Talk:Sonoluminescence

message: How big are the bubbles before they're compressed? What magnitude of change in both volume and pressure is the compression that causes light to be emitted? - G3, 01:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of the bubbles 

message: Uhm, someone should try to clean this section up a bit.  This sentence "yet remains widely discredited within the scientific community at large," is ridiculiusly biased, and not true as far as I can tell.  I mean, yes, there is debate, and there are those who remain unconvinced, as Eberlein's theory lacks enough detail to make it verifiable.  But, I mean, how does this work "The fact that addition of inert gases changes the properties of light emission, when emission should only depend on the properties of the vacuum and interface movement, is evidence against this theory."?  This is very poor logic.  Quantum field theory, which is what Eberlain dips into in her theory, is going to amplify the effects of atomic composition by a lot.  The fact that this hasn't been addressed in the theory as of yet, is what makes the theory incomplete, but does not comprise evidence against it.  It's not evidence at all really.  It's common knowledge in the field, and is only evidence that the mechanism of sonoluminescence is complex and very interdisciplinary.  The statement is that the Casimir effect plays a role in sonoluminescence, not that it is the solitary mechanism explaining the phenomenon.  If we can't get a NPOV presenting the ideas without the smear campaign, then we need to omit the entire discussion.  Eberlain caused a significant splash in the field when she proposed her model, and so mentioning it under exotic theories seems appropriate.  I think we should mention what it is, and that there is debate in the field; if there is no consensus on that, then we need to erase the section entirely, as she does not deserve the ignorant vitriol.  128.62.99.17 01:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason Eberlein's quantum vacuum sonolum. explanation caused "a significant splash" was mostly becase it was so wacky! It is hard to think of another supposedly serious recent theory failing occam's razor so spectacularly. Her theory is the definition of EXOTIC, (fringe I would say even) and belongs in the section that its in, it is by no means considered in the mainstream. There is no "smear campaign", hydrodynamic simulations of slbs are in good agreement with experiment, there is no need for QED vacuum effects to be invoked.--Deglr6328 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestion was actually first due to Schwinger in 1993 8 (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA vol.90 (1993) p. 958, also p.2105, 4505 and 7285, and vol. 91 (1994) p.6476. I think it is conclusively rebuffed by Brevik, Marachevsky and Milton in 1999 (Phys.Rev.Lett. v.82 p.3948). [S. Ellingsen Nov. 2007]
The hydrodynamic models apply to the motion of the bubble.  The modified hydrodynamic models give some approximate results on the temperatures inside the bubble.  The models of light emission are not hydrodynamic at this point, and would have to be, at the very least, magnetohydrodynamic in order to address the light emission mechanism; by the very nature of the phenomenon.  The models which do describe the emission of light are not hydrodynamic, and most of them invoke some quantum interpretation (for example, see the excimer model, or the Bremsstrahlung model, or the proton tunneling model).  It is true that there are big names in the field (eg. Brenner, Lohse, Prosperetti) who seem to feel that Eberlein's work is unrealistic, but it is not unrealistic because it fails Occam's razor, since many of the mechanisms rely heavily on quantum effects.  The general argument is that the speeds required for the casimir effect to be of primary importance are not of the same order of magnitude as the speed of sound, and so this cannot be the primary mechanism of light emission.  The general statement is that "thermal models" are bet fitted to describe the standard SBSL mechanism (see Brenner et. al. "Single-bubble Sonoluminescence" review).  However, this all assumes (relatively) laminar flow models, which it is fairly clear is unrealistic to apply to a transonic flow model.  The sentence ["The fact that addition of inert gases changes the properties of light emission, when emission should only depend on the properties of the vacuum and interface movement, is evidence against this theory."] makes no sense, and is not in keeping with the science, with Eberlein's work, with a basic understanding of QFT, or with the understanding of SBSL, so needs to be clarified or omitted.  It is also not clear what makes her theory so much more suited to public criticism, as other QFT models.  It seems inappropriate to discredit her hypothesis without a much closer look at the science.  Cypa 16:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exotic proposals 

message: This paper talks about sonoluminesence of gas and I think in solid crystals, too. — Omegatron 23:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just liquids? 

message: Is sonoluminescence somehow related to argon flash? Jkasd 05:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argon flash 

message: (i hope i am correct)
when you shock water with sound in special frequencies it disassociates hydrogen from oxygen by resonance.
and bubbles appear and also the surrounding pressure on bubbles create in it little explosions and because of it the light.
for more see Stenly Mayers he has some patents of H2O disassociates and he is researched it a lot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.113.41 (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  who said Sonoluminescence??? it is water braking apart. or whatever it has its own frequency. 

message: In a radio interview with Dr Michio Kaku, he said that the earliest serious work on sonoluminescence was by the nazi military when they saw the effect around submarine blades, perhaps he's confused on that, but what I understand is that Kaku was groomed for military work (ie they payed for some of his education, and tried to get him at los alamos and other places like that),  and knew a large number of the people who would have been working with the paperclip scientists, maybe he knows something about the history that hasn't become widely public yet?
Has anyone read enough of Kakus work to have seen this in print?  Is there anything behind this claim by Kaku? Hulahulahulahula (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early nazi work? 

message: Hi, I'm participating in experimental study of SBSL and have some pictures of it. I'd like to insert one of them to english wiki-page also (in slovak page ther's no problem), but unfortunately I named this picture with name already existed: Sonoluminescence.jpg. Can anyone help me with renaming this picture? Thanks a lot for advice ;) --WackerSK (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of SBSL 

message: Isn't the R-P equation derived from the incompressible NS equations?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.149.121 (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Derivation of Rayleigh Plesset

message: I changed the names of the reference sections and switched them around to be more standard. I also put in a journal citations using ASDABS for one of the inline citations (the suslick one, replacing the link to the PDF) as an example. The ASDABs URL allows the user to find the PDF or choose to look at a postscript, etc. But several of the other inline references need to be put in a more standard form. Also, it would make sense to have some of the general refs relocated to the inline refs, prehaps being cited more than once, if they are being used for the article. I suggest looking at an article like stellar structure or triple-alpha process for a suitable reference form that is more standard. The external links ought to all be in the External links section. 
It's not about how authoritative the refs are supposed to be, just that they are clearly organised and reflect standard practice in the rest of the Wikipedia physics articles. Puzl bustr (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References need cleaning up

message: Couldn't the Doppler effect shift up the frequency of infrared light as it bounces by total internal reflection around the edges of a collapsing bubble? Wnt (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.231.131 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doppler effect 

message: Substituted at 06:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment comment