100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Quantum particles?/waves? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Abra, You make some very interesting claims about the difference between light traveling in vacuum and light traveling through matter. I do not discount the possibility that 'the best way' to think it is - as you say - that light is traveling is 'always at C, but sometimes matter makes it appear otherwise', in fact, I vaguely recall equations from which I concluded something similar, however, I don't accept this as an explanation: actually happening is that light (photons or quantums of energy), are jumping from one atom to the next (at the SPEED OF LIGHT in a vacuum), those atoms absorb the light energy (the photon or quantum of energy), become 'excited' for a while (a delay), and then re-emit the light energy (photon or quantum of energy) to the next atom over at the SPEED OF LIGHT. Are you speaking of the excitation of electrons surround the atom? This process, of course, does happen - under other circumstances. When it does happen, the direction of emission is generally not the direction light was traveling when absorbed. When we observe light being slowed down (so to speak) when traveling through matter, the overall direction of the lights traveling is not changed in the same way that it is when the light energy is absorbed and re-emitted in the process which (i think) you are describing. The whole thing falls under the principle of conservation of momentum. In a material (even a gas), you can't treat each atom as an isolated system. The macro environment and it's overall property of inertia and momentum must be conserved. When a photo of energy interacts with an atom within a substance like this, we really need to view the atom as a 'macro' object. The neighboring atoms are having an affect on the electron cloud configuration of all the neighboring atoms. So when the atom absorbs and re-emits a photon the emission is not exactly random. In fact, it can actually be calculated in terms of probablities via the equations of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics). The MACRO environment, inertia and momentum cannot be ignored. Therefore, the overall probability is that the newly emitted photon will indeed be emitted in the 'opposite direction' from whence it was absorbed. Of course, there is also a probability that it will go the other way. And sometimes it does thus slowing down the overall propagation according to the probabilities assoicated with the atomic structure of that particular substance. The quantum physicists have it all covered.  Quantum mechanics WORKS. It explains why light continues to propagate in the direction that it does from a MACRO perspective, even though on a quantum level there is probability going on. The MACRO WORLD AFFECTS the probablity curves. It's not exactly totally random. It's random, but not without some dependency on the macro world around the quantum events in question. QED has it down pat. Richard Feynman (who worked on this) along with others, did not win a Nobel Prize for their looks.  They have it down pat. At least as pat as it can be. Clearly there is randomness involved at the quantum level but that doesn't mean that everything is totally random. Far from it! The macro environment still COUNTS.  It affects the probability distributions. In fact this is one of the basic themes behind the notion of an 'observer-created' universe. We (being macro participants in this universe) can directly affect the probablities of the sea of random potentiality. We can affect and guide the randomness. Thus the notion of 'observer-created' or 'free will reality' takes hold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yet, no matter how much "darkness" you pile on a light, it does not extinguish it. And what would a particle of "darkness" be called? A darkon?  Sorry. That's just the first question that popped into my mind when I read your thought. Glad I could entertain you for a moment!!  yet, I still wonder about the light and dark idea. this is most likely way over my head really, I just find it interesting that a light source continues to be light. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yet, I still wonder about the light and dark idea. this is most likely way over my head really, I just find it interesting that a light source continues to be light. I don't understand. To our sense, darkness and light may seemed like two different phenomena, due, possibly, to similar (but opposite) underlying causes. But according to the beliefs of physicists, darkness is the absence of light - light has 'reality' in the sense of a process occurring. Darkness is just how we experience the absence of that process. There is no 'darkness process', no 'darkness photon'. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yet, I still wonder about the light and dark idea. this is most likely way over my head really, I just find it interesting that a light source continues to be light. I don't understand. To our sense, darkness and light may seemed like two different phenomena, due, possibly, to similar (but opposite) underlying causes. But according to the beliefs of physicists, darkness is the absence of light - light has 'reality' in the sense of a process occurring. Darkness is just how we experience the absence of that process. There is no 'darkness process', no 'darkness photon'. Darkness - as in: Something is blocking visible light?. or Darkness - as in: No energy is being transfered along the entire EM Spectrum in this area... (Which would immediately cause me to ask - WHY). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
massagetrade
on
Mon 07/20/09 07:31 PM
|
|
AB, I don't know - I was building off my own speculation of what LighthouseLover was saying.
(But I'm happy to change the topic and follow a new direction). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yet, I still wonder about the light and dark idea. this is most likely way over my head really, I just find it interesting that a light source continues to be light. I don't understand. To our sense, darkness and light may seemed like two different phenomena, due, possibly, to similar (but opposite) underlying causes. But according to the beliefs of physicists, darkness is the absence of light - light has 'reality' in the sense of a process occurring. Darkness is just how we experience the absence of that process. There is no 'darkness process', no 'darkness photon'. Darkness - as in: Something is blocking visible light?. or Darkness - as in: No energy is being transfered along the entire EM Spectrum in this area... (Which would immediately cause me to ask - WHY). never mind...I am not sure how to explain the question...and it probably does not belong in this thread anyway... and it was darkness as in no energy being transferred... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
never mind...I am not sure how to explain the question...and it probably does not belong in this thread anyway... and it was darkness as in no energy being transferred... Darkness as in no energy being transferred would (to me) indicate a possible important (higher level) quantum event. Energy is allways in a state of flux. Something I can't see eclipsing that flux would immediately get my attention. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok, I am going to attempt to pose the question/my thought... when you have a light, no matter how dark it gets around it, the light is still present... yet, when you have darkness and you add a light to it..it goes away. If light is "activity" and darkness is "no activity", they would be opposite of each other...yet, they are not. when I type this out, it sounds so simple, yet in my mind, I have this idea that I am not finding words for... sorry.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LightHouseLover,
I think its okay to got slightly off topic under these circumstances - we're still talking about physics, discussion of the main topic has slowed down, and there are at least three people here interested in talking about it. if anyone feels differently i hope they speak up, i have no desire to disrespect other peoples use of this topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
lighthouselover
on
Mon 07/20/09 08:51 PM
|
|
LightHouseLover, I think its okay to got slightly off topic under these circumstances - we're still talking about physics, discussion of the main topic has slowed down, and there are at least three people here interested in talking about it. if anyone feels differently i hope they speak up, i have no desire to disrespect other peoples use of this topic Thank you. I am not educated in the area of quantum physics at all, (I know, I bet you are all shocked!! LOL!)so my questions are probably pretty elementary, and may not add much to the conversation. and yes, I do apologize for getting off topic. I also go by LHL or Deb in the forums... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(My previous post was out of sync - I'm glad you posted your question LHL)
So you are asking why darkness and light are not exactly the opposite from each other? If we have 'flashlights' that project light beams, why don't we have 'flashdarks' that project dark beams? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(My previous post was out of sync - I'm glad you posted your question LHL) So you are asking why darkness and light are not exactly the opposite from each other? If we have 'flashlights' that project light beams, why don't we have 'flashdarks' that project dark beams?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(My previous post was out of sync - I'm glad you posted your question LHL) So you are asking why darkness and light are not exactly the opposite from each other? If we have 'flashlights' that project light beams, why don't we have 'flashdarks' that project dark beams? I know that sounds like it should be obvious...yet, there is something about the light/dark that I just cannot wrap my brain around. It seems like darkness would put out light, just as light puts out darkness... unless darkness is nothing or does not really exist... then I wonder why there are animals that have special adaptations for the dark...and even humans have those adaptations... so, if light is energy and darkness is the opposite, then is darkness the absence of energy? yea...now that is clear huh?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok, I am going to attempt to pose the question/my thought... when you have a light, no matter how dark it gets around it, the light is still present... yet, when you have darkness and you add a light to it..it goes away. If light is "activity" and darkness is "no activity", they would be opposite of each other...yet, they are not. when I type this out, it sounds so simple, yet in my mind, I have this idea that I am not finding words for... sorry.. (my understanding). The darkness does not go away... It changes state to indicated the presense of the energy applied to propagate the frequence of the light. Darkness (in the realm of visible light) is the absense of the energy of the light. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yet, when you have darkness and you add a light to it..it goes away. If light is "activity" and darkness is "no activity", they would be opposite of each other...yet, they are not. when I type this out, it sounds so simple, yet in my mind, I have this idea that I am not finding words for... sorry.. (my understanding). The darkness does not go away... It changes state to indicated the presense of the energy applied to propagate the frequence of the light. Darkness (in the realm of visible light) is the absense of the energy of the light. I find it difficult to talk about this because this may straddle the line between the physics of light and the psychology of experience. I agree with what AB says, and I would say that darkness does not 'go away' because it wasn't 'real' to begin with - which is not to say that its an illusion, but that nothing is 'leaving'. If you go deep into a cave, there is no visible light. There is nothing to the darkness that you experience, except the -absence- of any kind of light reaching your retina. In this sense, the darkness itself has no reality, no substance , no inertia behind its 'existence'. It is just what you experience when there is no light. Turn on a flashlight, and you introduce something new - the energy of the light interacts with the matter of the cave wall, then interacts with your retina, and you 'see light'. You also see shadows, because the light starts from just one place and doesn't hit everything equally from all angles in all places - and the potency of the light diminishes farther away, but those shadows are only the -relative- absence of light (as the previous darkness was the complete absence of light). There is nothing happening in the shadow to make 'shadowness' there - there is just a lack of light in the shadowed area. So now you have the personal subjective experience of 'light' and 'shadow', but the two are not equal, there may be some symmetry/opposition between them in our subjective experience, but this can be misleading. I'm really unhappy with this explanation, so i'll try again, but please keep in mind this is slightly metaphorical - though I keep saying that light is not composed of 'particles', in this case it may help to think of light as being a made of particles which are being shot out of the flashlight and ricochet off the walls to hit your retina. Unless something is shooting those light particles at the wall, you can't see the wall, you see darkness. The light you see is due to those 'particles' hitting your retina. The dark you see on a daily basis is just when there are fewer of those particles hitting your retina. So if you go about your day imagining light particles being shot out of lamps, and bouncing off of matter, and hitting your eye, this may help to understand why light and dark are the way they are, and why you can't put out light with darkness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yet, when you have darkness and you add a light to it..it goes away. If light is "activity" and darkness is "no activity", they would be opposite of each other...yet, they are not. when I type this out, it sounds so simple, yet in my mind, I have this idea that I am not finding words for... sorry.. (my understanding). The darkness does not go away... It changes state to indicated the presense of the energy applied to propagate the frequence of the light. Darkness (in the realm of visible light) is the absense of the energy of the light. I find it difficult to talk about this because this may straddle the line between the physics of light and the psychology of experience. I agree with what AB says, and I would say that darkness does not 'go away' because it wasn't 'real' to begin with - which is not to say that its an illusion, but that nothing is 'leaving'. If you go deep into a cave, there is no visible light. There is nothing to the darkness that you experience, except the -absence- of any kind of light reaching your retina. In this sense, the darkness itself has no reality, no substance , no inertia behind its 'existence'. It is just what you experience when there is no light. Turn on a flashlight, and you introduce something new - the energy of the light interacts with the matter of the cave wall, then interacts with your retina, and you 'see light'. You also see shadows, because the light starts from just one place and doesn't hit everything equally from all angles in all places - and the potency of the light diminishes farther away, but those shadows are only the -relative- absence of light (as the previous darkness was the complete absence of light). There is nothing happening in the shadow to make 'shadowness' there - there is just a lack of light in the shadowed area. So now you have the personal subjective experience of 'light' and 'shadow', but the two are not equal, there may be some symmetry/opposition between them in our subjective experience, but this can be misleading. I'm really unhappy with this explanation, so i'll try again, but please keep in mind this is slightly metaphorical - though I keep saying that light is not composed of 'particles', in this case it may help to think of light as being a made of particles which are being shot out of the flashlight and ricochet off the walls to hit your retina. Unless something is shooting those light particles at the wall, you can't see the wall, you see darkness. The light you see is due to those 'particles' hitting your retina. The dark you see on a daily basis is just when there are fewer of those particles hitting your retina. So if you go about your day imagining light particles being shot out of lamps, and bouncing off of matter, and hitting your eye, this may help to understand why light and dark are the way they are, and why you can't put out light with darkness. Quiet did such a good job on the QM stuff, I just sat back and got some work done. But just to nit pick. Most of the photons are absorbed by the matter they hit (depending upon how reflective it is) and the light you see is not necessarily the original light transmitted. It can be new light created from the energy of the old light and retransmitted in the power level (frequency) of the object observed, or all the frequencies but a few are absorbed and only a few are reflected which changes the color of the object we see; which in reality has no color, it simply absorbs some frequencies of light and reflects others which are the "colors" we see. Objects do not have color. Only light has color. Light is packets of energy. They have mass like a particle and behave both as a particle and as a wave (I know, you heard it before). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(depending upon how reflective it is) What I find endlessly interesting is that how reflective (shiny) a substance is has mostly to do with the energy levels of the electron shell. The rest being due to molecular arrangements. The world of particle interactions was the first curiosities to really get me addicted to science in my adult life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(depending upon how reflective it is) What I find endlessly interesting is that how reflective (shiny) a substance is has mostly to do with the energy levels of the electron shell. The rest being due to molecular arrangements. The world of particle interactions was the first curiosities to really get me addicted to science in my adult life. I am also thinking that the human needs light to learn for the most part, to gain knowledge for the most part... to see, we need a certain light spectrum, so without light, knowledge would be very limited... I know that the human eye can adjust to "see" in various dim light, and dusk...I do not think that the human eye can see anything in complete darkness...and actually, I believe that the eyes that have been in darkness for a length of time, can be damaged by too much light too fast... so, if there is total darkness, then little knowledge would be gained... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(depending upon how reflective it is) What I find endlessly interesting is that how reflective (shiny) a substance is has mostly to do with the energy levels of the electron shell. The rest being due to molecular arrangements. The world of particle interactions was the first curiosities to really get me addicted to science in my adult life. I saw a real cool video of a chameleon who changes colors every time it touches a different colored pair of glasses. How do you suppose they do that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMT1FLzEn9I |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do you suppose they do that? With video editing software! |
|
|
|
|
