/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5938159

What is it about what I'm being told that's wrong?

>>5938154

If any photon is absorbed by an electron and then emitted again, could you not see it?

>>5938155

I'm asking how they don't, when I'm always told the contrary.

>>5938139

I'm guessing that it doesn't, I can't see why it would.

>>5938132

How not?

So, if gamma rays were in our visible spectrum, and our eyesight was such that we could see down to a quantum level, we would see electrons as colour gamma? Does colour stop existing at some quantum point?

>>5938003

Nope, just plain colour. Light wavelengths. Red, blue, etc.

When an electron randomly emits a photon, will the direction of the photon also be random? If not, why?

Also, an electron can absorb a photon bringing it to a higher energy level, meaning that we can't see that photon, since it's absorbed. But don't excited electrons spontaneously emit photons equal to the energy difference, meaning they randomly emit the same photon, so we would see the photon anyway?

>>5937875

But the electron is what's affected

>>5937868

Yeah, but all the other wavelengths, if we could see them, have different colours.

By the way, do nucleons and other particles absorb photons? If not, why?

>>5937833

But electrons absorb photons

What colour are particles?
Certain matter has a certain colour because its atoms reflect a certain wavelength instead of absorbing it. But what about the particles themselves? What would they look like, assuming we could see them?

>>5933793

Calm down m8.

>>5933708

Oh, so you're just worried about confusion over the old metre? We can call it something else, problem solved.

>>5933398

Fuck you.

>>5933412

No, I'm not talking about rounding, I'm talking about redefining the metre

>>5933344

Oh. Then they should have redefined it so that light travels at 300,000,000m/s.

>>5933275

But that's the thing. Look here from Wikipedia -". Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second, a figure that is exact because the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time."

They're saying it's EXACTLY that value, when it can't be, because the metre wasn't originally based on the fucking speed of fucking light.

>>5933308

BECAUSE THE METRE SUCKS DICK

This is making me rage

>>5933270

If they were going to redefine it, why not use 1/300,000,000th of a second?
And if it wasn't redefined, that means light coincidentally travelled that far in one second??

"The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second."

What the fuck?
They define the metre using a number based on the metre?
Why not define the metre as the length travelled by light in 1/300,000,000th of a second, which is rounder?

Is this just a fucked up definition?

>>5932996

Light travels at the same speed in all reference frames. It is indeed a weird thing, but true.