No Really, What is Light?

M

MikeHoncho

Banned
Banned
Is this not a valid question or what?
Is there a verifiable theory defining light.
Please no flamers or uninformed opinions. I'd be amazed to see an honest informed conversation.
 
draqon said:
light is a stream of photons, exhibiting a wavelike behavior
Click to expand...

Thank you very much Dragon.
This is the current explaination, but even those endorsing it haven't completly explained HOW this dual nature occurs. The EXACT nature of light is undefined. Sometimes it is obseved to act like a particle, sometimes a wave. Sometimes it does not exist at all until observed. And noone knows exactly WHY (as far as I can tell). In short your particle that acts like a wave is not understood, not completely defined.
 
MikeHoncho said:
Is there a verifiable theory defining light.
Click to expand...
Quantum mechanics, or more specifically, quantum electrodynamics (QED). Wikipedia goes so far as to call QED
wikipedia said:
"the jewel of physics" for its extremely accurate predictions of quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, and the Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen.
Click to expand...



Scientific theories are not verifiable. Just because a theory makes a prediction and every experiment to date agrees with that prediction does not make the theory "correct". Scientific theories are falsifiable. One goofy measurement can destroy lifetimes of work by theoreticians. That said, QED is about as close to a gold standard as we can get.

As Dragon said, we are not gods. Scientific theories are models of how we think the universe works. In the case of QED, a dang good model coupled with some very, very deep reasoning. However, we do not know the "real reason" for why anything works the way it does. There would be no reason for people to study science if we did know the "real reason", all the way down to first cause, behind the way things work.
 
"Scientific theories are not verifiable."

Pythagoren theorem. Unverifiable?
When you commpress a gas it gets hotter. Always.
Water is made up of two Hydrogen and one Oxygen.
Much is perfectly described. I'm merely saying light is not. Your answer to my question is basically "we can't define it" -at least not sufficiently to describe all its observed behaviors.
Your not qualified to answer. Any physicists in the house?
 
The Pythagorean theorem is a mathematical theorem, not a scientific theory. Scientists and mathematicians use different words for these things because they are not at all the same thing.

MikeHoncho said:
Your not qualified to answer. Any physicists in the house?
Click to expand...

Yes I am. Matter of fact, I just gave a briefing on the detailed physics of mass-depleting thrusters to NASA today (yesterday, I guess, since its after midnight.) I suggest you do some reading on the difference between mathematics and science. I also suggest you hold off on the snarky remarks.
 
Light is very much ethereal. Nothing about it has a substance, for it, according to physics, experiences absolutely no time at all, because its subatomic clock is stretched into infinity... therego, it neither travels in space...

From its perspective, nothing changes.
 
MikeHoncho said:
"Scientific theories are not verifiable."
Pythagoren theorem.
Click to expand...
Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem#Relation_with_scientific_theories

When you commpress a gas it gets hotter. Always.
Click to expand...
Not true. Heat up a metal cylinder containing a gas to just under 100[sup]o[/sup]C. Now place the cylinder in a large cold bath of water and slowly compress the gas. I guarantee that if you do this slowly enough the gas will get colder, not hotter.

Water is made up of two Hydrogen and one Oxygen.
Click to expand...
That is a scientific fact, not a theory. Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

Your answer to my question is basically "we can't define it" -at least not sufficiently to describe all its observed behaviors.
Click to expand...
Please google "quantum electrodynamics".

Your not qualified to answer. Any physicists in the house?
Click to expand...
Besides being completely incorrect (I am a physicist), such petty remarks are against the rules here.
 
"Yes I am. Matter of fact, I just gave a briefing on the detailed physics of mass-depleting thrusters to NASA today (yesterday, I guess, since its after midnight.) I suggest you do some reading on the difference between mathematics and science. I also suggest you hold off on the snarky remarks."

Sorry for snarkin. I guess I'm frustrated.
And Im definitely not beefin with QED. I probably couldn't spell it.
But- do I take your answer to be "We don't know the precise nature of light and we never will"?
 
DH my friend... calm down. If such a professional you claim to be, then nothing to prove from your perspective eh? Just say what you have to say, and let it be.
 
Ok I googled QED.
My freakin heads gonna bleed.
Math ... well it looked pretty.
I did get this from Wiki though:

"QED doesn't predict what will happen in an experiment, but it can predict the probability of what will happen in an experiment, which is how it is experimentally verified. Predictions of QED agree with experiments to an extremely high degree of accuracy: currently about 10−12 (and limited by experimental errors); for details see precision tests of QED. This makes QED the most accurate physical theory constructed thus far."

It helps me accept what you write above. Its not perfect but its pretty damn close.
I'll post no further regarding the nature of light because-
1. I'd need $80,000 worth of learnin and
2. I'd be pissed as hell to be able to explain why "my best guess is ...maybe"
I see why your all so mad at the question.
 
MikeHoncho said:
But- do I take your answer to be "We don't know the precise nature of light and we never will"?
Click to expand...
Yes, but that is true for of all science. Claiming to know the precise nature of something is the domain of religion, not science. Scientific theories are models of how things work, and scientists are perpetually striving to make better models.

At the end of the 19th century, a few physicists had the audacity to argue that future physicists would be relegated to looking for differences to the sixth decimal place. They thought they had the answers to everything! A few decades later, everything they thought they knew to be true was turned upside down by relativity and quantum mechanics. At the end of the 20th century, some philosophers took on the mantle of the 19th century physicists and started talking about "the end of science" (e.g., "The End Of Science: Facing The Limits Of Knowledge In The Twilight Of The Scientific Age", John Horgan).

I am of that opinion that we do not have nor ever will have the ultimate answers. That might just be wishful thinking, for if we do ever come to the point that we truly do have the answer to life, the universe, and everything (its 42, BTW) then there will be no need for new scientists.
 
Last edited:
DH-
If ya knew it was 42 by God why didn't ya just tell me!:D
Just kiddin. Believe it or not I can accept that.
The work in progress.
If you guys ever did actually pin it all down perfectly we'd all probably explode.

Thanks for the info. I'm off to post my new theory in pseudoscience about how when life finally understands itself a new big bang ends this universe and creates the next;)



Mod: move this where you wish --- I'm done with light thing
 
This is off-topic, but I just have to say it. The Google calculator is truly awesome, and getting more so all the time.

Earth's orbital velocity: The Earth is one AU from the Sun and it takes one year to orbit the Sun. So that makes the Earth's orbital velocity $$2\pi\text{AU}/\text{yr}$$. Google will convert this to SI units just by googling 2*pi*1 AU/year. Don't like SI units? Ask for it in furlongs per fortnight: 2*pi*1 AU/year in furlongs per fortnight.

I brought this up because, being a Douglas Adams fan, I already knew that the "answer to life, the universe, and everything" is 42. The Google calculator also knows this (see the link in my previous post).
 
''Yes, but that is true for of all science. Claiming to know the precise nature of something is the domain of religion, not science. Scientific theories are models of how things work, and scientists are perpetually striving to make better models.''

This i can agree with, wholeheartedly.
 
MikeHoncho said:
Is this not a valid question or what?
Is there a verifiable theory defining light.
Please no flamers or uninformed opinions. I'd be amazed to see an honest informed conversation.
Click to expand...

"Electromagnetic (EM) radiation, also called light even though it is not always visible, is a self-propagating wave in space with electric and magnetic components. These components oscillate at right angles to each other and to the direction of propagation, and are in phase with each other. Electromagnetic radiation is classified into types according to the frequency of the wave: these types include, in order of increasing frequency, radio waves, microwaves, terahertz radiation, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma rays."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
 
Yes... I am sure he knew this. But what is light?

How does something spontaneously bubble from the vacuum>?

How does an ethereal, zero-time particle even exist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top