Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Just thinking on 27/08/2021 15:02:32
-
I have been thinking about light and just what it is and I have come to the conclusion that it is not what we think. We have heard the expression if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound. Well if photons land on an object and there is no one to see it does it produce light. Light is perceived by the light receptive rods in our eyes this is like the CCD in a camera well if there are no light sensitive receptors available in the universe will light still exist no. Yes there will still be photons but direct and reflected light not likely plants live on the light so they say but plants do not have eyes so what plants really live on is the energy of the photon not the perceived light that only an eye can see. So to sum up photon + object + eye = light. Photon + object = energy no light. What do you think?
-
The light striking the rod and cones in your eyes are "perceived" by the energy the photons transfer to them. This is no different than plants using this energy. Both are just a physical interaction between matter and photons.
Saying that photons aren't "light" unless they are "perceived" is just philosophical hubris in my opinion. It's an arbitrary dividing line that serves no purpose.
-
The light striking the rod and cones in your eyes are "perceived" by the energy the photons transfer to them. This is no different than plants using this energy. Both are just a physical interaction between matter and photons.
Saying that photons aren't "light" unless they are "perceived" is just philosophical hubris in my opinion. It's an arbitrary dividing line that serves no purpose.
Light is perceived by our brain plants have no brain plants do not see light now you have learned something.
-
"Is light real?"
Yes
if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound.
Yes.
Light is perceived by our brain plants have no brain plants do not see light now you have learned something.
You learned why commas are useful.
-
"Is light real?"
Yes
Quote from: Just thinking on Today at 00:02:32
if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound.
Yes.
Only if there is an eye and an ear and a brain to perceive it. My point all along. And a good brain can fill in for the punctuation.
-
Only if there is an eye and an ear and a brain to perceive it. My point all along.
Yep, no science just a silly philosophical argument.
-
Only if there is an eye and an ear and a brain to perceive it. My point all along.
Yep, no science just a silly philosophical argument.
There is nothing philosophical or silly about the truth. The silly part comes from the ones that are deaf and blind.
-
It's better than that can't be true. But it is true and that is science and fact. Thank you.
-
There is nothing philosophical or silly about the truth
https://xkcd.com/169/
-
There is nothing philosophical or silly about the truth
No thank you.
-
If you have a camera but don't take a photo then no picture exists. If there is no eye then no light exists. Full stop.
-
If you have a camera but don't take a photo then no picture exists. If there is no eye then no light exists. Full stop.
nonsense.
-
If you have a camera but don't take a photo then no picture exists. If there is no eye then no light exists. Full stop.
nonsense.
It would be helpful if you were to explain as of to date there has been no debate only denial. Please make an effort.
-
It would be helpful if you were to explain as of to date there has been no debate
Because there is nothing to debate.
You have made an assertion with no evidence.
It can therefore be dismissed with no evidence.
The fact that the assertion is nonsense doesn't help your case.
-
Because there is nothing to debate.
You have made an assertion with no evidence.
It can therefore be dismissed with no evidence.
The fact that the assertion is nonsense doesn't help your case.
So what you believe is that photons are light even if not perceived by light receptive rods. That is like saying a boat works without water. OK.
-
So what you believe is that photons are light
They are.
-
So what you believe is that photons are light
They are.
No photons and the eye are what produce light in combination photons on their own are just energy.
-
I have noticed that comebacks are rather slow I guess we do need some research. Have you tried WikiHow?
-
So what you believe is that photons are light
They are.
No photons and the eye are what produce light in combination photons on their own are just energy.
Utter nonsense. Light is electromagnetic radiation. Are you denying that a light dependent resistor works because there are no rods and cones? What about a CCD or CMOS detector?
-
Utter nonsense. Light is electromagnetic radiation. Are you denying that a light dependent resistor works because there are no rods and cones? What about a CCD or CMOS detector?
They do work and we can see that. Can a CCD or a CMOS see light do non living things see light NO we see light we have a brain I hope. The brain sees light by the means of our eyes and that is by the direct source or by the means of a monitor.
-
Utter nonsense. Light is electromagnetic radiation. Are you denying that a light dependent resistor works because there are no rods and cones? What about a CCD or CMOS detector?
They do work and we can see that. Can a CCD or a CMOS see light do non living things see light NO we see light we have a brain I hope. The brain sees light by the means of our eyes and that is by the direct source or by the means of a monitor.
If you are using a monitor, how was the light detected? CCD, CMOS, LDRs all react to light without human intervention.
-
If you are using a monitor, how was the light detected? CCD, CMOS, LDRs all react to light without human intervention.
Photons are leaving the monitor screen and our eyes and brain make the light from that energy. Photons are energy receptive cells convert that energy into an image what we call light.
-
If on-shell photons were not real, we'd have a hard time explaining many experiments. We'd also have general hard times explaining obvious phenomenon like the background radiation.
-
If you are using a monitor, how was the light detected? CCD, CMOS, LDRs all react to light without human intervention.
Photons are leaving the monitor screen and our eyes and brain make the light from that energy. Photons are energy receptive cells convert that energy into an image what we call light.
How on earth do you think they get to the monitor? You 'philosophy' is idiotic.
-
If on-shell photons were not real, we'd have a hard time explaining many experiments. We'd also have general hard times explaining obvious phenomenon like the background radiation.
There are many frequencies and wavelengths in the universe but not many of them are perceived as light to the eye.
-
Dictionary.com defines light as, "the natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible." The natural agent in question is photons. That makes photons light. Take note that "sight" and "light" are not synonyms.
-
How on earth do you think they get to the monitor? You 'philosophy' is idiotic.
First, what is they and second what gets to the monitor is electrons so is that light no. IDIOT/ FOOL.
-
No insults, people.
-
Dictionary.com defines light as, "the natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible." The natural agent in question is photons. That makes photons light. Take note that "sight" and "light" are not synonyms.
I'm not quite sure what that means is it true that without light receptive cells light is not light but only photons/energy.
-
is it true that without light receptive cells light is not light but only photons/energy.
No. Light is a physical phenomenon. Sight is (one of the possible) perceptions of that phenomenon.
-
is it true that without light receptive cells light is not light but only photons/energy.
No. Light is a physical phenomenon. Sight is (one of the possible) perceptions of that phenomenon.
Plants live of photons the ones that we can not see there is a big spectrum of wavelength all of it is energy and we have the ability to convert a very small amount of that wavelength into vision called light. Without eyes or a brain, it will remain as energy not light.
-
Without eyes or a brain, it will remain as energy not light.
That contradicts the dictionary definition.
Or perhaps you'd like Britannica's definition? It defines light as, "electromagnetic radiation that can be detected by the human eye."
-
Without eyes or a brain, it will remain as energy not light.
That contradicts the dictionary definition.
Photons are energy we can see a very small amount of that energy the very large part we can not see is not light but photons at a different frequency. So if we had no eyes the photons that we could have seen will remain as just energy and not light. It takes eyes to see without eyes and a brain all photons remain as energy and not light.
-
Photons are energy we can see a very small amount of that energy the very large part we can not see is not light but photons at a different frequency. So if we had no eyes the photons that we could have seen will remain as just energy and not light. It takes eyes to see without eyes and a brain all photons remain as energy and not light.
That, again, contradicts the definition of light. Supply a reputable source that backs up your stance if you disagree. I have Dictionary.com and Britannica on my side so far.
-
That, again, contradicts the definition of light. Supply a reputable source that backs up your stance if you disagree. I have Dictionary.com and Britannica on my side so far.
OK, I think I have a better way to explain this we can see infrared light with the aid of electronics and filters without that we have no way of seeing that light spectrum so it would remain as photons/ radiation that is not light. Now if we did not have the ability of converting the radiation wavelength that we see then it to would not be light only photons/radiation we only see light because we have the ability to convert that very small amount of frequency into light. The photon spectrum is very broad and we only can see a very small amount of that the rest is dark and it all is without eyes.
-
How on earth do you think they get to the monitor? You 'philosophy' is idiotic.
First, what is they and second what gets to the monitor is electrons so is that light no. IDIOT/ FOOL.
Yoy were referring to phhotons as you well know - dont obfuscate. The monitor is generating an image - in this example of something picked up by a camera. You seem very 'box' like.
-
Yoy were referring to phhotons as you well know - dont obfuscate. The monitor is generating an image - in this example of something picked up by a camera. You seem very 'box' like.
I have no understanding of what all that means it sounds like bla bla bla to me sorry.
-
I guess we do need some research
Royal "we".
-
Hi.
I'm going to go in a different direction with this.
So to sum up photon + object + eye = light. Photon + object = energy no light. What do you think?
If you (Just_thinking) want to define light in this way then there isn't much of a problem. You're effectively saying that light is just a part of the e-m spectrum and we (human beings) wouldn't think it was all that special if our eyes hadn't evolved to react to this frequency. That's OK. It doesn't break science or cause anyone much problem.
Regrettably, the modern English Language and the established specialist scientific lexicon have come to define light as being precisely that part of the e-m spectrum. The thing that you (Just_thinking) are describing is more commonly given a different name like "Vision" or "visual perception".
You are quite correct in that if light falls on an object and no one is there to catch the reflected light with their eyes then there is no visual perception of the object. There was only some radiation that did something.
Best Wishes.
-
Royal "we".
The spectrum of photons that we can not see is photons not light if we take away the ability to see the light photons that we can see then they will become photons and not light so that would come to blackout no light at all. We can not have a bucket of water without a bucket we can not have light without eyes.
-
Hi.
I'm going to go in a different direction with this.
Quote from: Just thinking on Today at 00:02:32
So to sum up photon + object + eye = light. Photon + object = energy no light. What do you think?
If you (Just_thinking) want to define light in this way then there isn't much of a problem. You're effectively saying that light is just a part of the e-m spectrum and we (human beings) wouldn't think it was all that special if our eyes hadn't evolved to react to this frequency. That's OK. It doesn't break science or cause anyone much problem.
Regrettably, the modern English Language and the established specialist scientific lexicon have come to define light as being precisely that part of the e-m spectrum. The thing that you (Just_thinking) are describing is more commonly given a different name like "Vision" or "visual perception".
You are quite correct in that if light falls on an object and no one is there to catch the reflected light with their eyes then there is no visual perception of the object. There was only some radiation that did something.
Best Wishes.
Finally a man that has vision yes we must have the mechanism to finalise the process if not it remains as energy and not light this energy has a very broad spectrum that we can not see the portion that we can see is only because we can take that away and we have no light at all. Thank you for your support E.S.
-
Yoy were referring to phhotons as you well know - dont obfuscate. The monitor is generating an image - in this example of something picked up by a camera. You seem very 'box' like.
I have no understanding of what all that means it sounds like bla bla bla to me sorry.
Really? It is really quite simple.
-
Really? It is really quite simple.
You seem to have missed the point it's all about what is entering the eye called light you seem to be hung up on cameras and electronics and monitors sorry not the subject.
-
So two photons leave a lit candle:
One enters the eye of an animal and it perceives light.
One enters a plant leaf and is used in photosynthesis.
Were those two photons any different? When the candle "made" them, did it know where they would end up and make them different in some way?
-
Really? It is really quite simple.
You seem to have missed the point it's all about what is entering the eye called light you seem to be hung up on cameras and electronics and monitors sorry not the subject.
You bought up monitors. As i say, obfuscation.
-
Now if we did not have the ability of converting the radiation wavelength that we see then it to would not be light
That still ignores the definition of light. Again, I ask you to provide a dictionary definition that supports your position.
-
So two photons leave a lit candle:
One enters the eye of an animal and it perceives light.
One enters a plant leaf and is used in photosynthesis.
Were those two photons any different? When the candle "made" them, did it know where they would end up and make them different in some way?
Thank you my point exactly the plant see's no light and if there was no eye to see then light would not exist only energy that can do other things like photosynthesis and provide heat. Heat is real when there is matter no matter no heat no eye no light.
-
That still ignores the definition of light. Again, I ask you to provide a dictionary definition that supports your position.
Light is perceived by the brain via the eye without the brain and the eye we only have radiation no light. Remember we only see a very small amount of the spectrum most of it is radiation not light the little bit that we can see is due to the nature of us take that away and it all becomes radiation no light. What we call sound is a pressure wave it only really becomes sound when it hits the small bone in our ear no ear no sound.
-
Light is perceived by the brain via the eye without the brain and the eye we only have radiation no light. Remember we only see a very small amount of the spectrum most of it is radiation not light the little bit that we can see is due to the nature of us take that away and it all becomes radiation no light. What we call sound is a pressure wave it only really becomes sound when it hits the small bone in our ear no ear no sound.
Again, I ask you to provide a dictionary definition that supports your position.
-
Again, I ask you to provide a dictionary definition that supports your position.
This topic is in new theories. New theories are not found in any dictionaries. PS thank you for putting this topic in new theories it works better here.
-
So two photons leave a lit candle:
One enters the eye of an animal and it perceives light.
One enters a plant leaf and is used in photosynthesis.
Were those two photons any different? When the candle "made" them, did it know where they would end up and make them different in some way?
Thank you my point exactly the plant see's no light and if there was no eye to see then light would not exist only energy that can do other things like photosynthesis and provide heat. Heat is real when there is matter no matter no heat no eye no light.
Yes or no please: are the photons - in flight - any different from each other?
-
This topic is in new theories. New theories are not found in any dictionaries. PS thank you for putting this topic in new theories it works better here.
"Light" is a word with a generally well-accepted definition. Arguing that such a word means something different than what the dictionaries claim it does is a bit of an oxymoron. If you are going to create a new definition for something, you might as well create a new word to go along with it.
-
Yes or no please: are the photons - in flight - any different from each other?
The photons are the same but they are doing two different jobs.
-
Light" is a word with a generally well-accepted definition. Arguing that such a word means something different than what the dictionaries claim it does is a bit of an oxymoron. If you are going to create a new definition for something, you might as well create a new word to go along with it.
My topic states that it is light that we see I have used the word light a number of times I have not denied that we see light and use light so why do I have to redefine the word light to you.
-
Ok if we are in the dark we see no light that is the definition of darkness we don't go around saying we are in the light we just can't see it like infrared light. The definition of light is the light we can see in the spectrum the definition of darkness is all the light we can not see.
-
the definition of darkness is all the light we can not see.
No, it isn't.
Darkness is the absence of light we can see.
-
No, it isn't.
Darkness is the absence of light we can see.
That I will agree with so if we were to evolve into a creature that can not see this light it would be as the rest of the spectrum darkness no light my whole point all along darkness no light only magnetic radiation. Light is only light when it is perceived as such we don't call all the rest of the radiation light unless we detect it as light. Any creature that cant see light and there is quite a number of them only feel the radiation as heat.
-
we don't call all the rest of the radiation light unless we detect it as light.
Yes we do.
For example, we consider the light that falls on the solar panels of a satellite and provides it with power.
Why do you make categorical statements which are so obviously wrong?
-
A big misconception in scientific thinking is the term photons move at the speed of light wrong photons move at the speed of photons. Photons have the potential energy to produce light when in contact with light receptive cells until then they remain as photons/energy not light.
-
A big misconception ...
... is your attempt to redefine light.
-
Yes we do.
For example, we consider the light that falls on the solar panels of a satellite and provides it with power.
Why do you make categorical statements which are so obviously wrong?
If we have photons travelling through a clean vacuum they emit no light so why call photons light when they emit no light.
-
A big misconception ...
... is your attempt to redefine light.
No, I am redefining the photon.
-
they emit no light so why call photons light when they emit no light.
No photons emit any electromagnetic radiation of any form.
-
No photons emit any electromagnetic radiation of any form.
I would like to know why photons are referred to as light? And why say they move at the speed of light and yet they are referred to as being light that's like saying a train moves at the speed of a train very strange.
-
No, I am redefining the photon.
A big misconception ...
-
that's like saying a train moves at the speed of a train
I.e. perfectly correct
-
I would like to know why photons are referred to as light?
Because they are.
-
Because they are.
I thought no light is the definition of darkness and photons are dark so where is the light in that.
-
photons are dark
No, they aren't.
-
No, they aren't.
So if photons are eliminated why can't we see light travelling through the vacuum of space?
-
So if photons are eliminated
They aren't.
-
They aren't.
OK, I have no idea where this is going. Photons are radiation they have little to no mass and they are not light until they make contact with a light sensitive cell.
-
Light" is a word with a generally well-accepted definition. Arguing that such a word means something different than what the dictionaries claim it does is a bit of an oxymoron. If you are going to create a new definition for something, you might as well create a new word to go along with it.
My topic states that it is light that we see I have used the word light a number of times I have not denied that we see light and use light so why do I have to redefine the word light to you.
You have already redefined it.
-
Really? 4 pages discussing if light is real?
-
they are not light until...
Yes they are.
-
I ask you to provide a dictionary definition that supports your position.
OK, I found something in the dictionary . com photon, a quantum of electromagnetic radiation. and not a word about light to be found. Dictionary . con I never use it but I believe it is the most reliable source of snake oil on the net.
-
Yes they are.
How.
-
Really? 4 pages discussing if light is real?
Hang around and you might learn something.
-
You have already redefined it.
There is no light coming from a photon so there is nothing to redefine.
-
I would like to know why photons are referred to as light?
They aren’t. Only a very specific band of frequencies is called light, not the photons themselves. Other frequency bands are called eg, radio, microwave, UV etc. This has been explained in previous posts. Don’t be mislead by shorthand terms, more correctly the photons in the spectrum of light should be called light-photons, when we talk of photons we are referring to any part of the emr spectrum.
And why say they move at the speed of light and yet they are referred to as being light that's like saying a train moves at the speed of a train very strange.
it just happens to be the most common example. All emr travels at c. Call it the speed of emr if that suits you better.
So if photons are eliminated why can't we see light travelling through the vacuum of space?
You can if you are looking at a star. Other photons/light rays travelling across your field of vision are missing your eye, so you don’t see them.
-
OK, I found something in the dictionary . com photon, a quantum of electromagnetic radiation. and not a word about light to be found. Dictionary . con I never use it but I believe it is the most reliable source of snake oil on the net.
I'm not asking for the definition of a photon. I'm asking for the definition of light. A photon represents the smallest particle of light, just as an atom represents the smallest particle of the chemical elements.
There is no light coming from a photon so there is nothing to redefine.
No one ever claimed that light comes from photons so that is a straw-man argument. What we said is light is composed of photons.
You redefined light when you said it is the experience of a photon striking your eye. That is not the standard definition of light. That means you redefined it.
-
They aren’t. Only a very specific band of frequencies is called light, not the photons themselves. Other frequency bands are called eg, radio, microwave, UV etc. This has been explained in previous posts. Don’t be mislead by shorthand terms, more correctly the photons in the spectrum of light should be called light-photons, when we talk of photons we are referring to any part of the emr spectrum.
I have read that all of the photons rang is referred to as types of light we can see UV light with the wright detector. They all produce light when making contact with the appropriate light detecting equipment.
-
You redefined light when you said it is the experience of a photon striking your eye. That is not the standard definition of light. That means you redefined it.
Well, I see what you are saying now the problem with that is if I was to let's say go to Wiki how or one of many reliable sources it would not be me expressing my theory doing that will only revert me back to the conventional way of thinking.
-
Really? 4 pages discussing if light is real?
It's five pages now if it gets kicked off you will have a real sense of achievement and feel good about yourself.
-
Well, I see what you are saying now the problem with that is if I was to let's say go to Wiki how or one of many reliable sources it would not be me expressing my theory doing that will only revert me back to the conventional way of thinking.
This is an argument about definitions. Light is not defined the way you claim it is. That makes your theory wrong.
-
This is an argument about definitions. Light is not defined the way you claim it is. That makes your theory wrong.
New theories require new definitions the definitions in the dictionary are defined to suit mainstream beliefs and thinking.
-
New theories require new definitions the definitions in the dictionary are defined to suit mainstream beliefs and thinking.
Then invent a new word to go with your definition so we won't confuse it with light.
-
You redefined light when you said it is the experience of a photon striking your eye. That is not the standard definition of light. That means you redefined it.
Well, I see what you are saying now the problem with that is if I was to let's say go to Wiki how or one of many reliable sources it would not be me expressing my theory doing that will only revert me back to the conventional way of thinking.
I know whose sock you are.
-
Then invent a new word to go with your definition so we won't confuse it with light.
I will give it a go it is called { A light stimulating particle } this light stimulating particle is what activates the sensitive rods and cells in our eyes and delivers the produced information to the brain and the brain creates the image. When we sleep and have a dream we see images very clearly and that is with our eyes closed so it is the brain that can see the eye is the decoder
-
I know whose sock you are.
I have no idea what that means.
-
post deleted.
I mistakenly thought there was a recent reply, I did not mean to resurrect this thread, please don't respond....
-
post deleted.
I mistakenly thought there was a recent reply, I did not mean to resurrect this thread, please don't respond....
That's ok mistakes happen just a slip of the keyboard.