Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parts of this looks just like this:


Copyright violation? - Omegatron 18:46, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

I scrambled it up a bit. With some more editing it should lose most resemblance to the original. - Omegatron 21:39, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
But... "scrambled up" plagiarism is still plagiarism. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but if that article is a source, it should be credited, "scrambled up" or not. --Rodii 22:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, isn't it in the public domain, seeing that it's on a U.S. govt website? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Copyright Status LLNL-authored documents are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract W-7405-Eng-48. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. All documents available from this server may be protected under the U.S. and Foreign Copyright Laws. Permission to reproduce may be required." http://www.llnl.gov/disclaimer.html 02:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I dont know when this was last edited but according to this article:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050307215613.htm the light is created from compression of the gas in the bubble. == hey! i added that. == mayer nest pas daccord "removing entire nonsensical pseudoscience theory section since no one has improved it."

:-( you make me sad. what needs improving? - Omegatron 06:21, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Moving section here:


The mystery of how a low-energy-density sound wave can concentrate enough energy in a small enough volume to cause the emission of light is still unsolved. It requires a concentration of energy by about a factor of 1012 (one trillion).

There are two prominent theories to account for the light generated by the collapsing bubble:

  1. Dr. Claudia Eberlein, a physicist at the University of Sussex, suggests that the light is generated by the vacuum around the bubble in a process similar to Hawking radiation, the radiation generated by the edges of black holes. Quantum theory holds that a vacuum is filled with virtual particles, and the rapidly moving interface between water and air converts virtual photons into real photons. This is related to the Unruh effect or the Casimir effect. If true, sonoluminescence may be the first observable example of quantum vacuum radiation. 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.
  2. Andrea Prosperetti believes that the light is generated as a jet of liquid shoots from one side of the bubble to the other at very high speed (around 6000 km/h). Water ice and Wint-O-Green Lifesavers can give off light when they crack (called triboluminescence), and it is thought that the high pressures inside the bubble cause the water to form ice-like structures. As the jet hits the other side, the water "fractures" in the same way that silly putty and other non-Newtonian fluids behave like solids when subjected to sudden stresses. The fracture causes a release of photons. Prosperetti believes that an introduction of noble gases changes the way the water molecules align themselves, creating flaws in the crystal-like structure that enhance the fracturing effect. This theory may be tested by firing hyper-fast jets of water to see if it produces light without the acoustic cavitation.
  • Hi Omegatron, I probably should have put the text here with a more thorough explanation. Sorry. The reason I removed this section is the following: I put the article up for request for cleanup and got no reactions, I put it up for peer review twice I think and got no response. So I removed what I saw as inappropriate sections. The theory of "fracturing liquid" put forth by Prosperetti along with the Eberlein casimir\hawking\virtual particle theory, is now resoundingly rejected by mainstream science today and the actual mechanism, while not completely known is thought to be a far more prosaic adiabatic compression model. Beyond that, shock convergence, plasma ionisation and photo-recombination, Bremsstrahlung radiation, and even fusion are all still intensely debated possible explanations, but no hawking radiation or other very far fetched theories are needed and are practially never invoked anymore. I don't personally know the intricate detail of the sbsl mechanism which is why I have not yet added it to the article. Perhaps the section I removed shoud stay as "rejected theories"? I wouldn't mind that.--Deglr6328 17:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Certainly leave it in and show that it is now considered obsolete. If you don't, people like me will never find out and think it is current and put it back in.  :-) Updating and fixing things is always better than deleting.
What are the latest theories, then? - Omegatron 00:12, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I really don't know the detail of the current adiabatic compression theory. I will re-insert your additions in a little while when I have time to complete the section. promise.--Deglr6328 04:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

why does it still have a cleanup tag?[edit]

? - Omegatron 21:53, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I just dont think its in good shape really....It really really needs a scientist to look at it and make changes. --Deglr6328 05:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey I didn't know you were a skeptic too...cool.--Deglr6328 05:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Suspicious gaze* That's what you'd like me to believe...
:-) I didn't post that stuff because I am a crackpot. I looked online for an explanation and that is what I found. If it's wrong then of course it should be fixed. Truth is paramount. (All Truth is subject to change. Void where prohibited by law.) - Omegatron 13:55, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
This has several different theories, including those two: http://www.dawnlink.ltd.uk/sl/report.html - Omegatron 14:17, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
This is probably where I got the info originally: http://members.aol.com/cpeter2001/science2/ - Omegatron 15:50, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Oh no! Someone quoted it!  :-) http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/t-61894_Re_Sonoluminescence_&_Bose-Einstein_Condensates.html - Omegatron 19:39, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Who would quote wikipedia authoritatively?! I mean it's fun to read an all but... duh!--Deglr6328 00:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I hope my edits to this section are approved of. I cleaned style and grammar elements, and hopefully made it clearer that this was a simplification of rough, but technical theories on the phenomenon. I don't believe the cleanup tag is necessary, so I went ahead and removed it. If anything, I say it needs more citations and/or expert help.Alexnye 07:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Light Pulse Temporal Shape[edit]

Just a heads up: the llnl.gov page on SBSL is not authoratative. I only say that because it hasn't changed since 1996 [1]. There has been a lot of work in this field since then. Most notably, in 1996, we hadn't even started time-correlated photon counting. In other words, the statistics on that page have been shown incorrect.

Moran (the main author of the paper cited) even updated his temporal shape calculations in Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4987–4990 (1998). From his conclusion:

The data above show SBSL pulse durations that vary from about 150 to 300 ps, depending on experimental conditions. We have confirmed SBSL pulse lengths in this range with single-pulse measurements using a fast MCP and transient digitizer [7]. This pulse-width range is consistent with the results of Gompf [3] and Hiller [4]. Furthermore, recent streak-camera measurements of SBSL duration also find that SBSL duration is of the order of 200 ps [8]. The recent streak data also confirm our observation of slightly prolonged pulse tails. These pulse widths are consistent with previous reports of 50-ps widths [9], and longer than our own report of a 15-ps width [10]. (emphasis added)

A good source of (relatively) current information can be found in Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 425 (2002).

S.N. Hillbrand 14:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I bow to your obviously superior knowledge. What do you think of the "mechanism of production" section? I think it rather sucks but I don't know enough about the current (quasi)consensus about the mechanism to usefully add here....you however, sound like you can add to this greatly. Also, what do you mean by "The light flashes from the bubbles are extremely short—between 35 and a few hundred picoseconds long at visible wavelengths." have we measured radio or X emission from them? Does the UV emission differ in pulsewidth?--Deglr6328 16:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious as to how these two theories ended up being the ones highlighted. I think that Eberlein's was never seriously considered on the basis of the principle of parsimony. Prosperetti did receive consideration but discarded in the face of Putterman's evidence for Blackbody radiation.
Currently, it is well accepted that SBSL is the result of a hot-plasma core producing bremsstrahlung radiation. The study showing this effect is noted just above the Mechanism section. I think that we should probably remove the two guesses and replace it with a good description of the plasma formation/blackbody radiation.
I worded the phrase "at visible wavelengths" poorly. I definitely did not want to imply that there is a difference in the pulse width between wavelengths. I've removed the ending. To my knowledge, there has been no evidence for X-ray or radio wave emissions in SBSL. S.N. Hillbrand 19:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They are highlighted because they were the only descriptions I could find when I wrote that section. See #Theories. Please add other explanations. Leave these in though, as debunked models. - Omegatron 20:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Understood. Do you think that we should include all of the debunked mechanisms? S.N. Hillbrand 11:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. No. Which invalidates what I said before. If there are popular debunked mechanisms they should probably be included, though. Or if there are only a few of them it's fine. We don't want to turn the article into a huge archive of all the possible theories that we now know are false. I added these originally because they were all I could find, and listed in news articles and such. Someone who knows more about it debunked them. - Omegatron 14:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Size of the bubbles[edit]

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)

Exotic proposals[edit]

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. 01:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Not just liquids?[edit]

This paper talks about sonoluminesence of gas and I think in solid crystals, too. — Omegatron 23:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean Dragonball Z is plausible then? I mean, the Pistol Shrimp can do it, why can't we? I used to think DBZ was just inertial effects, with color added for drama, like Hubble photos. That you couldn't actually fire kung fu lasers... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argon flash[edit]

Is sonoluminescence somehow related to argon flash? Jkasd 05:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who said Sonoluminescence??? it is water braking apart. or whatever it has its own frequency.[edit]

(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 (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, every discussion I have ever read about Sonoluminescence mentions the fact that it disassociates water into hydrogen and oxygen. Very strange that this is not mentioned on the wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early nazi work?[edit]

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)[reply]

Boat propellers get eroded/eaten by cavitation bubbles if they're not properly shaped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of SBSL[edit]

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)[reply]

Derivation of Rayleigh Plesset[edit]

Isn't the R-P equation derived from the incompressible NS equations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References need cleaning up[edit]

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)[reply]

Just to be clear, there are good reasons for the standard form. External links are the most accessible for a general reader, but web links can get broken, the external page could get moved or taken down, etc. So inline references to books and journals should include the name and title info, referring to a more permanent paper copy. Perhaps look at WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Puzl bustr (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a simple college student trying to learn about Sonoluminescence(SL) and not a Wikipedia editor, so I am going to be very candid and starkly blunt with you guys. Regardless of any standards of the citation used on Wikipedia or by other articles, They way the are referenced now and referenced really doesn't matter as long as their is a date, the name of publisher when it was written, name journal for articles), Volume and Issue, and especially the ISBN number is kept. I may be preaching to the choir, but this is primary b/c most of the detailed in depth information SL is actually hard to find or hard to get access to. In fact, I never seen someone cite the book Sonoluminescence by F. Ronald Young even simply for historical reasons. However this book is very hard to find just like link "doi:10.1146/annurev.fluid.32.1.445", the better article by Seth Putterman than the on you have cited from Scientific American in 1995 because he addresses the primary problems, specifically those involving the Rayleigh–Plesset. The way I found out about both those article was through citations of the references you included. However, I could only find those articles not on their author or there title alone but more their publisher, date, volume/issue #, and the journal name when combined with its ISBN number. I really don't think you can successfully serve the general public in finding out more information about SL if you change the references in such a way that you remove these things143.215.106.208 (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doppler effect[edit]

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)[reply]

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sonoluminescence/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The figures shown on this page are not of sonoluminescence. They are actually simple chemiluminescence. The top figure that is blue in color is probably that observed when an aqueous solution of luminol is exposed to ultrasound. In that case, sonochemical reactions result in the conversion of luminol to a fluorescent form. As the amount of luminol builds up in the solution, the solution become a deeper and deeper blue. Sonoluminescence on the other hand, is the result of a sudden flash of light observed when a bubble collapses almost adiabatically in a liquid.

Additional points: ultrasound only, not sound in general sonoluminescence cannot be made stable...the bubble is what is referred to as being stable, since it pulsates around and equilibrium radius for a very long time.

The wavelength of the light is not very short...it spans quite a broad range from the UV all the way into the IR.

That's enough for now.

Last edited at 07:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

is there sonoluminescence in your joints when they pop[edit]