I'm still thinking about this constantly and am trying to sort of bounce
it off of what I understand about sound.
require a material to propagate through, ok. So if you pluck a guitar string in a vacuum it vibrates, actually longer than if it was in air
because there's no air resistance so the only inertia to absorb the vibration comes from the guitar and the string.
So I'm trying to figure out, and I understand that I may be looking over some stupidly obvious thing here, if
1. normally guitar strings would cause the string next to it to vibrate
2. if so, to what degree
I'm assuming that if it does at all, that in a vacuum it would not and that the vibration can only be conducted through matter which is touching. Therefore
3. If you placed a microphone in a vacuum so that it's membrane or ribbon was actually touching the vibration source (or to a string that's touching the source), you would able to record that as sound, wouldn't you?
Just trying to compare light and sound to see if they are totally unrelated but for the wavelike aspect or if there's some deeper information to be gleaned from determining whether acoustic vibration is slower purely because there is mass involved and therefore travels at a fraction of c
, or just because the audio phenomenon is orders of magnitude larger. Or both?
I woke up in the middle of the night to a thunderstorm and started thinking again about thunder and sound and how it relates to light's relativistic mass/momentum. In this case, the thunder is an effect of the atmosphere 'cooking' rapidly, not just from the photons, but I'm guessing also from the force of the electrons slamming into each other.
In my model of photons, the excited condition/energy our eyes recognized as 'light' jumps from particle to particle 'from the inside'. Electrons are activated individually and inspire identical activation in their neighboring atoms, which detect and respond to the neighbor's frisky (and information rich) display and is compelled to join in. (I think this may be the origin of the ancestor or elemental dynamic of subjectivity).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if photons were actually particles traveling through space, wouldn't turning on a flashlight look more like this?
Lots of questions about perception. Does sound do to us what light does to us only more slowly and on a larger scope? Why is our perception of sound so different from light? Why can't we hear as precisely and confidently as we see.
. Why is our perception of heat so different than light? Why not have eyes detect into the thermal spectrum or have our skin have higher resolution tactile dimension.. it's all very strange and I've been thinking about it wayy too much.
Back to the thunder though...I see a parallel between the 'exteriorization' of the energy of lightning and the momentum and radiation pressure that cyberia mentioned. I'd be interested to know if photons have been observed having a momentum effect on a single atom. If so, then I think I'm wrong and there is an exterior particle effect, or else there is some mass generated by the inertia of the atom becoming physically excited.
If we've only observed momentum effects in groups of atoms, then I think it could be more of a thunder reaction. The acoustic blast momentum comes from percussive collisions and hot particle-on-particle action of atomic and molecular masses and volumes...somehow it's three dimensional topology is being 'played' like a musical instrument - the intra-atomic energy of the photon is now amplified and expanded in scope to propagate inter-atomic conditions.
As a result of this transduction process, there is an emergent property of quality
- part analog/metaphor/expression echoing the initial energy, part departure from, reaction against, and emphatic realization (think thunder) of the interior quantum mechanic.