/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3667540]

If I were to have a power supply with a variable output of ~1.8-3.1VAC @ 5000A, producing a rather small EMF in a hard vacuum with its electrodes some random distance apart, why isn't this electromagnetic field visible, if it's field mediators (photons) are around the energies of the visible light spectrum (~1.8-3.1eV)?

[Anonymous No.3667563]

I don't really understand the question but light is only visible once it reacts with matter. So in a vacuum you'll probably not get much if any reaction regardless of how much energy you run through it.

[OP No.3667578]

>>3667563
This is a theoretical scenario, assuming there is glass around this 'vacuum' that photons are able to escape through, and an observer whose corneas can be stimulated

[Anonymous No.3667595]

>>3667540
I don't think you understand how the EM field work, nor physics is general. Read then rephrase your question.

[OP No.3667631]

>>3667595
I'm sorry, what?
An EMF is quantized by photons, and if those photons possess energies of the visible light spectrum, why aren't they visible if said EMF is produced by a power supply?

[Anonymous No.3667638]

>>3667631
Only photons that enter your eyes are visible.

[OP No.3667655]

>>3667638
yes, so say i place my head directly inside of this vacuum (not taking death into account), providing the center of EMF (with photon energies of ~1.8-3.1eV) plenty of room to enter my eyes, would I be able to 'see' the EMF?

[OP No.3667690]

let's make this even more simple. say if i took a a 3.1V battery and applied both electrodes to someone's eyeball. without the vision loss from corneal burning, would the person be able to 'see' the EMF propagation?

[Anonymous No.3667691]

>>3667655
>it's field mediators (photons) are around the energies of the visible light spectrum

Why do you think this is the case?

[Anonymous No.3667704]

>>3667691
I think he might be asking what would happen if they were. If this is the question then yes, would would be able to see the EMF.

[OP No.3667706]

>>3667691
because electron stimulation would result in 1.8-3.1eV increase in kinetic energy/acceleration?

[Anonymous No.3667712]

>>3667690
Well, you need to excite the retina, not the cornea...

[Anonymous No.3667716]

>>3667690
>'see' the EMF propagation

WTF are you talking about? What exactly are you expecting to fucking see kid?

If im in the ocean, can I "see" ocean current....NO. You can only see there effect on the shit in the water.

[OP No.3667717]

>>3667704
really? wow, that's insane. would the intensity of the light be proportional to the amperage of this theoretical power supply? thanks.

[Anonymous No.3667721]

>mfw feynman probably tried this but winded up electrocuting himself

[Anonymous No.3667733]

>>3667540
I don't think you know what the EM field is.

[OP No.3667742]

>>3667733
you're kidding, right? or are you one of those classical electromagnetism/coulomb field believers?