARLY do not understand this, and should stop attempting to write
> about it until you learn something about the subject.

Okay. I should have known better than to get into another argument here
over WORDS.

The original erroneous statement was: "Light is stored in the moving atom."

Light is NOT stored. ENERGY is stored. But, a photon is just energy being
transferred from one atom to another. Depending upon the type of atom that
is hit by the photon, the ENERGY can be absorbed and slowly released in
some other form, such as heat or florescence. OR the energy can be instantly
released as another photon, which is what happens when a photon hits a silver
atom in a mirror.

tjrob137 wrote: "An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it absorbs a
photon that matches the energy difference between its ground and excited states."

That implies that you believe an atom is the same as a molecule. That's CRAZY!

And, since silver atoms absorb and emit photons with many different variations
in energy content, that makes the rest of your comment CRAZY, too. The difference
between an atom's ground and excited states is not fixed, it depends upon the
energy of the photon that is absorbed. The higher the energy in the absorbed photon,
the higher the "excited state" of the atom will be.

But, I don't want to get into another argument over words. I'm done here. Bye bye.

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 7:36:08 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 4:41:27 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 6/15/22 2:42 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > Light CANNOT be "stored for some time."
> > Not true. Light can easily be stored for nanoseconds to milliseconds in
> > media with large indices of refraction; there are reports of
> > Bose-Einstein Condensates storing light for a few seconds. And of
> > course, light can be converted to energy that can be stored for very
> > much longer times.
> >
> > When an atom absorbs a photon, it stores energy for a while before
> > releasing it as an emitted photon (if it emits one; there are other ways
> > the energy can be released). The delay can be femtoseconds to hours,
> > depending on the details.
> > > Heat is INSTANTANEOUSLY transformed into a photon inside an atom,
> > > and that photon is INSTANTANEOUSLY emitted by the atom.
> > This is just plain not so -- you REALLY don't understand this at all.
> >
> > Heat in a material is manifested as atomic motions (entire atoms moving
> > around). Those motions can cause atoms to collide and interact, and it
> > can happen that an atom becomes excited to a state above its ground
> > state. When that happens, the atom usually then emits a photon to relax
> > back to its ground state -- this happens after a delay related to the
> > lifetime of the excited state, which can be femtoseconds to hours. For
> > some materials, molecular excitations and collective actions can be more
> > important than individual atomic excitations.
> >
> > So heat can cause atoms to become excited, and then emit photons related
> > to the excited states involved. Higher temperatures mean the collisions
> > and interactions are more energetic and can reach excited states with
> > higher energies, so the atoms can then emit photons of higher energies
> > -- when heating metals above 400C or so the perceived color is related
> > to the temperature (below ~400C the emission is infrared and humans
> > cannot see it).
> >
> > An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it absorbs a photon that
> > matches the energy difference between its ground and excited states.
> > Then, after a delay, it can emit a photon, or perhaps multiple photons,
> > relaxing back to its ground state. Depending on the details of the
> > atomic (molecular) structure involved, the delay can be femtoseconds to
> > hours.
> >
> > Haven't you ever seen phosphorescent toys that absorb light and then
> > glow in the dark for hours (usually blue-green)? Don't you ever think
> > about what you write, and relate it to your experience of the world?
> > > There is no "storage" time, and the transformation time is too small
> > > to measure.
> > Nonsense. You're just making stuff up out of ignorance.
> >
> > You CLEARLY do not understand this, and should stop attempting to write
> > about it until you learn something about the subject.
> Okay. I should have known better than to get into another argument here
> over WORDS.
>
> The original erroneous statement was: "Light is stored in the moving atom."
>
> Light is NOT stored. ENERGY is stored.

Light is energy...

Mitchell Raemsch

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 12:44:50 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 7:36:08 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 4:41:27 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 6/15/22 2:42 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > Light CANNOT be "stored for some time."
> > > Not true. Light can easily be stored for nanoseconds to milliseconds in
> > > media with large indices of refraction; there are reports of
> > > Bose-Einstein Condensates storing light for a few seconds. And of
> > > course, light can be converted to energy that can be stored for very
> > > much longer times.
> > >
> > > When an atom absorbs a photon, it stores energy for a while before
> > > releasing it as an emitted photon (if it emits one; there are other ways
> > > the energy can be released). The delay can be femtoseconds to hours,
> > > depending on the details.
> > > > Heat is INSTANTANEOUSLY transformed into a photon inside an atom,
> > > > and that photon is INSTANTANEOUSLY emitted by the atom.
> > > This is just plain not so -- you REALLY don't understand this at all.
> > >
> > > Heat in a material is manifested as atomic motions (entire atoms moving
> > > around). Those motions can cause atoms to collide and interact, and it
> > > can happen that an atom becomes excited to a state above its ground
> > > state. When that happens, the atom usually then emits a photon to relax
> > > back to its ground state -- this happens after a delay related to the
> > > lifetime of the excited state, which can be femtoseconds to hours. For
> > > some materials, molecular excitations and collective actions can be more
> > > important than individual atomic excitations.
> > >
> > > So heat can cause atoms to become excited, and then emit photons related
> > > to the excited states involved. Higher temperatures mean the collisions
> > > and interactions are more energetic and can reach excited states with
> > > higher energies, so the atoms can then emit photons of higher energies
> > > -- when heating metals above 400C or so the perceived color is related
> > > to the temperature (below ~400C the emission is infrared and humans
> > > cannot see it).
> > >
> > > An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it absorbs a photon that
> > > matches the energy difference between its ground and excited states.
> > > Then, after a delay, it can emit a photon, or perhaps multiple photons,
> > > relaxing back to its ground state. Depending on the details of the
> > > atomic (molecular) structure involved, the delay can be femtoseconds to
> > > hours.
> > >
> > > Haven't you ever seen phosphorescent toys that absorb light and then
> > > glow in the dark for hours (usually blue-green)? Don't you ever think
> > > about what you write, and relate it to your experience of the world?
> > > > There is no "storage" time, and the transformation time is too small
> > > > to measure.
> > > Nonsense. You're just making stuff up out of ignorance.
> > >
> > > You CLEARLY do not understand this, and should stop attempting to write
> > > about it until you learn something about the subject.
> > Okay. I should have known better than to get into another argument here
> > over WORDS.
> >
> > The original erroneous statement was: "Light is stored in the moving atom."
> >
> > Light is NOT stored. ENERGY is stored.
> Light is energy...

But energy is not always light. Heat is energy. Gamma rays are energy.
Radio signals are energy.

"Light" is defined as "something that makes vision possible." "Visible light"
is a very small part of the energy spectrum.

On 6/16/22 9:36 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> I should have known better than to get into another argument here
> over WORDS.

This is not about words. You got the very basic physics COMPLETELY
WRONG. And you repeat your errors in the post to which I am replying.

> [...] the energy can be instantly released as another photon, which
> is what happens when a photon hits a silver atom in a mirror.

This is just plain not true. For visible light reflecting from a mirror,
the atoms of the mirror DO NOT absorb the photons, for the simple reason
that the atoms and molecules of the reflecting surface have no
absorption bands or lines in the visible region. Instead, the incoming
photons interact with all the charged particles of the mirror [#], and
the resulting interference results in reflection with the usual Snell's law.

[#] Only electrons in a metallic conduction band contribute
significantly, which is why mirrors are invariably made of
polished metal surfaces.

> tjrob137 wrote: "An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it
> absorbs a photon that matches the energy difference between its
> ground and excited states."
>
> That implies that you believe an atom is the same as a molecule.
> That's CRAZY!

The CRAZY part is you attempting to put words into my mouth. I NEVER
said or implied any such thing.

Both atoms and molecules have excited states that can absorb photons of
the right energy. That is what I was talking about.

> And, since silver atoms absorb and emit photons with many different
> variations in energy content, that makes the rest of your comment
> CRAZY, too.

The CRAZY part here is your insistence that silver atoms absorb
visible-light photons. THEY DO NOT. That is NOT how mirrors work.

> The difference between an atom's ground and excited states is not
> fixed, it depends upon the energy of the photon that is absorbed.

You REALLY do not understand this. Just making stuff up is HOPELESS.

The structure of an atom's energy levels is UNAFFECTED by incoming
photons, it is FIXED by the atomic structure (# protons and electrons,
etc.). The atom can only absorb photons with energies that match
the energy difference between atomic levels [@]. Most such levels are
sharp, leading to absorption lines; some atoms, and most molecules, have
absorption bands, usually due to rotational degrees of freedom that are
very closely spaced in energy....

[@] Usually starting from the ground state. Note there
are additional selection rules.

> But, I don't want to get into another argument over words.

This is not about words. It is about your abysmal lack of understanding
of very basic physics.

> I'm done here. Bye bye.

You always run away, apparently because you cannot stand for your
preconceived notions to be shown incorrect.

Tom Roberts

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 12:36:33 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 12:44:50 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 7:36:08 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 4:41:27 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > On 6/15/22 2:42 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > Light CANNOT be "stored for some time."
> > > > Not true. Light can easily be stored for nanoseconds to milliseconds in
> > > > media with large indices of refraction; there are reports of
> > > > Bose-Einstein Condensates storing light for a few seconds. And of
> > > > course, light can be converted to energy that can be stored for very
> > > > much longer times.
> > > >
> > > > When an atom absorbs a photon, it stores energy for a while before
> > > > releasing it as an emitted photon (if it emits one; there are other ways
> > > > the energy can be released). The delay can be femtoseconds to hours,
> > > > depending on the details.
> > > > > Heat is INSTANTANEOUSLY transformed into a photon inside an atom,
> > > > > and that photon is INSTANTANEOUSLY emitted by the atom.
> > > > This is just plain not so -- you REALLY don't understand this at all.
> > > >
> > > > Heat in a material is manifested as atomic motions (entire atoms moving
> > > > around). Those motions can cause atoms to collide and interact, and it
> > > > can happen that an atom becomes excited to a state above its ground
> > > > state. When that happens, the atom usually then emits a photon to relax
> > > > back to its ground state -- this happens after a delay related to the
> > > > lifetime of the excited state, which can be femtoseconds to hours. For
> > > > some materials, molecular excitations and collective actions can be more
> > > > important than individual atomic excitations.
> > > >
> > > > So heat can cause atoms to become excited, and then emit photons related
> > > > to the excited states involved. Higher temperatures mean the collisions
> > > > and interactions are more energetic and can reach excited states with
> > > > higher energies, so the atoms can then emit photons of higher energies
> > > > -- when heating metals above 400C or so the perceived color is related
> > > > to the temperature (below ~400C the emission is infrared and humans
> > > > cannot see it).
> > > >
> > > > An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it absorbs a photon that
> > > > matches the energy difference between its ground and excited states.
> > > > Then, after a delay, it can emit a photon, or perhaps multiple photons,
> > > > relaxing back to its ground state. Depending on the details of the
> > > > atomic (molecular) structure involved, the delay can be femtoseconds to
> > > > hours.
> > > >
> > > > Haven't you ever seen phosphorescent toys that absorb light and then
> > > > glow in the dark for hours (usually blue-green)? Don't you ever think
> > > > about what you write, and relate it to your experience of the world?
> > > > > There is no "storage" time, and the transformation time is too small
> > > > > to measure.
> > > > Nonsense. You're just making stuff up out of ignorance.
> > > >
> > > > You CLEARLY do not understand this, and should stop attempting to write
> > > > about it until you learn something about the subject.
> > > Okay. I should have known better than to get into another argument here
> > > over WORDS.
> > >
> > > The original erroneous statement was: "Light is stored in the moving atom."
> > >
> > > Light is NOT stored. ENERGY is stored.
> > Light is energy...
> But energy is not always light.

But light is always energy.

Heat is energy. Gamma rays are energy.
> Radio signals are energy.

Light is EM wave energy just like all of your other EM wave examples.

>
> "Light" is defined as "something that makes vision possible." "Visible light"
> is a very small part of the energy spectrum.
The whole spectrum is energy you moron.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 12:36:33 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 12:44:50 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 7:36:08 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 4:41:27 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > On 6/15/22 2:42 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > Light CANNOT be "stored for some time."
> > > > Not true. Light can easily be stored for nanoseconds to milliseconds in
> > > > media with large indices of refraction; there are reports of
> > > > Bose-Einstein Condensates storing light for a few seconds. And of
> > > > course, light can be converted to energy that can be stored for very
> > > > much longer times.
> > > >
> > > > When an atom absorbs a photon, it stores energy for a while before
> > > > releasing it as an emitted photon (if it emits one; there are other ways
> > > > the energy can be released). The delay can be femtoseconds to hours,
> > > > depending on the details.
> > > > > Heat is INSTANTANEOUSLY transformed into a photon inside an atom,
> > > > > and that photon is INSTANTANEOUSLY emitted by the atom.
> > > > This is just plain not so -- you REALLY don't understand this at all.
> > > >
> > > > Heat in a material is manifested as atomic motions (entire atoms moving
> > > > around). Those motions can cause atoms to collide and interact, and it
> > > > can happen that an atom becomes excited to a state above its ground
> > > > state. When that happens, the atom usually then emits a photon to relax
> > > > back to its ground state -- this happens after a delay related to the
> > > > lifetime of the excited state, which can be femtoseconds to hours. For
> > > > some materials, molecular excitations and collective actions can be more
> > > > important than individual atomic excitations.
> > > >
> > > > So heat can cause atoms to become excited, and then emit photons related
> > > > to the excited states involved. Higher temperatures mean the collisions
> > > > and interactions are more energetic and can reach excited states with
> > > > higher energies, so the atoms can then emit photons of higher energies
> > > > -- when heating metals above 400C or so the perceived color is related
> > > > to the temperature (below ~400C the emission is infrared and humans
> > > > cannot see it).
> > > >
> > > > An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it absorbs a photon that
> > > > matches the energy difference between its ground and excited states.
> > > > Then, after a delay, it can emit a photon, or perhaps multiple photons,
> > > > relaxing back to its ground state. Depending on the details of the
> > > > atomic (molecular) structure involved, the delay can be femtoseconds to
> > > > hours.
> > > >
> > > > Haven't you ever seen phosphorescent toys that absorb light and then
> > > > glow in the dark for hours (usually blue-green)? Don't you ever think
> > > > about what you write, and relate it to your experience of the world?
> > > > > There is no "storage" time, and the transformation time is too small
> > > > > to measure.
> > > > Nonsense. You're just making stuff up out of ignorance.
> > > >
> > > > You CLEARLY do not understand this, and should stop attempting to write
> > > > about it until you learn something about the subject.
> > > Okay. I should have known better than to get into another argument here
> > > over WORDS.
> > >
> > > The original erroneous statement was: "Light is stored in the moving atom."
> > >
> > > Light is NOT stored. ENERGY is stored.
> > Light is energy...
> But energy is not always light. Heat is energy. Gamma rays are energy.
> Radio signals are energy.
>
> "Light" is defined as "something that makes vision possible." "Visible light"
> is a very small part of the energy spectrum.

The only other thing than EM that is energy is a particle...

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 7:36:08 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> But, I don't want to get into another argument over words. I'm done here. Bye bye.

It's about time, Ed.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out...

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 4:56:34 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/16/22 9:36 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > I should have known better than to get into another argument here
> > over WORDS.
> This is not about words. You got the very basic physics COMPLETELY
> WRONG. And you repeat your errors in the post to which I am replying.
>
> > [...] the energy can be instantly released as another photon, which
> > is what happens when a photon hits a silver atom in a mirror.
> This is just plain not true. For visible light reflecting from a mirror,
> the atoms of the mirror DO NOT absorb the photons, for the simple reason
> that the atoms and molecules of the reflecting surface have no
> absorption bands or lines in the visible region. Instead, the incoming
> photons interact with all the charged particles of the mirror [#], and
> the resulting interference results in reflection with the usual Snell's law.

I have SOURCES which say that atoms in a mirror DO absorb photons. Here
are a couple:

“What actually happens on a microscopic level is that the incoming photon
is absorbed by the electrons of the mirror, which are set into oscillation by
the photon’s oscillating electric field. The result is, for some materials
(shiny ones), that the electrons’ oscillation creates a new photon that moves
away from the mirror in the opposite direction. The incoming and outgoing
photons are free and move at speed c, but they are not the same photon…”

Source: Bernard Schultz, Gravity from the Ground Up, Cambridge University Press, page 196 (2003)

"How does the mirror reflect light? The silver atoms behind the glass absorb the
photons of incoming light energy and become excited. But that makes them
unstable, so they try to become stable again by getting rid of the extra energy—
and they do that by giving off some more photons."

Source: https://www.explainthatstuff.com/howmirrorswork.html

>
> [#] Only electrons in a metallic conduction band contribute
> significantly, which is why mirrors are invariably made of
> polished metal surfaces.

Silver atoms are the best reflectors. Aluminum atoms also work well.
Other metals require constant polishing and don't work very well at all.

> > tjrob137 wrote: "An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it
> > absorbs a photon that matches the energy difference between its
> > ground and excited states."
> >
> > That implies that you believe an atom is the same as a molecule.
> > That's CRAZY!
> The CRAZY part is you attempting to put words into my mouth. I NEVER
> said or implied any such thing.
>
> Both atoms and molecules have excited states that can absorb photons of
> the right energy. That is what I was talking about.

You did it again!! A molecule is MADE FROM ATOMS. It is the ATOMS that
matter, not the molecules.

> > And, since silver atoms absorb and emit photons with many different
> > variations in energy content, that makes the rest of your comment
> > CRAZY, too.
> The CRAZY part here is your insistence that silver atoms absorb
> visible-light photons. THEY DO NOT. That is NOT how mirrors work.

See the Bernard Schultz quotation above.
Or watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE6I52Th9DE

> > The difference between an atom's ground and excited states is not
> > fixed, it depends upon the energy of the photon that is absorbed.
> You REALLY do not understand this. Just making stuff up is HOPELESS.

I use REFERENCES, which means I'm not making anything up.
>
> The structure of an atom's energy levels is UNAFFECTED by incoming
> photons, it is FIXED by the atomic structure (# protons and electrons,
> etc.). The atom can only absorb photons with energies that match
> the energy difference between atomic levels [@]. Most such levels are
> sharp, leading to absorption lines; some atoms, and most molecules, have
> absorption bands, usually due to rotational degrees of freedom that are
> very closely spaced in energy....

Did you just make that up??? Or is it about some other topic?

>
> [@] Usually starting from the ground state. Note there
> are additional selection rules.
> > But, I don't want to get into another argument over words.
> This is not about words. It is about your abysmal lack of understanding
> of very basic physics.

I uses source that you can check. You spout stuff you apparently MADE UP.

Ed

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 9:28:50 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 4:56:34 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 6/16/22 9:36 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > I should have known better than to get into another argument here
> > > over WORDS.
> > This is not about words. You got the very basic physics COMPLETELY
> > WRONG. And you repeat your errors in the post to which I am replying.
> >
> > > [...] the energy can be instantly released as another photon, which
> > > is what happens when a photon hits a silver atom in a mirror.
> > This is just plain not true. For visible light reflecting from a mirror,
> > the atoms of the mirror DO NOT absorb the photons, for the simple reason
> > that the atoms and molecules of the reflecting surface have no
> > absorption bands or lines in the visible region. Instead, the incoming
> > photons interact with all the charged particles of the mirror [#], and
> > the resulting interference results in reflection with the usual Snell's law.
> I have SOURCES which say that atoms in a mirror DO absorb photons. Here
> are a couple:
>
> “What actually happens on a microscopic level is that the incoming photon
> is absorbed by the electrons of the mirror, which are set into oscillation by
> the photon’s oscillating electric field. The result is, for some materials
> (shiny ones), that the electrons’ oscillation creates a new photon that moves
> away from the mirror in the opposite direction. The incoming and outgoing
> photons are free and move at speed c, but they are not the same photon…”
>
> Source: Bernard Schultz, Gravity from the Ground Up, Cambridge University Press, page 196 (2003)
>
> "How does the mirror reflect light? The silver atoms behind the glass absorb the
> photons of incoming light energy and become excited. But that makes them
> unstable, so they try to become stable again by getting rid of the extra energy—
> and they do that by giving off some more photons."
>
> Source: https://www.explainthatstuff.com/howmirrorswork.html
> >
> > [#] Only electrons in a metallic conduction band contribute
> > significantly, which is why mirrors are invariably made of
> > polished metal surfaces.
> Silver atoms are the best reflectors. Aluminum atoms also work well.
> Other metals require constant polishing and don't work very well at all.
> > > tjrob137 wrote: "An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it
> > > absorbs a photon that matches the energy difference between its
> > > ground and excited states."
> > >
> > > That implies that you believe an atom is the same as a molecule.
> > > That's CRAZY!
> > The CRAZY part is you attempting to put words into my mouth. I NEVER
> > said or implied any such thing.
> >
> > Both atoms and molecules have excited states that can absorb photons of
> > the right energy. That is what I was talking about.
> You did it again!! A molecule is MADE FROM ATOMS. It is the ATOMS that
> matter, not the molecules.
> > > And, since silver atoms absorb and emit photons with many different
> > > variations in energy content, that makes the rest of your comment
> > > CRAZY, too.
> > The CRAZY part here is your insistence that silver atoms absorb
> > visible-light photons. THEY DO NOT. That is NOT how mirrors work.
> See the Bernard Schultz quotation above.
> Or watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE6I52Th9DE
> > > The difference between an atom's ground and excited states is not
> > > fixed, it depends upon the energy of the photon that is absorbed.
> > You REALLY do not understand this. Just making stuff up is HOPELESS.
> I use REFERENCES, which means I'm not making anything up.
> >
> > The structure of an atom's energy levels is UNAFFECTED by incoming
> > photons, it is FIXED by the atomic structure (# protons and electrons,
> > etc.). The atom can only absorb photons with energies that match
> > the energy difference between atomic levels [@]. Most such levels are
> > sharp, leading to absorption lines; some atoms, and most molecules, have
> > absorption bands, usually due to rotational degrees of freedom that are
> > very closely spaced in energy....
> Did you just make that up??? Or is it about some other topic?
> >
> > [@] Usually starting from the ground state. Note there
> > are additional selection rules.
> > > But, I don't want to get into another argument over words.
> > This is not about words. It is about your abysmal lack of understanding
> > of very basic physics.
> I use sources that you can check. You spout stuff you apparently MADE UP.
>
> Ed

I just found a college textbook that has an interesting section about how
photons interact with atoms. The textbook is "College Physics – A Strategic
Approach" (3rd edition) by Randall D. Knight, Brian Jones and Stuart Field.
Section 29.3 is titled "Bohr's Model of Atomic Quantization." It says this on
page 947:

"1. The electrons in an atom can exist in only certain allowed orbits. A particular
arrangement of electrons in these orbits is called a stationary state."

"3. An atom can undergo a transition or quantum jump from one stationary state
to another by emitting or absorbing a photon whose energy is exactly equal to the
energy difference between the two stationary states."

I can see that that last part can be interpreted to mean that an atom can ONLY
absorb a photon of a particular energy, OR it can be interpreted to mean that
when an atom absorbs a photon, the energy of the PHOTON is "exactly equal
to the energy difference between the two energy states." Since silver atoms
reflect light photons with energy of countless different states, the second
interpretation is clear the correct interpretation.

It is just the second textbook I checked. The first just referred to light as "rays"
and said nothing about rays interacting with atoms. I assume that any textbook
that explains how photons interact with atoms will say basically the same thing.

Ed

On 6/17/22 9:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> I have SOURCES which say that atoms in a mirror DO absorb photons.

They are WRONG.

I cannot help it if idiots and know-nothings outnumber knowledgeable
people on the internet. Or that authors often LIE about details
unrelated to their main topic, in order to avoid long-winded and
complicated discussions peripheral to their topic.

>> Both atoms and molecules have excited states that can absorb
>> photons of the right energy. That is what I was talking about.
>
> You did it again!! A molecule is MADE FROM ATOMS. It is the ATOMS
> that matter, not the molecules.

Not true. You just display your personal ignorance. Molecules usually
have absorption bands and lines that are unrelated to those of the atoms
of which they are made. They are related to inter-atomic motions and
vibrations within the molecule, or to overall rotational modes of the
molecule, etc.

>> The structure of an atom's energy levels is UNAFFECTED by incoming
>> photons, it is FIXED by the atomic structure (# protons and
>> electrons, etc.). The atom can only absorb photons with energies
>> that match the energy difference between atomic levels [@]. Most
>> such levels are sharp, leading to absorption lines; some atoms,
>> and most molecules, have absorption bands, usually due to
>> rotational degrees of freedom that are very closely spaced in
>> energy....
>
> Did you just make that up??? Or is it about some other topic?

It is just basic quantum mechanics, of which you appear to be completely
ignorant. It is DIRECTLY relevant here and shows how wrong your claims are.

> I uses source that you can check.

Too bad you are unable to understand them well enough to see that they
are wrong. Elementary books often LIE about advanced topics, to avoid
long and detailed discussions unrelated to their topic.

> I just found a college textbook that has an interesting section
> about how photons interact with atoms. The textbook is "College
> Physics – A Strategic Approach" (3rd edition) by Randall D. Knight,
> Brian Jones and Stuart Field. Section 29.3 is titled "Bohr's Model of
> Atomic Quantization."

But what you don't understand is that Bohr's model has been COMPLETELY
SUPERSEDED by quantum mechanics. Some aspects remain, including the
requirement that for a photon to be absorbed by an atom its energy must
exactly match the energy difference between atomic states.

> Since silver atoms reflect light photons with energy of countless
> different states, [...]

This is still wrong, and the "interpretation" you espouse is YOURS AND
YOURS ALONE [#] -- everyone else knows that the energy levels of an atom
are determined by the atomic structure, not by any incoming photon flux.
It is the electrons in the conduction band that implement the mirror,
not the atoms absorbing photons -- the reflection is an inherently QED
effect related to the phases of interactions with the myriad electrons
located throughout the mirror.

[#] You are prolific in making stuff up to fill in gaps
that you don't understand. You are invariably wrong.

Tom Roberts

On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 19:41:07 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/17/22 9:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > I have SOURCES which say that atoms in a mirror DO absorb photons.
> They are WRONG.
>
> I cannot help it if idiots and know-nothings outnumber knowledgeable
> people on the internet.

Of course you can help. You can leave and it will be
one idiot less.

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 10:41:07 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/17/22 9:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > I have SOURCES which say that atoms in a mirror DO absorb photons.
> They are WRONG.

You are wrong tj. mirror atoms absorb light and emit it back in direction.

Mitchell Raemsch

>
> I cannot help it if idiots and know-nothings outnumber knowledgeable
> people on the internet. Or that authors often LIE about details
> unrelated to their main topic, in order to avoid long-winded and
> complicated discussions peripheral to their topic.
> >> Both atoms and molecules have excited states that can absorb
> >> photons of the right energy. That is what I was talking about.
> >
> > You did it again!! A molecule is MADE FROM ATOMS. It is the ATOMS
> > that matter, not the molecules.
> Not true. You just display your personal ignorance. Molecules usually
> have absorption bands and lines that are unrelated to those of the atoms
> of which they are made. They are related to inter-atomic motions and
> vibrations within the molecule, or to overall rotational modes of the
> molecule, etc.
> >> The structure of an atom's energy levels is UNAFFECTED by incoming
> >> photons, it is FIXED by the atomic structure (# protons and
> >> electrons, etc.). The atom can only absorb photons with energies
> >> that match the energy difference between atomic levels [@]. Most
> >> such levels are sharp, leading to absorption lines; some atoms,
> >> and most molecules, have absorption bands, usually due to
> >> rotational degrees of freedom that are very closely spaced in
> >> energy....
> >
> > Did you just make that up??? Or is it about some other topic?
> It is just basic quantum mechanics, of which you appear to be completely
> ignorant. It is DIRECTLY relevant here and shows how wrong your claims are.
> > I uses source that you can check.
> Too bad you are unable to understand them well enough to see that they
> are wrong. Elementary books often LIE about advanced topics, to avoid
> long and detailed discussions unrelated to their topic.
> > I just found a college textbook that has an interesting section
> > about how photons interact with atoms. The textbook is "College
> > Physics – A Strategic Approach" (3rd edition) by Randall D. Knight,
> > Brian Jones and Stuart Field. Section 29.3 is titled "Bohr's Model of
> > Atomic Quantization."
> But what you don't understand is that Bohr's model has been COMPLETELY
> SUPERSEDED by quantum mechanics. Some aspects remain, including the
> requirement that for a photon to be absorbed by an atom its energy must
> exactly match the energy difference between atomic states.
> > Since silver atoms reflect light photons with energy of countless
> > different states, [...]
>
> This is still wrong, and the "interpretation" you espouse is YOURS AND
> YOURS ALONE [#] -- everyone else knows that the energy levels of an atom
> are determined by the atomic structure, not by any incoming photon flux.
> It is the electrons in the conduction band that implement the mirror,
> not the atoms absorbing photons -- the reflection is an inherently QED
> effect related to the phases of interactions with the myriad electrons
> located throughout the mirror.
>
> [#] You are prolific in making stuff up to fill in gaps
> that you don't understand. You are invariably wrong.
>
> Tom Roberts

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 12:41:07 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/17/22 9:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > I have SOURCES which say that atoms in a mirror DO absorb photons.
> They are WRONG.
>
> I cannot help it if idiots and know-nothings outnumber knowledgeable
> people on the internet. Or that authors often LIE about details
> unrelated to their main topic, in order to avoid long-winded and
> complicated discussions peripheral to their topic.

So, textbooks lie? What sources do you use then? Stuff you make up?

> >> Both atoms and molecules have excited states that can absorb
> >> photons of the right energy. That is what I was talking about.
> >
> > You did it again!! A molecule is MADE FROM ATOMS. It is the ATOMS
> > that matter, not the molecules.
> Not true. You just display your personal ignorance. Molecules usually
> have absorption bands and lines that are unrelated to those of the atoms
> of which they are made. They are related to inter-atomic motions and
> vibrations within the molecule, or to overall rotational modes of the
> molecule, etc.
> >> The structure of an atom's energy levels is UNAFFECTED by incoming
> >> photons, it is FIXED by the atomic structure (# protons and
> >> electrons, etc.). The atom can only absorb photons with energies
> >> that match the energy difference between atomic levels [@]. Most
> >> such levels are sharp, leading to absorption lines; some atoms,
> >> and most molecules, have absorption bands, usually due to
> >> rotational degrees of freedom that are very closely spaced in
> >> energy....
> >
> > Did you just make that up??? Or is it about some other topic?
> It is just basic quantum mechanics, of which you appear to be completely
> ignorant. It is DIRECTLY relevant here and shows how wrong your claims are.

Ah! Quantum Mechanics! You should have mentioned that you are a
Quantum Mechanics mathematician. That answers everything! It explains
why you DISAGREE WITH TEXTBOOKS that explain science and Relativity.

> > I uses source that you can check.
> Too bad you are unable to understand them well enough to see that they
> are wrong. Elementary books often LIE about advanced topics, to avoid
> long and detailed discussions unrelated to their topic.

Really? How come no one points out their "lies" except YOU?

> > I just found a college textbook that has an interesting section
> > about how photons interact with atoms. The textbook is "College
> > Physics – A Strategic Approach" (3rd edition) by Randall D. Knight,
> > Brian Jones and Stuart Field. Section 29.3 is titled "Bohr's Model of
> > Atomic Quantization."
> But what you don't understand is that Bohr's model has been COMPLETELY
> SUPERSEDED by quantum mechanics. Some aspects remain, including the
> requirement that for a photon to be absorbed by an atom its energy must
> exactly match the energy difference between atomic states.

You are a Quantum Mechanics mathematician, which explains your
NONSENSICAL BELIEFS. It means you ONLY understand mathematics,
and you have NO INTEREST IN SCIENCE OR REALITY.

> > Since silver atoms reflect light photons with energy of countless
> > different states, [...]
>
> This is still wrong, and the "interpretation" you espouse is YOURS AND
> YOURS ALONE [#] -- everyone else knows that the energy levels of an atom
> are determined by the atomic structure, not by any incoming photon flux.
> It is the electrons in the conduction band that implement the mirror,
> not the atoms absorbing photons -- the reflection is an inherently QED
> effect related to the phases of interactions with the myriad electrons
> located throughout the mirror.
>
> [#] You are prolific in making stuff up to fill in gaps
> that you don't understand. You are invariably wrong.
>
> Tom Roberts

No, we've found out why you and I can never agree. You are a Quantum
Mechanics mathematician, and Quantum Mechanics mathematicians
have been trying to push aside Relativity FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS
in order to foster they own BELIEFS.

I'm a Relativist and a follower of Albert Einstein. The books I cite accurately
represent Relativity. Quantum Mechanics is an INCOMPLETE THEORY.
Quantum Mechanics cannot cope with the universe around us. It is only
useful when examining the the world of atoms and sub-atomic particles.
And even then it is incomplete, since it just works with math and does
not care about FACTS and EXPERIMENTS.

Einstein put it this way: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

If you had just said you were a Quantum Mechanics mathematician at the
very beginning, we could have saved a lot of time. To me, that means there
is NO POSSIBILITY of agreement between us on any scientific topic.

Ed