«We've proved that generating entanglement
between photons emitted from an LED can be achieved by adding another peculiar physical effect of superconductivity — a resistance - free electrical current in certain materials at low temperatures.»
Not exact matches
To glimpse the oldest light in the universe, simply tune an old television
between channels: the tiny specs dancing on the screen result from the antenna being bombarded relentlessly by
photons that were
emitted shortly after the big bang, some 13.8 billion years ago.
In pondering the quantum interactions
between matter and light, Einstein found he could calculate neither the timing nor the direction of the
photons spontaneously
emitted from atoms.
When this stack is charged with electricity, the electrons trapped
between the more electrically resistant layers pump up each other's energy levels and
emit photons.
Normally, the
photons are transmitted in both directions in the photonic waveguide, but in their custom - made photonic chip they could break this symmetry and get the quantum dot to differentiate
between emitting a
photon right or left, that means
emit directional
photons.
Collisions
between gas molecules produce excited rotational, vibrational and electronic states that spontaneously
emit photons.
Transitions
between these levels is governed by quantum numbers and are allowed or forbidden by selection rules, so the energy of
photons emitted or absorbed is subject to these rules.
Theory certainly suggests that a warmer atmosphere as a result of higher CO2 concentrations will
emit photons more frequently — and more of these will by chance find a path to space restoring the conditional equilibrium
between ingoing and outgoing radiation — the condition being that all other things remain equal.
Assume the top and bottom
emitting surfaces are very distant and finite, so
photons are traveling
between them in a roughly vertical direction.
To say this back radiation might be real but a warmer surface can not absorb
photons emitted by a colder surface is also wrong as the reality is that if you measure the rate of energy loss
between two surfaces of different temperatures the rate decreases as the temperature difference decreases and increases as the temperature difference increases.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, despite their apparent mastery of the mathematics of radiative transfer, don't know the difference
between gross and net radiative flux, and they are apparently unaware of the concept of causality in an Einsteinian framework — a molecule of CO2
emitting a
photon in a random direction can't know if there is a (cooler or warmer) surface in the direction of emission until time has elapsed for the
photon to travel to the surface and back, and has no mechanism to remember from one
photon to the next whether there was a source of
photons in that direction, or what the apparent temperature of the emitter was.
Can somebody explain to a novice the difference
between an IR
photon being reflected versus being absorbed and
emitted.
Well the interaction time of two atoms or molecules in collision, is very much faster by many orders of magnitude, than the mean time
between molecular collisions that result in pressure broadening of molecular absorption lines; and that means that the uncertainties in the
emitted photon energies become extremely large.
Photons emitted from the core of the Sun take
between 100,000 - 200,000 years to reach the surface and journey out into space.