| A few simple questions,
Posted: 7/24/2009 10:07:52 PM | to see where every one stands. there is no right or wrong answer.
Concerning the nature of light:
a) Where is it created ?
Concerning its dimensions:
b) Where are the spaces in hue and luminance born ?
(between red and blue, intensity too) | |
|
| A few simple questions,
Posted: 7/24/2009 10:35:39 PM | I don't know if what I have to say makes much sense as I hardly understand the question but I do have something to say...
Light could come from anywhere. The sun gives us life and fire can destroy it. Kind of like the two edged sword. (Light comes from the absence of darkness)
As for the hue... From physics, as I remember, white light would be complete and any other types of light would be missing one thing or another. | |
|
| A few simple questions,
Posted: 7/24/2009 11:17:41 PM | I'm not so sure light it really created so much as transformed. If a photon is absorbed by an atom with sufficiently high band gap, the valence electron(s) will "absorb" the photon and increase in energy, potentially knocking the electron loose. This is how solar panels work. Likewise, a light bulb "creates" light by heating up a tungsten filament and exciting the valence electrons. When the electron comes into an unstable state of "overly excited", it randomly drops back down to a lower energy state and a photon is emitted. In that respect, it is created on the outer shell of atoms with too much energy in them. It's the same principle behind LEDs, LASERs, CRT monitors, and even the phosphors in the CFL you might have in your light fixture. The difference is it's not necessarily heat that excites the individual atoms. (In order) Electricity,"pumped" light, accelerated electron beams, UV light.
Hues: Red and blue differ by wavelength or ratios of multiple wavelengths. For example, purple can be made by either a 430 nm wavelength, or it can be simulated by mixing red and blue, which fool your retinal cones into thinking that there is a violet hue.
Luminance: The number of photons hitting your retinal rods determines perceived luminance. 100 photons per second could be very close to dark, while a billion per second might blind you with the brilliance. (I dunno about exact numbers here, you look it up if you're so interested XD ) | |
|
| not photons but light
Posted: 7/25/2009 10:45:34 AM | The question is not as simple as it might seem on its face. Now dont get me wrong, I am well versed in empiricism. I understand the emission of photons. I understand this emission is symptomatic of many disparate processes.
but, i inquire about the nature of something completely different. I inquire about the nature of photons contextualized by the human psyche.
If there is a a mirror in the woods and no eye is there to see it, does it reflect light ? | |
|
| not photons but light
Posted: 7/25/2009 6:37:51 PM | Of course the mirror reflects light. That's a physical property that exists independent of human observation. The falling tree also makes a sound. Simple physics.
And to the best of my knowledge, light is created when any matter is energized to an appropriate level. | |
|
| A few simple questions,
Posted: 7/25/2009 7:24:48 PM |
Concerning the nature of light:
a) Where is it created ?
Darkness was created. Light was given form out of darkness.
Concerning its dimensions:
b) Where are the spaces in hue and luminance born ?
(between red and blue, intensity too)
wavelength x frequence = speed of light.
zero frequency = infinite length being either a static magnetic field or a static electric field (Static electric fields are neutralized by charged particles typically electrons.)
The speed of light is the contstant between light's frequency (time) and length(space.) | |
|
| not photons but light
Posted: 7/26/2009 6:31:43 AM | Bp30066---If there is a mirror in the woods and no eye is there to see it. Does it reflect light?---
The context of witnessing light would need to be defined.. If I placed a large floor-standing mirror in some woods and a tripod mounted video camera facing that mirror... Hitting record and leaving the woods, it is testable and likely that as my mind and vision leave the scene, the camera will capture light. | |
|
| A few simple questions,
Posted: 7/26/2009 8:02:12 AM | Light is energy. Not so much "created" as transformed from some other source. The sun "burns" creating light. We carbonize wood to create light with a campfire.
There are no "speces" between the frequencies of light...we just can't see them because the photoreceptors in out eyes cannot process that information to the brain. Such as infrared red. (At least not without technological help.) All the colours "run" together, making a rainbow more colourful than the giant box of crayolas! All those colours are in a rainbow...we just don't notice them all or they are in too narrow a band for us to notice. Perhaps "washed" out by the stronger colours.
The hues aren't "born" anymore than the original light was. What happens is the dominant colours "wash out" the others so we don't see them. Like a campfire may have all kinds of colour flickering in it...we see mostly the orange and yellow hues....but we can see the blue and green at times too.
Because light is in "rays" the dominant rays "flood" the others out of our range of sight. Like losing a drop of red paint in a gallon of white...doesn't make that much differencr...but we know it is there. | |
|
| not photons but light
Posted: 7/26/2009 10:09:21 AM |
If there is a a mirror in the woods and no eye is there to see it, does it reflect light ?
Yes. | |
|
| A few simple questions,
Posted: 7/26/2009 7:20:46 PM | ???
Ok, why do you think these questions make sense? What is the nature of anything?
Where is light created? Well how about the same place as reality?
Why not ask "what preceded reality?"
"Where are the spaces in hue and luminance born ?"
How does a concept get born? | |
|
| not photons but light
Posted: 7/26/2009 7:21:29 PM | "If there is a mirror in the woods and no eye is there to see it. Does it reflect light?"
Conventionally yes
Existentially no | |
|
| not photons but light
Posted: 7/28/2009 7:29:24 PM | So my original question's intent was to draw into discussion the relative/contextual nature of concepts such as 'sound' and 'light'; ultimately any 'thing' that might be 'name'd. Relative in the sense that the raw data from the five senses seems best not disputed; the interpretation/analysis thereof though, is a whole different ballgame. This is where the mass divergence amongst egos occurs.
Ultimately the conclusion seems to me that light and sound are really illusions with respect to the nature of such 'things' as photons and pressure gradients.
How do I arrive here ? (although wikipedia is not an objectively definitive source, its seems reliable on the subjects quoted)
"Light is electromagnetic radiation, particularly radiation of a wavelength that is **visible to the human eye** (about 400–700 nm, or perhaps 380–750 nm)"
"Sound is a travelling wave which is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies **within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations**"
**emphasis added**
-= Rational Axioms ? =-
1) A photon is only a photon until is observed; then its light.
2) A pressure gradient is only that until it's perceived; then sound is born.
Both are definiti0ns that *require interaction with the human psyche*. Otherwise you only have an arbitrary vibration/disturbance/difference in one or more mediums. Its only when this vibration/disturbance/difference is observed/perceived from the human condition that concepts such as light and sound come into play. It seems as though our consciousness evokes 'thing's such as "light" and "sound" out of the universe.
So if light and s0und are an illusion of human consciousness, where then does that leave the creation of each ?
Oh, and i would argue that an UN observed mirror does NOT transmit 'light' in the absence of an observer (ocular system with nervous system attached). It would arguably reflect photons behaving in a wavelike fashion at various amplitudes and wavelengths, but not 'reflect light'.
| |
|
| not photons but light
Posted: 7/28/2009 7:51:00 PM | | hi.. darkness is the absence of light, until God puts it there.... warmly Mona | |
|
| not photons but light
Posted: 7/28/2009 7:57:58 PM | The frequencies are considered visible, but light is light, regardless of whether it is observed. A mirror will reflect light just like a solar cell will generate electricity, regardless of there being an observer.
The question of sound is subtly different, and hinges upon this:
or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations
Thus, if you choose the first definition [which is valid], then a tree falling in a woods without an observer DOES make a sound. If you choose the second, or both, [which is also valid], then it does not. The puzzle of the question is not in the answer, but in the fact that either answer is correct and dependent on your own choices. | |
|
Home
login 
