PDA

View Full Version : hey is there photons in us?



stargurl14
2004-Jan-09, 01:07 AM
hey i was just wondering are there photons in us? we are made up of a lot of things and a lot of things are in are D.N.A ? i would love to no , i no that might sound lame but iam just asking. :roll:

dvb
2004-Jan-09, 01:09 AM
Are we made up of light? I'm affraid not. Sorry to burst your bubble. 8)

Koan
2004-Jan-09, 01:22 AM
Well, maybe not...

but I was so bright as a child that my daddy called me "sun"...

Sam5
2004-Jan-09, 01:27 AM
hey i was just wondering are there photons in us? we are made up of a lot of things and a lot of things are in are D.N.A ? i would love to no , i no that might sound lame but iam just asking. :roll:

We radiate photons. That’s how we can show up on an infrared camera at night as a bright spot:

“Human body, for example, with characteristic temperature of 98.6 C radiates in the infrared range which is the basis of infrared cameras used not only in searches in natural disasters such as earthquakes, but also in wars in search of enemies as we saw in the Gulf War.”

SOURCE (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:nE_2x64crvcJ:www.universalunity.net/history.htm+human+body+radiates+photons&hl=en&ie=U TF-8)

tuffel999
2004-Jan-09, 01:29 AM
hey i was just wondering are there photons in us? we are made up of a lot of things and a lot of things are in are D.N.A ? i would love to no , i no that might sound lame but iam just asking. :roll:

Actually there are very few things in DNA. A phosphate back bone, a deoxyribose(a sugar), and a heterocyclic aromatic amine base(A,T,C,G, J, and the rest of the modified bases such a 7 methyl guanosine).

dvb
2004-Jan-09, 01:46 AM
hey i was just wondering are there photons in us? we are made up of a lot of things and a lot of things are in are D.N.A ? i would love to no , i no that might sound lame but iam just asking. :roll:

We radiate photons. That’s how we can show up on an infrared camera at night as a bright spot:

“Human body, for example, with characteristic temperature of 98.6 C radiates in the infrared range which is the basis of infrared cameras used not only in searches in natural disasters such as earthquakes, but also in wars in search of enemies as we saw in the Gulf War.”

SOURCE (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:nE_2x64crvcJ:www.universalunity.net/history.htm+human+body+radiates+photons&hl=en&ie=U TF-8)

My goodness, that's less than 2 degrees from boiling water. I know it's just a mistake, but I couldn't resist. :P

Sam5
2004-Jan-09, 01:48 AM
hey i was just wondering are there photons in us? we are made up of a lot of things and a lot of things are in are D.N.A ? i would love to no , i no that might sound lame but iam just asking. :roll:

We radiate photons. That’s how we can show up on an infrared camera at night as a bright spot:

“Human body, for example, with characteristic temperature of 98.6 C radiates in the infrared range which is the basis of infrared cameras used not only in searches in natural disasters such as earthquakes, but also in wars in search of enemies as we saw in the Gulf War.”

SOURCE (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:nE_2x64crvcJ:www.universalunity.net/history.htm+human+body+radiates+photons&hl=en&ie=U TF-8)

My goodness, that's less than 2 degrees from boiling water. I know it's just a mistake, but I couldn't resist. :P

That's funny. :D

Hey, I'm trying to find out how many photons a single doughnut would contribute to our radiation level.

AGN Fuel
2004-Jan-09, 01:49 AM
We radiate photons. That’s how we can show up on an infrared camera at night as a bright spot:

“Human body, for example, with characteristic temperature of 98.6 C radiates in the infrared range which is the basis of infrared cameras used not only in searches in natural disasters such as earthquakes, but also in wars in search of enemies as we saw in the Gulf War.”

SOURCE (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:nE_2x64crvcJ:www.universalunity.net/history.htm+human+body+radiates+photons&hl=en&ie=U TF-8)

My goodness, that's less than 2 degrees from boiling water. I know it's just a mistake, but I couldn't resist. :P

Hence your bubbling personality!! :lol:

tuffel999
2004-Jan-09, 02:02 AM
That's funny. :D

Hey, I'm trying to find out how many photons a single doughnut would contribute to our radiation level.

What do you mean by that?

Musashi
2004-Jan-09, 02:05 AM
I think he means our heat radiation.

tuffel999
2004-Jan-09, 02:08 AM
That would make more sense but that isn't what he said exactly......

I wonder if you previewed that before he posted it.

Sam5
2004-Jan-09, 02:18 AM
I think he means our heat radiation.

Yes, I meant the calories in a doughnut converted into joules or moles and then into radiant energy. Something like what this website talks about. I’ve never heard of this before. I’ve never even thought of it before:

“We don't commonly think of moles of energy packets, or about the amount of energy contained in a mole of something, but in fact that's what we need to do if we want to understand the processes that occur with photons. The energy contained in a mole of photons of a specified wavelength is measured with a unit of measure called the Einstein for solar radiation. The energy of a photon varies directly with its frequency and inversely with its wavelength. So an Einstein of light of the wavelength 250 nm contains exactly twice the energy of an Einstein of light of 500 nm. Each photon (each quantum) of 250 nm has twice the energy of a 500 nm photon. That means that the photon can do twice as much work. The equation used to find the energy in a mole of photons is E= hc/lambda where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light and is the wavelength of light. The value of E will come out in units that are useful for us to work with if we put the constants and wavelength in the proper units. Our choice of units depends on what we are trying to do. Biologists and physicists generally use different units.”

www.phys.ksu.edu/gene/f_10.html+photons+per+Calorie&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]LINK (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:CkAjeHFmowIJ:[url) TO SOURCE[/url]

tuffel999
2004-Jan-09, 02:22 AM
I think he means our heat radiation.

Yes, I meant the calories in a doughnut converted into joules or moles and then into radiant energy.


Do you know what a mole is, it has nothing to do with joules?

Here is a clue:
http://www.moleday.org/

Sam5
2004-Jan-09, 02:26 AM
I think he means our heat radiation.

Yes, I meant the calories in a doughnut converted into joules or moles and then into radiant energy.


Do you know what a mole is, it has nothing to do with joules?

Here is a clue:
http://www.moleday.org/

I tried looking up “mole” and I got a bunch of Mexican recipies for molé sauce.

Andromeda321
2004-Jan-09, 02:32 AM
I tried looking up “mole” and I got a bunch of Mexican recipies for molé sauce.

Search for "mol" or add "chemistry" or "6.022*10^23."

And as a person who has written epic poems about "The Adventures of Super Mole," the chemistry super hero whose alter ego is Cole Mole, GO MOLE DAY!!! :D :D :D

tuffel999
2004-Jan-09, 02:33 AM
Cute....look up avagadro's number instead.....

Sam5
2004-Jan-09, 02:39 AM
Cute....look up avagadro's number instead.....
You mean Avogadro's Number, don't you?

Musashi
2004-Jan-09, 03:01 AM
Avocado's number? Now I just get recipes for guacamole! ;)

tuffel999
2004-Jan-09, 03:06 AM
Cute....look up avagadro's number instead.....
You mean Avogadro's Number, don't you?

I type to fast sometimes. Take a look at my spelling history it is really bad. I don't usual get concerned when it doesn't impact the meaning.

Edit: For instance here to instead of too.

George
2004-Jan-09, 03:32 AM
Hey, I'm trying to find out how many photons a single doughnut would contribute to our radiation level.

I am reasonably sure the calorie content of a donut is available in most det books. The number of photons will vary somewhat with what your body is doing. If you are exerting yourself then the higher skin temperature should emit higher energy photons.

iI suspect all energy from the donut calories will go to heat photons except the energy your body transfers through work (if work is being done). I do not know the effeciency of the human body. Power plants are about 35% to 45% in efficency. The rest is heat photons.

Since heat is such a low frequency, the photons do not behave much like particles and we tend to think of photons more as particles. So "heat photons" sounds odd. Same is true about thinking of the frequency of a rock. They behave like particles so there frequency is not too important.

Sam5
2004-Jan-09, 03:45 AM
Hey, I'm trying to find out how many photons a single doughnut would contribute to our radiation level.

I am reasonably sure the calorie content of a donut is available in most det books. The number of photons will vary somewhat with what your body is doing.

Well, it's just sitting in front of my computer right now.



If you are exerting yourself then the higher skin temperature should emit higher energy photons.

iI suspect all energy from the donut calories will go to heat photons except the energy your body transfers through work (if work is being done). I do not know the effeciency of the human body. Power plants are about 35% to 45% in efficency. The rest is heat photons.

I figure mine's about, oh, maybe 2% efficient.


Since heat is such a low frequency, the photons do not behave much like particles and we tend to think of photons more as particles. So "heat photons" sounds odd. Same is true about thinking of the frequency of a rock. They behave like particles so there frequency is not too important.

Look, I hear the rocks humming all the time. Drives me nuts.

Glad to have an answer to my question from a real physics/doughnut authority.

Of course I prefer the 19th Century spelling of doughnut.

Jobe
2004-Jan-09, 04:35 AM
Cute....look up avagadro's number instead.....
You mean Avogadro's Number, don't you?

Anything to get one back on you :P

Amazing coming from someone who 5 minutes ago didn't know what a mol was.

But by tommorow, he'll be giving long, boring and factually incorrect lectures on the subject to people who already know the truth :)

George
2004-Jan-09, 04:43 AM
Hey, I'm trying to find out how many photons a single doughnut would contribute to our radiation level.

I am reasonably sure the calorie content of a donut is available in most det books. The number of photons will vary somewhat with what your body is doing.

Well, it's just sitting in front of my computer right now.[ :)

Eating dougnuts? :)

I am now reasonably sure I should not have been so reasonably sure that food calories = energy calories. I just remembered a jalapeno is reported to have -1 calories. Maybe someone who diets can explain food calories.



Since heat is such a low frequency, the photons do not behave much like particles and we tend to think of photons more as particles. So "heat photons" sounds odd. Same is true about thinking of the frequency of a rock. They behave like particles so there frequency is not too important.

Look, I hear the rocks humming all the time. Drives me nuts.

You have to oranize them by weights. Use whole amount diffeences, rocks that are also heavier by 3/7 and 5/7 amounts for full choral harmony. :-({|= :lol:


Glad to have an answer to my question from a real physics/doughnut authority.

Well experience brings much to the table here as many donuts have been on the table over the years. Inf fact, I could say I have several notches on my belt in regards to donuts. :)

Mellow
2004-Jan-09, 08:19 AM
All I can reall add here is "mmmmmm doooohnuuts"

And BTW, I prefer the correct spelling doughnuts, also.

AstroSmurf
2004-Jan-09, 09:22 AM
Here's my back-of-an-envelope calculation:

IR radiation frequency: 0.003 - 4 x 10^14 Hz , say 1*10^12 Hz
Avogadro's number: 6.022 * 10^23
Planck's constant: 6.626 * 10^-34 Js

Energy of 1 mole of IR photons: 400 J

swansont
2004-Jan-09, 12:51 PM
I am now reasonably sure I should not have been so reasonably sure that food calories = energy calories. I just remembered a jalapeno is reported to have -1 calories.

A food Calorie is a kilocalorie in thermodynamic terms.

Who reported the jalapeno to have -1 cal? CNN?

Swift
2004-Jan-09, 03:00 PM
I tried looking up “mole” and I got a bunch of Mexican recipies for molé sauce.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Sorry, I'm a chemist and I find that very funny.
The mole can be thought of as a unit of amount. For example, a mole of carbon is the amount of carbon in 12 grams. A mole contains 6.02 x 10^23 of the things (in this case, carbon atoms). A mole of golf balls would be 6.02 x 10^23 golf balls.
I guess a mole of chocolate bars would make a lot of molé.

Sam5
2004-Jan-09, 03:30 PM
I am now reasonably sure I should not have been so reasonably sure that food calories = energy calories. I just remembered a jalapeno is reported to have -1 calories. Maybe someone who diets can explain food calories.

Uhhh, I’d rather not explain the situation to you about the Jalapeno. But let me put it to you this way. If you eat several Jalapenos, you will, uhh, well, let’s just say that a lot of calories will soon be removed from your system but not by means of photon radiation.

However, I think the standard explanation is like with celery. I’ve heard that you will burn up more calories eating celery than the celery will provide to you when you eat it.

Sam5
2004-Jan-09, 03:33 PM
A food Calorie is a kilocalorie in thermodynamic terms.

Who reported the jalapeno to have -1 cal? CNN?

It was probably Fox. They reported it, but we’ll have to decide.

tuffel999
2004-Jan-09, 03:35 PM
I am now reasonably sure I should not have been so reasonably sure that food calories = energy calories. I just remembered a jalapeno is reported to have -1 calories. Maybe someone who diets can explain food calories.

Uhhh, I’d rather not explain the situation to you about the Jalapeno. But let me put it to you this way. If you eat several Jalapenos, you will, uhh, well, let’s just say that a lot of calories will soon be removed from your system but not by means of photon radiation.

However, I think the standard explanation is like with celery. I’ve heard that you will burn up more calories eating celery than the celery will provide to you when you eat it.

It is called fiber(cellulose really but whatever)....humans can't digest it. It simply exits the bottom end. Cellulose is not broken down by most mammals, cows for instance maintain a very unique mix of micro organisms to break cellulose down.

Sam5
2004-Jan-09, 03:38 PM
Anything to get...

Amazing coming from...

But by tommorow...

[-X

Bob
2004-Jan-09, 04:47 PM
The power output of the human body at rest is about 100 watts, comparable to a light bulb. At maximum exertion, like running up stairs, power output can exceed a kilowatt.

stargurl14
2004-Jan-09, 05:04 PM
so is that a yes? iam not sure every one thinks something ease? becausw we have all this energe in us you would think we might have photons , we have a lot of things in us that you would not realy no about, is there even a way of noing. 8-[

tuffel999
2004-Jan-09, 05:13 PM
Short answer the body emits in the infrared band. This does not mean we are made from photons but that the human body can radiate or release photons at certain wavelengths.

George
2004-Jan-09, 05:46 PM
...
I guess a mole of chocolate bars would make a lot of molé.

Swift, you crack me :lol: up!

The -1 calorie for a jalapeno came from my Dad years ago. I use it to rationalize my poor eating habits. It migt be true, howver.

It would seem to me that food calories represent the energy available for the body to do work. "Elf" ate molases - high calorie = high useable energy.

I do not suspect that food calories account for the the exothermic portion generated in digestion.

It is nice to know Iam at least as bright as a 100w light bulb! :)

stargirl, the answer is yes. If all your bodiy's energy could be channeled into a tungsten filament, you could out shine the large lightbulbs(assuing the 100w to 1kw output is correct).

Since the body dissipates this energy over a large surface, the temp is much less so the photons are heat photons and not too exciting unless you are freezing, of course. If you are prespiring, then some of your energy (heat) is transfered into water molecules which become vapor.

The photons I think you are interested in are the ones that come off the body as radiation. Conducton and convection also minimize your photon rqdiation output. Fortunately, the Planck equation will give a great idea of your radiation output and frequency distribution of those photons from radiation.

swansont
2004-Jan-09, 06:07 PM
Since the body dissipates this energy over a large surface, the temp is much less so the photons are heat photons and not too exciting unless you are freezing, of course. If you are prespiring, then some of your energy (heat) is transfered into water molecules which become vapor.


"heat photons" is a rather awkward phrase. All EM radiation can potentially heat something up. EM radiation from a blackbody at body temp will mostly be several microns and longer (i.e. IR and beyond) but it's a mistake to equate IR photons with heat - they aren't synonymous.

daver
2004-Jan-09, 07:36 PM
so is that a yes? iam not sure every one thinks something ease? becausw we have all this energe in us you would think we might have photons , we have a lot of things in us that you would not realy no about, is there even a way of noing. 8-[

The short answer is "yes", you have lots of photons in you. This is not a particularly surprising result--everything has photons in it--even "empty" space, and the photons inside you aren't behaving much differently than the photons inside a rabbit or a block of wood.

George
2004-Jan-10, 03:53 AM
"heat photons" is a rather awkward phrase. All EM radiation can potentially heat something up. EM radiation from a blackbody at body temp will mostly be several microns and longer (i.e. IR and beyond) but it's a mistake to equate IR photons with heat - they aren't synonymous.

Why aren't they synonymous?

I agree it is akward especially in the IR and lower end as the photon behavior is much more wave-like as opposed to particle-like. But are they no longer photons by definition?

swansont
2004-Jan-10, 03:09 PM
"heat photons" is a rather awkward phrase. All EM radiation can potentially heat something up. EM radiation from a blackbody at body temp will mostly be several microns and longer (i.e. IR and beyond) but it's a mistake to equate IR photons with heat - they aren't synonymous.

Why aren't they synonymous?

I agree it is akward especially in the IR and lower end as the photon behavior is much more wave-like as opposed to particle-like. But are they no longer photons by definition?

Because you can transfer heat by many other means than with IR photons. IR is often a symptom of something being hot, but it';s not exclusive. If it were, I couldn't heat something in the microwave or on the stove, or burn myself with a focused visible wavelength laser. And I've done these things. The microwave uses EM radiation that isn't IR, and the stove uses conduction and convection to transfer energy. And transferred energy is what heat really is.

"Hot things radiate strongly in the IR" is right. "infrared is heat" is wrong.

IR light exhibits just as much particle behavior as any other photon, really. It's all a matter of what experiment you're doing. We may do more things that measure the wave nature, but I do plenty of things with IR that are quite photon-like.

George
2004-Jan-11, 05:18 AM
Because you can transfer heat by many other means than with IR photons. IR is often a symptom of something being hot, but it';s not exclusive. If it were, I couldn't heat something in the microwave or on the stove, or burn myself with a focused visible wavelength laser. And I've done these things. The microwave uses EM radiation that isn't IR, and the stove uses conduction and convection to transfer energy. And transferred energy is what heat really is.

"Hot things radiate strongly in the IR" is right. "infrared is heat" is wrong.

I think I understand your thinking. You are saying that heat is transfered in other ways besides IR radiation - convection and coduction. This is especially true within the body.

So, Stargirl, you probably won't be getting the photon show within the body as you might have hoped. There will be some but only the low frequency ones and they won't be zipping around.


IR light exhibits just as much particle behavior as any other photon, really. It's all a matter of what experiment you're doing. We may do more things that measure the wave nature, but I do plenty of things with IR that are quite photon-like.

As I understand it, the greater the photon energy, the more it will behave like a particle. It doesn't loose it's wave identity but it becomes harder to recognize.