If light does not change speed, how does luminous intensity decrease?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
5
down vote

favorite












Light is made up of photons. They hit our eyes to create sensation. Suppose two points A and B are in a very long distance apart in vacuum. If we shine a very weak light from point A, practical experience dictates that from point B we would not perceive the same intensity of light (if any). If speed of light is constant, shouldn't all the photons travel from A to B and thus the intensity remain the same?



Note that they are in vacuum, photons cannot hit something and change direction.










share|cite|improve this question

















  • 1




    In this case, intensity depends on the number of photons that reach point B, not the on the photon's speed.
    – Andrei Geanta
    Aug 31 at 5:54










  • @AndreiGeanta Okay, how does the intensity decrease? Shouldn't the number of photons remain the same?
    – Shuvo Sarker
    Aug 31 at 5:56







  • 1




    Even with the best lasers, light spreads out as it travels. Hence fewer photons will hit the target.
    – hdhondt
    Aug 31 at 6:07










  • Photons in a vacuum can interact with each other. It's just several perturbation terms down the probability series. But that's not the issue here. It's all about beam spreading and packet dispersion.
    – Carl Witthoft
    Aug 31 at 15:34










  • Maybe "intensity" could be meant as a measure of total energy, so that a redshift also "reduces intensity" as it reduces the power of the signal.
    – elliot svensson
    Aug 31 at 16:39














up vote
5
down vote

favorite












Light is made up of photons. They hit our eyes to create sensation. Suppose two points A and B are in a very long distance apart in vacuum. If we shine a very weak light from point A, practical experience dictates that from point B we would not perceive the same intensity of light (if any). If speed of light is constant, shouldn't all the photons travel from A to B and thus the intensity remain the same?



Note that they are in vacuum, photons cannot hit something and change direction.










share|cite|improve this question

















  • 1




    In this case, intensity depends on the number of photons that reach point B, not the on the photon's speed.
    – Andrei Geanta
    Aug 31 at 5:54










  • @AndreiGeanta Okay, how does the intensity decrease? Shouldn't the number of photons remain the same?
    – Shuvo Sarker
    Aug 31 at 5:56







  • 1




    Even with the best lasers, light spreads out as it travels. Hence fewer photons will hit the target.
    – hdhondt
    Aug 31 at 6:07










  • Photons in a vacuum can interact with each other. It's just several perturbation terms down the probability series. But that's not the issue here. It's all about beam spreading and packet dispersion.
    – Carl Witthoft
    Aug 31 at 15:34










  • Maybe "intensity" could be meant as a measure of total energy, so that a redshift also "reduces intensity" as it reduces the power of the signal.
    – elliot svensson
    Aug 31 at 16:39












up vote
5
down vote

favorite









up vote
5
down vote

favorite











Light is made up of photons. They hit our eyes to create sensation. Suppose two points A and B are in a very long distance apart in vacuum. If we shine a very weak light from point A, practical experience dictates that from point B we would not perceive the same intensity of light (if any). If speed of light is constant, shouldn't all the photons travel from A to B and thus the intensity remain the same?



Note that they are in vacuum, photons cannot hit something and change direction.










share|cite|improve this question













Light is made up of photons. They hit our eyes to create sensation. Suppose two points A and B are in a very long distance apart in vacuum. If we shine a very weak light from point A, practical experience dictates that from point B we would not perceive the same intensity of light (if any). If speed of light is constant, shouldn't all the photons travel from A to B and thus the intensity remain the same?



Note that they are in vacuum, photons cannot hit something and change direction.







photons speed-of-light






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Aug 31 at 5:29









Shuvo Sarker

1284




1284







  • 1




    In this case, intensity depends on the number of photons that reach point B, not the on the photon's speed.
    – Andrei Geanta
    Aug 31 at 5:54










  • @AndreiGeanta Okay, how does the intensity decrease? Shouldn't the number of photons remain the same?
    – Shuvo Sarker
    Aug 31 at 5:56







  • 1




    Even with the best lasers, light spreads out as it travels. Hence fewer photons will hit the target.
    – hdhondt
    Aug 31 at 6:07










  • Photons in a vacuum can interact with each other. It's just several perturbation terms down the probability series. But that's not the issue here. It's all about beam spreading and packet dispersion.
    – Carl Witthoft
    Aug 31 at 15:34










  • Maybe "intensity" could be meant as a measure of total energy, so that a redshift also "reduces intensity" as it reduces the power of the signal.
    – elliot svensson
    Aug 31 at 16:39












  • 1




    In this case, intensity depends on the number of photons that reach point B, not the on the photon's speed.
    – Andrei Geanta
    Aug 31 at 5:54










  • @AndreiGeanta Okay, how does the intensity decrease? Shouldn't the number of photons remain the same?
    – Shuvo Sarker
    Aug 31 at 5:56







  • 1




    Even with the best lasers, light spreads out as it travels. Hence fewer photons will hit the target.
    – hdhondt
    Aug 31 at 6:07










  • Photons in a vacuum can interact with each other. It's just several perturbation terms down the probability series. But that's not the issue here. It's all about beam spreading and packet dispersion.
    – Carl Witthoft
    Aug 31 at 15:34










  • Maybe "intensity" could be meant as a measure of total energy, so that a redshift also "reduces intensity" as it reduces the power of the signal.
    – elliot svensson
    Aug 31 at 16:39







1




1




In this case, intensity depends on the number of photons that reach point B, not the on the photon's speed.
– Andrei Geanta
Aug 31 at 5:54




In this case, intensity depends on the number of photons that reach point B, not the on the photon's speed.
– Andrei Geanta
Aug 31 at 5:54












@AndreiGeanta Okay, how does the intensity decrease? Shouldn't the number of photons remain the same?
– Shuvo Sarker
Aug 31 at 5:56





@AndreiGeanta Okay, how does the intensity decrease? Shouldn't the number of photons remain the same?
– Shuvo Sarker
Aug 31 at 5:56





1




1




Even with the best lasers, light spreads out as it travels. Hence fewer photons will hit the target.
– hdhondt
Aug 31 at 6:07




Even with the best lasers, light spreads out as it travels. Hence fewer photons will hit the target.
– hdhondt
Aug 31 at 6:07












Photons in a vacuum can interact with each other. It's just several perturbation terms down the probability series. But that's not the issue here. It's all about beam spreading and packet dispersion.
– Carl Witthoft
Aug 31 at 15:34




Photons in a vacuum can interact with each other. It's just several perturbation terms down the probability series. But that's not the issue here. It's all about beam spreading and packet dispersion.
– Carl Witthoft
Aug 31 at 15:34












Maybe "intensity" could be meant as a measure of total energy, so that a redshift also "reduces intensity" as it reduces the power of the signal.
– elliot svensson
Aug 31 at 16:39




Maybe "intensity" could be meant as a measure of total energy, so that a redshift also "reduces intensity" as it reduces the power of the signal.
– elliot svensson
Aug 31 at 16:39










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
12
down vote



accepted










As a beam of light travels, it spreads out so that for each doubling of the distance, the intensity of the light (defined as the number of photons passing through a unit area per second) is decreased by a factor of four. This is a basic consequence of the way that light beams propagate through 3-dimensional space and has nothing to do with the speed of the beam- which does not vary with distance.



So at a point B that is distant from a light source at A, not all of the photons leaving A will hit B. The result is that fewer and fewer photons will arrive at B as the distance between A and B gets larger and larger, causing the intensity of light measured at B to decrease with increasing distance.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • So, this means the photons never actually stop, they keep bouncing off and off?
    – Shuvo Sarker
    Aug 31 at 8:49






  • 4




    +1, but an image such as this one would be beneficial, I think.
    – pela
    Aug 31 at 10:11






  • 2




    @ShuvoSarker photons are elementary point particles described quantum mechanically with a probability wavefunction. They follow geodesic lines (straight lines in flat space) until and if they interact with some other particles or fields.
    – anna v
    Aug 31 at 11:52











  • Is this law also applicable to a laser beam?
    – Thomas Ayoub
    Aug 31 at 12:47






  • 1




    I assumed OP was asking about noncoherent luminous objects of finite extent where the distance between source and detector is ~orders of magnitude bigger than the size of the source i.e., as defined by a lay person. So I think my answer, as furnished in that context, remains correct.
    – niels nielsen
    Aug 31 at 15:49

















up vote
6
down vote













You do not actually need to use photons here - in fact the often sadly-ignored in many people's minds good ole' classical description of light as an EM wave is sufficient (though that doesn't mean the other way is wrong, but it's important to point it out!).



A light wave, like any wave, has three basic parameters: its amplitude, frequency, and wavelength. (You may also add phase, but phase is really just a reference shift, it does not change the shape of the wave, though it is important when summing waves.) The amplitude of a light wave is the maximum size of its electric field vector, just as the amplitude of a sound wave is the maximum strength of the overpressure relative to the ambient pressure, and the amplitude of a sea wave is the maximum height of a wave crest above the surrounding unperturbed sea level. The amplitude determines the amount of energy, and thus the intensity - what we'd call respectively "brightness", "loudness", and "height", that is transmitted by each wave.



Amplitude has nothing to do with speed - rather speed is what relates frequency and wavelength: $lambda f = v_w$, where $v_w$ is the speed of the wave. Amplitude ($A$) does not appear in this relation. That means the intensity can go up, down, or stay the same, and have no effect on the speed. Here, of course, $v_w = c$, the speed of light waves in vacuum, or $v_w = fraccn$ in a refractive medium with refractive index $n$.



In your scenario, as the waves spread out, their amplitude decreases - just as a sound wave gets less loud the further you go, and a water wave shallows as it travels out from a source of disturbance such as a cast rock. Because speed has nothing to do with amplitude, this can happen without requiring any changes in speed.



In terms of photons, if you want to use them, the intensity is related to the photon number together with frequency. Decreasing the intensity reduces the number of photons, but each photon always travels with speed $c$. In this scenario, the photons become more thinly spread, over a wider region, so a smaller number in each volume of space.



(And yes I'm assuming a "linear" situation in the above, yes caveats about nonlinearity, yes yes, blah blah, but for these purposes, that is sufficient.)






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • does our atmosphere have a refractive index too? If yes, what number is it?
    – undefined
    Aug 31 at 13:37










  • So what causes redshift, then?
    – elliot svensson
    Aug 31 at 13:45










  • @undefined Wikipedia lists the refractive index of air: 1.000293 but this has to be taken with a grain of salt as it probably changes with density (height), humidity and temperature.
    – Arsenal
    Aug 31 at 14:26










  • @undefined you really can look that stuff up. And atmospheric refraction is what leads to things like mirages and colored sky at sunset.
    – Carl Witthoft
    Aug 31 at 15:36






  • 1




    @elliotsvensson Mr. Doppler is dismayed at your question.
    – Carl Witthoft
    Aug 31 at 15:36

















up vote
1
down vote













The intensity of each photon does indeed remain the same, but you won't receive all the photons. Even lasers are just very good spotlights; by the time one reaches the moon, the dot would be a few hundred meters wide. You might as well brew your tea bag in a lake.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 1




    Actually, it is the energy of a photon that remains constant. The intensity is something different.
    – flippiefanus
    Aug 31 at 12:57










  • @flippiefanus True. In physics, "intensity" means power transferred per unit area. It doesn't really make sense to talk about that for single photons.
    – Fax
    Sep 3 at 9:33

















up vote
1
down vote













There are two ways of looking at it:



  • Classical: Radiated energy (photons) propagates isotropically in space. This means that it propagates as a spherical shell. By conservation of energy the energy found by integrating along the sphere area should be the same as the initial energy. As the surface area of a sphere is 4πr^2 and the energy is evenly distributed through it that means that energy density on the sphere surface is proportionally inverse to the radius, this is known as the inverse square law. Intensity is defined as power over area unit; therefore it decreases proportionally to the squared distance to the source.

  • Quantum mechanics: Photon speed is constant, therefore after a given time its wave function (for probability distribution) will have a spherical shape, this means that the probability of finding a photon when measuring is the same on any point of the surface of the sphere. Therefore the biggest the sphere, less probability you will have of finding a photon. (quantum) Intensity is defined as the number of photons measured in a point in a period of time, therefore it diminishes proportional to the square of distance to the source.





share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    ..Adding to Fax's thought: Each photon maintains it's own intensity. If you had a perfect laser beam, it too would maintain it's intensity no matter how far it traveled. Perfect laser beams are not possible of course. The great majority of light that we see originates from a (approximately) central point, so photons are moving further away from each other as they move away from the center. If you considered successive spherical shells surrounding this point (like light being emitted from the sun, or from a candle), you should see that the surface density (and therefore the intensity) of any group of photons in the same shell would fall off as 1/r².






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • Is a redder photon less intense than a bluer photon? If so, then redshift (of the expanding universe variety) causes intensity to reduce, right?
      – elliot svensson
      Aug 31 at 17:50










    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f425830%2fif-light-does-not-change-speed-how-does-luminous-intensity-decrease%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    12
    down vote



    accepted










    As a beam of light travels, it spreads out so that for each doubling of the distance, the intensity of the light (defined as the number of photons passing through a unit area per second) is decreased by a factor of four. This is a basic consequence of the way that light beams propagate through 3-dimensional space and has nothing to do with the speed of the beam- which does not vary with distance.



    So at a point B that is distant from a light source at A, not all of the photons leaving A will hit B. The result is that fewer and fewer photons will arrive at B as the distance between A and B gets larger and larger, causing the intensity of light measured at B to decrease with increasing distance.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • So, this means the photons never actually stop, they keep bouncing off and off?
      – Shuvo Sarker
      Aug 31 at 8:49






    • 4




      +1, but an image such as this one would be beneficial, I think.
      – pela
      Aug 31 at 10:11






    • 2




      @ShuvoSarker photons are elementary point particles described quantum mechanically with a probability wavefunction. They follow geodesic lines (straight lines in flat space) until and if they interact with some other particles or fields.
      – anna v
      Aug 31 at 11:52











    • Is this law also applicable to a laser beam?
      – Thomas Ayoub
      Aug 31 at 12:47






    • 1




      I assumed OP was asking about noncoherent luminous objects of finite extent where the distance between source and detector is ~orders of magnitude bigger than the size of the source i.e., as defined by a lay person. So I think my answer, as furnished in that context, remains correct.
      – niels nielsen
      Aug 31 at 15:49














    up vote
    12
    down vote



    accepted










    As a beam of light travels, it spreads out so that for each doubling of the distance, the intensity of the light (defined as the number of photons passing through a unit area per second) is decreased by a factor of four. This is a basic consequence of the way that light beams propagate through 3-dimensional space and has nothing to do with the speed of the beam- which does not vary with distance.



    So at a point B that is distant from a light source at A, not all of the photons leaving A will hit B. The result is that fewer and fewer photons will arrive at B as the distance between A and B gets larger and larger, causing the intensity of light measured at B to decrease with increasing distance.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • So, this means the photons never actually stop, they keep bouncing off and off?
      – Shuvo Sarker
      Aug 31 at 8:49






    • 4




      +1, but an image such as this one would be beneficial, I think.
      – pela
      Aug 31 at 10:11






    • 2




      @ShuvoSarker photons are elementary point particles described quantum mechanically with a probability wavefunction. They follow geodesic lines (straight lines in flat space) until and if they interact with some other particles or fields.
      – anna v
      Aug 31 at 11:52











    • Is this law also applicable to a laser beam?
      – Thomas Ayoub
      Aug 31 at 12:47






    • 1




      I assumed OP was asking about noncoherent luminous objects of finite extent where the distance between source and detector is ~orders of magnitude bigger than the size of the source i.e., as defined by a lay person. So I think my answer, as furnished in that context, remains correct.
      – niels nielsen
      Aug 31 at 15:49












    up vote
    12
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    12
    down vote



    accepted






    As a beam of light travels, it spreads out so that for each doubling of the distance, the intensity of the light (defined as the number of photons passing through a unit area per second) is decreased by a factor of four. This is a basic consequence of the way that light beams propagate through 3-dimensional space and has nothing to do with the speed of the beam- which does not vary with distance.



    So at a point B that is distant from a light source at A, not all of the photons leaving A will hit B. The result is that fewer and fewer photons will arrive at B as the distance between A and B gets larger and larger, causing the intensity of light measured at B to decrease with increasing distance.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    As a beam of light travels, it spreads out so that for each doubling of the distance, the intensity of the light (defined as the number of photons passing through a unit area per second) is decreased by a factor of four. This is a basic consequence of the way that light beams propagate through 3-dimensional space and has nothing to do with the speed of the beam- which does not vary with distance.



    So at a point B that is distant from a light source at A, not all of the photons leaving A will hit B. The result is that fewer and fewer photons will arrive at B as the distance between A and B gets larger and larger, causing the intensity of light measured at B to decrease with increasing distance.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Aug 31 at 6:39









    niels nielsen

    11k41832




    11k41832











    • So, this means the photons never actually stop, they keep bouncing off and off?
      – Shuvo Sarker
      Aug 31 at 8:49






    • 4




      +1, but an image such as this one would be beneficial, I think.
      – pela
      Aug 31 at 10:11






    • 2




      @ShuvoSarker photons are elementary point particles described quantum mechanically with a probability wavefunction. They follow geodesic lines (straight lines in flat space) until and if they interact with some other particles or fields.
      – anna v
      Aug 31 at 11:52











    • Is this law also applicable to a laser beam?
      – Thomas Ayoub
      Aug 31 at 12:47






    • 1




      I assumed OP was asking about noncoherent luminous objects of finite extent where the distance between source and detector is ~orders of magnitude bigger than the size of the source i.e., as defined by a lay person. So I think my answer, as furnished in that context, remains correct.
      – niels nielsen
      Aug 31 at 15:49
















    • So, this means the photons never actually stop, they keep bouncing off and off?
      – Shuvo Sarker
      Aug 31 at 8:49






    • 4




      +1, but an image such as this one would be beneficial, I think.
      – pela
      Aug 31 at 10:11






    • 2




      @ShuvoSarker photons are elementary point particles described quantum mechanically with a probability wavefunction. They follow geodesic lines (straight lines in flat space) until and if they interact with some other particles or fields.
      – anna v
      Aug 31 at 11:52











    • Is this law also applicable to a laser beam?
      – Thomas Ayoub
      Aug 31 at 12:47






    • 1




      I assumed OP was asking about noncoherent luminous objects of finite extent where the distance between source and detector is ~orders of magnitude bigger than the size of the source i.e., as defined by a lay person. So I think my answer, as furnished in that context, remains correct.
      – niels nielsen
      Aug 31 at 15:49















    So, this means the photons never actually stop, they keep bouncing off and off?
    – Shuvo Sarker
    Aug 31 at 8:49




    So, this means the photons never actually stop, they keep bouncing off and off?
    – Shuvo Sarker
    Aug 31 at 8:49




    4




    4




    +1, but an image such as this one would be beneficial, I think.
    – pela
    Aug 31 at 10:11




    +1, but an image such as this one would be beneficial, I think.
    – pela
    Aug 31 at 10:11




    2




    2




    @ShuvoSarker photons are elementary point particles described quantum mechanically with a probability wavefunction. They follow geodesic lines (straight lines in flat space) until and if they interact with some other particles or fields.
    – anna v
    Aug 31 at 11:52





    @ShuvoSarker photons are elementary point particles described quantum mechanically with a probability wavefunction. They follow geodesic lines (straight lines in flat space) until and if they interact with some other particles or fields.
    – anna v
    Aug 31 at 11:52













    Is this law also applicable to a laser beam?
    – Thomas Ayoub
    Aug 31 at 12:47




    Is this law also applicable to a laser beam?
    – Thomas Ayoub
    Aug 31 at 12:47




    1




    1




    I assumed OP was asking about noncoherent luminous objects of finite extent where the distance between source and detector is ~orders of magnitude bigger than the size of the source i.e., as defined by a lay person. So I think my answer, as furnished in that context, remains correct.
    – niels nielsen
    Aug 31 at 15:49




    I assumed OP was asking about noncoherent luminous objects of finite extent where the distance between source and detector is ~orders of magnitude bigger than the size of the source i.e., as defined by a lay person. So I think my answer, as furnished in that context, remains correct.
    – niels nielsen
    Aug 31 at 15:49










    up vote
    6
    down vote













    You do not actually need to use photons here - in fact the often sadly-ignored in many people's minds good ole' classical description of light as an EM wave is sufficient (though that doesn't mean the other way is wrong, but it's important to point it out!).



    A light wave, like any wave, has three basic parameters: its amplitude, frequency, and wavelength. (You may also add phase, but phase is really just a reference shift, it does not change the shape of the wave, though it is important when summing waves.) The amplitude of a light wave is the maximum size of its electric field vector, just as the amplitude of a sound wave is the maximum strength of the overpressure relative to the ambient pressure, and the amplitude of a sea wave is the maximum height of a wave crest above the surrounding unperturbed sea level. The amplitude determines the amount of energy, and thus the intensity - what we'd call respectively "brightness", "loudness", and "height", that is transmitted by each wave.



    Amplitude has nothing to do with speed - rather speed is what relates frequency and wavelength: $lambda f = v_w$, where $v_w$ is the speed of the wave. Amplitude ($A$) does not appear in this relation. That means the intensity can go up, down, or stay the same, and have no effect on the speed. Here, of course, $v_w = c$, the speed of light waves in vacuum, or $v_w = fraccn$ in a refractive medium with refractive index $n$.



    In your scenario, as the waves spread out, their amplitude decreases - just as a sound wave gets less loud the further you go, and a water wave shallows as it travels out from a source of disturbance such as a cast rock. Because speed has nothing to do with amplitude, this can happen without requiring any changes in speed.



    In terms of photons, if you want to use them, the intensity is related to the photon number together with frequency. Decreasing the intensity reduces the number of photons, but each photon always travels with speed $c$. In this scenario, the photons become more thinly spread, over a wider region, so a smaller number in each volume of space.



    (And yes I'm assuming a "linear" situation in the above, yes caveats about nonlinearity, yes yes, blah blah, but for these purposes, that is sufficient.)






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • does our atmosphere have a refractive index too? If yes, what number is it?
      – undefined
      Aug 31 at 13:37










    • So what causes redshift, then?
      – elliot svensson
      Aug 31 at 13:45










    • @undefined Wikipedia lists the refractive index of air: 1.000293 but this has to be taken with a grain of salt as it probably changes with density (height), humidity and temperature.
      – Arsenal
      Aug 31 at 14:26










    • @undefined you really can look that stuff up. And atmospheric refraction is what leads to things like mirages and colored sky at sunset.
      – Carl Witthoft
      Aug 31 at 15:36






    • 1




      @elliotsvensson Mr. Doppler is dismayed at your question.
      – Carl Witthoft
      Aug 31 at 15:36














    up vote
    6
    down vote













    You do not actually need to use photons here - in fact the often sadly-ignored in many people's minds good ole' classical description of light as an EM wave is sufficient (though that doesn't mean the other way is wrong, but it's important to point it out!).



    A light wave, like any wave, has three basic parameters: its amplitude, frequency, and wavelength. (You may also add phase, but phase is really just a reference shift, it does not change the shape of the wave, though it is important when summing waves.) The amplitude of a light wave is the maximum size of its electric field vector, just as the amplitude of a sound wave is the maximum strength of the overpressure relative to the ambient pressure, and the amplitude of a sea wave is the maximum height of a wave crest above the surrounding unperturbed sea level. The amplitude determines the amount of energy, and thus the intensity - what we'd call respectively "brightness", "loudness", and "height", that is transmitted by each wave.



    Amplitude has nothing to do with speed - rather speed is what relates frequency and wavelength: $lambda f = v_w$, where $v_w$ is the speed of the wave. Amplitude ($A$) does not appear in this relation. That means the intensity can go up, down, or stay the same, and have no effect on the speed. Here, of course, $v_w = c$, the speed of light waves in vacuum, or $v_w = fraccn$ in a refractive medium with refractive index $n$.



    In your scenario, as the waves spread out, their amplitude decreases - just as a sound wave gets less loud the further you go, and a water wave shallows as it travels out from a source of disturbance such as a cast rock. Because speed has nothing to do with amplitude, this can happen without requiring any changes in speed.



    In terms of photons, if you want to use them, the intensity is related to the photon number together with frequency. Decreasing the intensity reduces the number of photons, but each photon always travels with speed $c$. In this scenario, the photons become more thinly spread, over a wider region, so a smaller number in each volume of space.



    (And yes I'm assuming a "linear" situation in the above, yes caveats about nonlinearity, yes yes, blah blah, but for these purposes, that is sufficient.)






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • does our atmosphere have a refractive index too? If yes, what number is it?
      – undefined
      Aug 31 at 13:37










    • So what causes redshift, then?
      – elliot svensson
      Aug 31 at 13:45










    • @undefined Wikipedia lists the refractive index of air: 1.000293 but this has to be taken with a grain of salt as it probably changes with density (height), humidity and temperature.
      – Arsenal
      Aug 31 at 14:26










    • @undefined you really can look that stuff up. And atmospheric refraction is what leads to things like mirages and colored sky at sunset.
      – Carl Witthoft
      Aug 31 at 15:36






    • 1




      @elliotsvensson Mr. Doppler is dismayed at your question.
      – Carl Witthoft
      Aug 31 at 15:36












    up vote
    6
    down vote










    up vote
    6
    down vote









    You do not actually need to use photons here - in fact the often sadly-ignored in many people's minds good ole' classical description of light as an EM wave is sufficient (though that doesn't mean the other way is wrong, but it's important to point it out!).



    A light wave, like any wave, has three basic parameters: its amplitude, frequency, and wavelength. (You may also add phase, but phase is really just a reference shift, it does not change the shape of the wave, though it is important when summing waves.) The amplitude of a light wave is the maximum size of its electric field vector, just as the amplitude of a sound wave is the maximum strength of the overpressure relative to the ambient pressure, and the amplitude of a sea wave is the maximum height of a wave crest above the surrounding unperturbed sea level. The amplitude determines the amount of energy, and thus the intensity - what we'd call respectively "brightness", "loudness", and "height", that is transmitted by each wave.



    Amplitude has nothing to do with speed - rather speed is what relates frequency and wavelength: $lambda f = v_w$, where $v_w$ is the speed of the wave. Amplitude ($A$) does not appear in this relation. That means the intensity can go up, down, or stay the same, and have no effect on the speed. Here, of course, $v_w = c$, the speed of light waves in vacuum, or $v_w = fraccn$ in a refractive medium with refractive index $n$.



    In your scenario, as the waves spread out, their amplitude decreases - just as a sound wave gets less loud the further you go, and a water wave shallows as it travels out from a source of disturbance such as a cast rock. Because speed has nothing to do with amplitude, this can happen without requiring any changes in speed.



    In terms of photons, if you want to use them, the intensity is related to the photon number together with frequency. Decreasing the intensity reduces the number of photons, but each photon always travels with speed $c$. In this scenario, the photons become more thinly spread, over a wider region, so a smaller number in each volume of space.



    (And yes I'm assuming a "linear" situation in the above, yes caveats about nonlinearity, yes yes, blah blah, but for these purposes, that is sufficient.)






    share|cite|improve this answer












    You do not actually need to use photons here - in fact the often sadly-ignored in many people's minds good ole' classical description of light as an EM wave is sufficient (though that doesn't mean the other way is wrong, but it's important to point it out!).



    A light wave, like any wave, has three basic parameters: its amplitude, frequency, and wavelength. (You may also add phase, but phase is really just a reference shift, it does not change the shape of the wave, though it is important when summing waves.) The amplitude of a light wave is the maximum size of its electric field vector, just as the amplitude of a sound wave is the maximum strength of the overpressure relative to the ambient pressure, and the amplitude of a sea wave is the maximum height of a wave crest above the surrounding unperturbed sea level. The amplitude determines the amount of energy, and thus the intensity - what we'd call respectively "brightness", "loudness", and "height", that is transmitted by each wave.



    Amplitude has nothing to do with speed - rather speed is what relates frequency and wavelength: $lambda f = v_w$, where $v_w$ is the speed of the wave. Amplitude ($A$) does not appear in this relation. That means the intensity can go up, down, or stay the same, and have no effect on the speed. Here, of course, $v_w = c$, the speed of light waves in vacuum, or $v_w = fraccn$ in a refractive medium with refractive index $n$.



    In your scenario, as the waves spread out, their amplitude decreases - just as a sound wave gets less loud the further you go, and a water wave shallows as it travels out from a source of disturbance such as a cast rock. Because speed has nothing to do with amplitude, this can happen without requiring any changes in speed.



    In terms of photons, if you want to use them, the intensity is related to the photon number together with frequency. Decreasing the intensity reduces the number of photons, but each photon always travels with speed $c$. In this scenario, the photons become more thinly spread, over a wider region, so a smaller number in each volume of space.



    (And yes I'm assuming a "linear" situation in the above, yes caveats about nonlinearity, yes yes, blah blah, but for these purposes, that is sufficient.)







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Aug 31 at 9:55









    The_Sympathizer

    2,652620




    2,652620











    • does our atmosphere have a refractive index too? If yes, what number is it?
      – undefined
      Aug 31 at 13:37










    • So what causes redshift, then?
      – elliot svensson
      Aug 31 at 13:45










    • @undefined Wikipedia lists the refractive index of air: 1.000293 but this has to be taken with a grain of salt as it probably changes with density (height), humidity and temperature.
      – Arsenal
      Aug 31 at 14:26










    • @undefined you really can look that stuff up. And atmospheric refraction is what leads to things like mirages and colored sky at sunset.
      – Carl Witthoft
      Aug 31 at 15:36






    • 1




      @elliotsvensson Mr. Doppler is dismayed at your question.
      – Carl Witthoft
      Aug 31 at 15:36
















    • does our atmosphere have a refractive index too? If yes, what number is it?
      – undefined
      Aug 31 at 13:37










    • So what causes redshift, then?
      – elliot svensson
      Aug 31 at 13:45










    • @undefined Wikipedia lists the refractive index of air: 1.000293 but this has to be taken with a grain of salt as it probably changes with density (height), humidity and temperature.
      – Arsenal
      Aug 31 at 14:26










    • @undefined you really can look that stuff up. And atmospheric refraction is what leads to things like mirages and colored sky at sunset.
      – Carl Witthoft
      Aug 31 at 15:36






    • 1




      @elliotsvensson Mr. Doppler is dismayed at your question.
      – Carl Witthoft
      Aug 31 at 15:36















    does our atmosphere have a refractive index too? If yes, what number is it?
    – undefined
    Aug 31 at 13:37




    does our atmosphere have a refractive index too? If yes, what number is it?
    – undefined
    Aug 31 at 13:37












    So what causes redshift, then?
    – elliot svensson
    Aug 31 at 13:45




    So what causes redshift, then?
    – elliot svensson
    Aug 31 at 13:45












    @undefined Wikipedia lists the refractive index of air: 1.000293 but this has to be taken with a grain of salt as it probably changes with density (height), humidity and temperature.
    – Arsenal
    Aug 31 at 14:26




    @undefined Wikipedia lists the refractive index of air: 1.000293 but this has to be taken with a grain of salt as it probably changes with density (height), humidity and temperature.
    – Arsenal
    Aug 31 at 14:26












    @undefined you really can look that stuff up. And atmospheric refraction is what leads to things like mirages and colored sky at sunset.
    – Carl Witthoft
    Aug 31 at 15:36




    @undefined you really can look that stuff up. And atmospheric refraction is what leads to things like mirages and colored sky at sunset.
    – Carl Witthoft
    Aug 31 at 15:36




    1




    1




    @elliotsvensson Mr. Doppler is dismayed at your question.
    – Carl Witthoft
    Aug 31 at 15:36




    @elliotsvensson Mr. Doppler is dismayed at your question.
    – Carl Witthoft
    Aug 31 at 15:36










    up vote
    1
    down vote













    The intensity of each photon does indeed remain the same, but you won't receive all the photons. Even lasers are just very good spotlights; by the time one reaches the moon, the dot would be a few hundred meters wide. You might as well brew your tea bag in a lake.






    share|cite|improve this answer
















    • 1




      Actually, it is the energy of a photon that remains constant. The intensity is something different.
      – flippiefanus
      Aug 31 at 12:57










    • @flippiefanus True. In physics, "intensity" means power transferred per unit area. It doesn't really make sense to talk about that for single photons.
      – Fax
      Sep 3 at 9:33














    up vote
    1
    down vote













    The intensity of each photon does indeed remain the same, but you won't receive all the photons. Even lasers are just very good spotlights; by the time one reaches the moon, the dot would be a few hundred meters wide. You might as well brew your tea bag in a lake.






    share|cite|improve this answer
















    • 1




      Actually, it is the energy of a photon that remains constant. The intensity is something different.
      – flippiefanus
      Aug 31 at 12:57










    • @flippiefanus True. In physics, "intensity" means power transferred per unit area. It doesn't really make sense to talk about that for single photons.
      – Fax
      Sep 3 at 9:33












    up vote
    1
    down vote










    up vote
    1
    down vote









    The intensity of each photon does indeed remain the same, but you won't receive all the photons. Even lasers are just very good spotlights; by the time one reaches the moon, the dot would be a few hundred meters wide. You might as well brew your tea bag in a lake.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    The intensity of each photon does indeed remain the same, but you won't receive all the photons. Even lasers are just very good spotlights; by the time one reaches the moon, the dot would be a few hundred meters wide. You might as well brew your tea bag in a lake.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Aug 31 at 12:14









    Fax

    1112




    1112







    • 1




      Actually, it is the energy of a photon that remains constant. The intensity is something different.
      – flippiefanus
      Aug 31 at 12:57










    • @flippiefanus True. In physics, "intensity" means power transferred per unit area. It doesn't really make sense to talk about that for single photons.
      – Fax
      Sep 3 at 9:33












    • 1




      Actually, it is the energy of a photon that remains constant. The intensity is something different.
      – flippiefanus
      Aug 31 at 12:57










    • @flippiefanus True. In physics, "intensity" means power transferred per unit area. It doesn't really make sense to talk about that for single photons.
      – Fax
      Sep 3 at 9:33







    1




    1




    Actually, it is the energy of a photon that remains constant. The intensity is something different.
    – flippiefanus
    Aug 31 at 12:57




    Actually, it is the energy of a photon that remains constant. The intensity is something different.
    – flippiefanus
    Aug 31 at 12:57












    @flippiefanus True. In physics, "intensity" means power transferred per unit area. It doesn't really make sense to talk about that for single photons.
    – Fax
    Sep 3 at 9:33




    @flippiefanus True. In physics, "intensity" means power transferred per unit area. It doesn't really make sense to talk about that for single photons.
    – Fax
    Sep 3 at 9:33










    up vote
    1
    down vote













    There are two ways of looking at it:



    • Classical: Radiated energy (photons) propagates isotropically in space. This means that it propagates as a spherical shell. By conservation of energy the energy found by integrating along the sphere area should be the same as the initial energy. As the surface area of a sphere is 4πr^2 and the energy is evenly distributed through it that means that energy density on the sphere surface is proportionally inverse to the radius, this is known as the inverse square law. Intensity is defined as power over area unit; therefore it decreases proportionally to the squared distance to the source.

    • Quantum mechanics: Photon speed is constant, therefore after a given time its wave function (for probability distribution) will have a spherical shape, this means that the probability of finding a photon when measuring is the same on any point of the surface of the sphere. Therefore the biggest the sphere, less probability you will have of finding a photon. (quantum) Intensity is defined as the number of photons measured in a point in a period of time, therefore it diminishes proportional to the square of distance to the source.





    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      There are two ways of looking at it:



      • Classical: Radiated energy (photons) propagates isotropically in space. This means that it propagates as a spherical shell. By conservation of energy the energy found by integrating along the sphere area should be the same as the initial energy. As the surface area of a sphere is 4πr^2 and the energy is evenly distributed through it that means that energy density on the sphere surface is proportionally inverse to the radius, this is known as the inverse square law. Intensity is defined as power over area unit; therefore it decreases proportionally to the squared distance to the source.

      • Quantum mechanics: Photon speed is constant, therefore after a given time its wave function (for probability distribution) will have a spherical shape, this means that the probability of finding a photon when measuring is the same on any point of the surface of the sphere. Therefore the biggest the sphere, less probability you will have of finding a photon. (quantum) Intensity is defined as the number of photons measured in a point in a period of time, therefore it diminishes proportional to the square of distance to the source.





      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        down vote









        There are two ways of looking at it:



        • Classical: Radiated energy (photons) propagates isotropically in space. This means that it propagates as a spherical shell. By conservation of energy the energy found by integrating along the sphere area should be the same as the initial energy. As the surface area of a sphere is 4πr^2 and the energy is evenly distributed through it that means that energy density on the sphere surface is proportionally inverse to the radius, this is known as the inverse square law. Intensity is defined as power over area unit; therefore it decreases proportionally to the squared distance to the source.

        • Quantum mechanics: Photon speed is constant, therefore after a given time its wave function (for probability distribution) will have a spherical shape, this means that the probability of finding a photon when measuring is the same on any point of the surface of the sphere. Therefore the biggest the sphere, less probability you will have of finding a photon. (quantum) Intensity is defined as the number of photons measured in a point in a period of time, therefore it diminishes proportional to the square of distance to the source.





        share|cite|improve this answer












        There are two ways of looking at it:



        • Classical: Radiated energy (photons) propagates isotropically in space. This means that it propagates as a spherical shell. By conservation of energy the energy found by integrating along the sphere area should be the same as the initial energy. As the surface area of a sphere is 4πr^2 and the energy is evenly distributed through it that means that energy density on the sphere surface is proportionally inverse to the radius, this is known as the inverse square law. Intensity is defined as power over area unit; therefore it decreases proportionally to the squared distance to the source.

        • Quantum mechanics: Photon speed is constant, therefore after a given time its wave function (for probability distribution) will have a spherical shape, this means that the probability of finding a photon when measuring is the same on any point of the surface of the sphere. Therefore the biggest the sphere, less probability you will have of finding a photon. (quantum) Intensity is defined as the number of photons measured in a point in a period of time, therefore it diminishes proportional to the square of distance to the source.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Aug 31 at 16:44









        GunnarTrollson

        111




        111




















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            ..Adding to Fax's thought: Each photon maintains it's own intensity. If you had a perfect laser beam, it too would maintain it's intensity no matter how far it traveled. Perfect laser beams are not possible of course. The great majority of light that we see originates from a (approximately) central point, so photons are moving further away from each other as they move away from the center. If you considered successive spherical shells surrounding this point (like light being emitted from the sun, or from a candle), you should see that the surface density (and therefore the intensity) of any group of photons in the same shell would fall off as 1/r².






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • Is a redder photon less intense than a bluer photon? If so, then redshift (of the expanding universe variety) causes intensity to reduce, right?
              – elliot svensson
              Aug 31 at 17:50














            up vote
            0
            down vote













            ..Adding to Fax's thought: Each photon maintains it's own intensity. If you had a perfect laser beam, it too would maintain it's intensity no matter how far it traveled. Perfect laser beams are not possible of course. The great majority of light that we see originates from a (approximately) central point, so photons are moving further away from each other as they move away from the center. If you considered successive spherical shells surrounding this point (like light being emitted from the sun, or from a candle), you should see that the surface density (and therefore the intensity) of any group of photons in the same shell would fall off as 1/r².






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • Is a redder photon less intense than a bluer photon? If so, then redshift (of the expanding universe variety) causes intensity to reduce, right?
              – elliot svensson
              Aug 31 at 17:50












            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            ..Adding to Fax's thought: Each photon maintains it's own intensity. If you had a perfect laser beam, it too would maintain it's intensity no matter how far it traveled. Perfect laser beams are not possible of course. The great majority of light that we see originates from a (approximately) central point, so photons are moving further away from each other as they move away from the center. If you considered successive spherical shells surrounding this point (like light being emitted from the sun, or from a candle), you should see that the surface density (and therefore the intensity) of any group of photons in the same shell would fall off as 1/r².






            share|cite|improve this answer












            ..Adding to Fax's thought: Each photon maintains it's own intensity. If you had a perfect laser beam, it too would maintain it's intensity no matter how far it traveled. Perfect laser beams are not possible of course. The great majority of light that we see originates from a (approximately) central point, so photons are moving further away from each other as they move away from the center. If you considered successive spherical shells surrounding this point (like light being emitted from the sun, or from a candle), you should see that the surface density (and therefore the intensity) of any group of photons in the same shell would fall off as 1/r².







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Aug 31 at 16:39









            Scot Parker

            1




            1











            • Is a redder photon less intense than a bluer photon? If so, then redshift (of the expanding universe variety) causes intensity to reduce, right?
              – elliot svensson
              Aug 31 at 17:50
















            • Is a redder photon less intense than a bluer photon? If so, then redshift (of the expanding universe variety) causes intensity to reduce, right?
              – elliot svensson
              Aug 31 at 17:50















            Is a redder photon less intense than a bluer photon? If so, then redshift (of the expanding universe variety) causes intensity to reduce, right?
            – elliot svensson
            Aug 31 at 17:50




            Is a redder photon less intense than a bluer photon? If so, then redshift (of the expanding universe variety) causes intensity to reduce, right?
            – elliot svensson
            Aug 31 at 17:50

















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f425830%2fif-light-does-not-change-speed-how-does-luminous-intensity-decrease%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            Popular posts from this blog

            How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

            Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

            How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?