And my entire point is it has the same effect as “storing light” in the question.
A photon is energy. I could make a pedantic argument about EM energy from the photon being held as EM potential in a chemical bond. But I’m not.
My point is The question is vague - storing light chemically in a box meets the requirements of the question as well as a photon in a bottle.
A lot of my real life is spent dealing with the risks of unclearly defined terms and problems. It’s interesting in this case that we (a bunch of people who are attracted to a science fiction universe) jumped to the view of the question that we did.
It is stored into the bonds of molecules as chemical energy . But what are those bonds made of ? Molecular orbitals . Electron pairs , wave functions. Ultimately , what is an electron ? Both particle and wave , an electromagnetic wave function. So in the end it’s still electromagnetic energy.
I will agree totally with the above statement but also add that storing light chemically (Which it is not) is not really storing the original captured light but converting it to something entirely different!
Are you talking physics or chemistry as I am sure you will agree they are totally different subjects when it comes to light being used and stored for Photosynthesis? allthough both are part of the process!
Chemistry is nothing but applied physics , I have studied chemistry for some years , ultimately it’s nothing but quantum mechanics , thermodynamics and kinetics applied to atoms and molecules and the interactions between them.
I have to say an unequivical “No” to that statement. Yes both study matter but they become diffuse at the boundry! I think you are going too deep into this as fundementally light is not stored as light in Photosynthesis.
Also another error in your theory is that Quantum mechanics differs from classical physics.
70% of my chem college curriculum was physics and applied physics in chemistry , along side advanced mathematics which were needed for a better understanding of the physics notions . The rest was organic and inorganic chem, biochemistry, analytical chemistry, toxicology , computational chemistry, etc. Why do you think they teach those ? According to you they should be removed … by saying that chemistry is not applied physics.
If electrons from atoms absorb light (photons) they transit into higher states of energy , and if stable form molecular orbitals , giving birth to molecules (if the thermodinamic and kinetic conditions allow it), you can call it chemical conversion , but in a way it is nothing but stored electromagnetic energy under the form of paired electrons.
It does differ , because the classic laws of physics do not apply into the quantum realm , otherwise we wouldn’t have had 2 different sets of rules for each realm . It’s what they are trying to do now, unify the quantum world with our “normal” world , the small with the big , have a single universal set of rules. The problem is nobody has done it so far .
I’m not insulting your intelligence here , I just simply do not have time to put in lame terms molecular orbitals for you and go through all of the physics involved right now, they teach this in one year in college.
The outcomes of photosynthesis are several, and one is light results in plant mass:
Light → glucose (food) → increase in mass (one of the results of the plant’s consumption of food).
Light ends up effectively stored as plant mass as an outcome. Later, plant mass may be converted back to light by way of combustion:
Plant mass → combustion → light.
Batteries charged have more mass than depleted. It is very small change, but it is correct when calculated using e=mc2. That amount of energy would be very “light” in AA battery, something like a mass of a yeast cell.
During photosynthesis light is converted in a Biological process into chemical energy.
This chemical energy is stored in carbohydrate molecules, such as sugars, which are synthesized from carbon dioxide and water!
I think you are making the same fundemental error as previous posters have and missed the word "Converted" or ignored it!
Combustion is a chemical process and one of the outcomes is light from the flames! that light is not the light used at the beginning of photosynthesis and is just a result of a chemical process.
OK, I had to check - my first reaction was “no where near that mass!”.
12,960 Joules of energy in an AA battery = about 0.1 peta-grammes, or a 400th of a typical yeast cell).
Not as far off I was expecting. My gut feel was for it to be a lot less than that (several more orders of magnitude) - impressed: that’s within measurable bounds.
The energy released in the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was from the conversion of only about 700mg (15kt bomb - a small one!) - that c^2 is a big factor.
Gone are the days I could remember how to derive E=mc^2 - my degree was a long time ago.
But you did! I am not sure why you are annoyed but with that in mind I will not reply to further posts from you because if you are unable to discuss a subject maturely without posting slyly disparaging remarks about what you belive my intelligence or education level is then there is no point continuing!