Light doesn't exist

[k9b4]

Well yeah I guess, though a collision always involves mass so it's mostly a semantic matter. We just don't call the components of a collision as part of what makes it a collision whereas with a tree we see it's components as part of it.

Yeah, collision always involves a mass, but 'collision' itself does not have a mass, collision is a concept which refers to when two things which have a mass touch each other (non sexually).

 

[Cherry Cola]

Mhm, but an ontological level these wordings are arbitrary. We could as well say that the tree involves matter and that a collision has is. But since we experience time the way we do we don't.

Of course it's easier to just do what TimeAsylums is doing and just ignore this and instead pretend that there's an objective reality behind everything for comfort and in order to be able to refer to something unobservable and irrefutable in discussions. Quite like religious dogmatics.

 

[k9b4]

Mhm, but an ontological level these wordings are arbitrary. We could as well say that the tree involves matter and that a collision has is. But since we experience time the way we do we don't.

Sorry, I don't understand.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Sorry I struggle to speak clearly of these things

But imagine you temporarily experience time a lot slower. So much slower that a collision takes as much time as it takes for a tree to grow wither and die. If that were the case wouldn't you say that the collision has mass?

Whereas if you temporarily experienced time a lot faster so that a tree would grow wither and die in the time it takes for collision between two or more objects to take place? Imagine a tree growing up withering and dying in 2 seconds. It would look like geiser, like an eruption from the ground. And you wouldn't say that an eruption has matter now?

What I'm saying is whether we see something as movement or as mass is dependent on our perception of time and on our senses. Both are essentially the same thing. So both exist.

 

[k9b4]

Sorry I struggle to speak clearly of these things

Did you like my (non sexually) joke? I thought it was hilarious.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Lol I was so concentrated I didn't notice it

 

[k9b4]

Lol I was so concentrated I didn't notice it

I laughed to myself for about a minute after I wrote it.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Nice, hi five man.

 

[JansenDowel]

How much of a moron do you have to be to be able to not grasp that that was intentionally moronic?

JansenDowel level apparently

Ever left your mothers basement? Talked to a real woman/man?

 

[Kuu]

Man, I was being just being cheeky...

What's the point of equating existence with mass? What is gained by this?

(Nothing but confusion)



Also.

That said, I'm outta here.

 

[k9b4]

Man, I was being just being cheeky...

What's the point of equating existence with mass? What is gained by this?

(Nothing but confusion)



Also.

That said, I'm outta here.

Nothing but confusion gained for you, perhaps. But for me, defining exists to mean 'has mass' helps me to understand reality.

Feel free to define 'exists' however you like.

 

[k9b4]

But imagine you temporarily experience time a lot slower. So much slower that a collision takes as much time as it takes for a tree to grow wither and die. If that were the case wouldn't you say that the collision has mass?

If time were to somehow slow down, both the growth of the tree and the collision of two things would take longer. Unless you mean only the time of the collision slows down? Which sounds completely improbable to me.

Perhaps we can consider two things moving at very very slow speeds towards each other (such that it takes a long time for them to touch each other and then bounce off). I would still consider the concept of the two things colliding to be a concept. The concept of the two things colliding still does not have a mass.

What I'm saying is whether we see something as movement or as mass is dependent on our perception of time and on our senses. Both are essentially the same thing. So both exist.

I don't get it. How are movement and mass the same thing? Movement is a concept and mass is is what gives something volume.

 

[Kuu]

Feel free to define 'exists' however you like.

No. The point of language is communication, which is enabled by a common semantic ground. If you arbitrarily redefine a word, you will inevitably hamper communication every time you use it. Therefore, confusion and time wasted arguing pointlessly.

Spoiler

 

[Grayman]

But that's ridiculous, light doesn't have a mass. Light isn't matter. Even when using silly concepts like 'photons' it is usually agreed that photons do not have 'rest mass'.

Photons have mass regardless of speed and matter doesn't gain mass due to speed. That is just Einstein thinking too hard. Speed of light is constant in space not because of some invisible barrier on the speed of light in relation to mass but because all of light is created by the same mechanism within atoms and since the mechanism is constant the resulting speed is constant. Light is affected by regular old gravity and it is noticed with planetary gravity fields and black holes. No one has measured light while stationary to see if it has zero gravity if not moving.

 

[Grayman]

No. The point of language is communication, which is enabled by a common semantic ground. If you arbitrarily redefine a word, you will inevitably hamper communication every time you use it. Therefore, confusion and time wasted arguing pointlessly.

Spoiler

Word

 

[k9b4]

No. The point of language is communication, which is enabled by a common semantic ground. If you arbitrarily redefine a word, you will inevitably hamper communication every time you use it. Therefore, confusion and time wasted arguing pointlessly.

Fair enough. Then how can I explain my views while maintaining common semantic ground? It seems to me the easiest way to do this is to just state: "in this post, exists = 'has mass'".

 

[Cherry Cola]

You could, but then you would have to explain it again and again. Which would waste yours and others time :P It would be better to just stick to the common definitions because they enable efficient discussion which I'm sure will make you wiser in the end. If you build your internal framework around terms whose meanings only you know you can become incomprehensible pretty quickly.

I mean that definition is stupid, it says that energy doesn't exist. How are you even going to speak of energy without admitting its existence? If you use that definition you have to regress to a Newtonian understanding of the universe.

 

[k9b4]

You could, but then you would have to explain it again and again. Which would waste yours and others time :P It would be better to just stick to the common definitions because they enable efficient discussion which I'm sure will make you wiser in the end. If you build your internal framework around terms whose meanings only you know you can become incomprehensible pretty quickly.

Fair enough.

I mean that definition is stupid, it says that energy doesn't exist. How are you even going to speak of energy without admitting its existence?

No no, it isn't stupid. I can speak of energy perfectly fine, because it is still a concept, it just doesn't exist in reality. The same way that a collision is a concept and does not exist in reality. I can still speak of a concept even though it does not exist (have mass).

If you use that definition you have to regress to a Newtonian understanding of the universe.

I really don't like modern physics with its massless particles and other shit I don't understand. IMO newtonian understanding of the universe is the more accurate one.

Someone once said that no one really understands quantum mechanics. What's the point of a theory no one understands?

 

[Grayman]

No no, it isn't stupid. I can speak of energy perfectly fine, because it is still a concept, it just doesn't exist in reality. The same way that a collision is a concept and does not exist in reality. I can still speak of a concept even though it does not exist (have mass).

Anything that has an effect on reality has an existence in that reality except k9b4.

Definition of grayman.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I really don't like modern physics with its massless particles and other shit I don't understand. IMO newtonian understanding of the universe is the more accurate one.

It's not a matter of opinion. Relativity has been tried and tested. Isn't it better to at least try and understand that rather than something that is definitely wrong?

And mass in itself is a concept.

In physics, mass is a property of a physical body which determines the body's resistance to being accelerated by a force and the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction with other bodies.

The things which define mass don't have mass. There is no essence of mass which is just mass.

I think what you're saying is that only things which you could potentially touch with your bare hands exists because you feel intuitively that that's what existence is. Because light has mass and you didn't think that existed. You can't trust your intuition on matters of physics. Your intuition is made to spread your genes not to understand theoretical physics.

 

[k9b4]

Isn't it better to at least try and understand that rather than something that is definitely wrong?

Yes, and my opinion might change as I learn more about modern physics. My current opinion is perhaps due to ignorance but opinions are not constant.

What is the commonly accepted definition of 'exists'? Is it 'has an effect on reality'?

If this is the case, I would still argue that light doesn't exist. Light does not have an effect on reality. The charged particles which are said to 'create' the light have an effect on reality.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Man you are so upfront

I like your attitude

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yes, and my opinion might change as I learn more about modern physics. My current opinion is perhaps due to ignorance but opinions are not constant.

What is the commonly accepted definition of 'exists'? Is it 'has an effect on reality'?

If this is the case, I would still argue that light doesn't exist. Light does not have an effect on reality. The charged particles which are said to 'create' the light have an effect on reality.

...nothing in the universe is real because nothing has any effect on reality, only the big bang which created the universe has an effect on reality.

 

[k9b4]

Man you are so upfront

I like your attitude

I'm not sure if you're making fun of me or being honest. Thanks if you're being honest.

...nothing in the universe is real because nothing has any effect on reality, only the big bang which created the universe has an effect on reality.

No, the charged particles which oscillate and 'create' light exist, because they have an effect on reality. Charged particles attract or repel other charged particles.

That's about it really. Pretty much everything happens due to charged particles. Except perhaps gravity but I suspect gravity is somehow caused by charged particles also.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Look here cunt, morons do exist. Reductionism down to wavelengths does not work.

Maroon ≠ Moron...

 

[Thurlor]

Anything can mean anything if you define it to be so. How insightful.

 

[k9b4]

Anything can mean anything if you define it to be so. How insightful.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I'm not sure if you're making fun of me or being honest. Thanks if you're being honest.


No, the charged particles which oscillate and 'create' light exist, because they have an effect on reality. Charged particles attract or repel other charged particles.

That's about it really. Pretty much everything happens due to charged particles. Except perhaps gravity but I suspect gravity is somehow caused by charged particles also.

I see, so cause exists but not effect? : )

And yeah it was honesty. You're like writing retarded stuff. But I get the sense it's cause you need to have everything figured out completely in your head to make sure you build on solid ground, so I don't think you seem retarded.

 

[k9b4]

I see, so cause exists but not effect?

What do you mean? Electrons are negatively charged, and repel other electrons. If an electron is oscillating very fast, it's pushing other electrons (which might be really far away) up and down at the same frequency that the first electron is oscillating at.

That's what light is. Electrons repelling each other. (Can also make light with positive charges)

 

[Teax]

Nothing but confusion gained for you, perhaps. But for me, defining exists to mean 'has mass' helps me to understand reality.

Feel free to define 'exists' however you like.

so 'exists' = 'has mass'.
We can actually measure the mass increase when any form of energy is added to a body with constant 'rest mass'. hence 'has mass' = 'is energy'
So now you should be able to extend your definition 'exists' = 'has mass' = 'is energy'. now just forget about mass and you have
'exists' = 'is energy' <-- without changing your definition of exists

the existence of energy =) enjoy

I really don't like modern physics with its massless particles and other shit I don't understand. IMO newtonian understanding of the universe is the more accurate one.

Someone once said that no one really understands quantum mechanics. What's the point of a theory no one understands?

That's the 'gut feeling'. we all have been trained our whole lives to imagine our world like a computergame, our subconscious thinks
--space is defined by cartesian coordinates,
--time is constant everywhere you go,
--all objects have constant mass.....
all of that is not true! but the truth is not intuitive. The reason it has been said that nobody understands advanced physics is because nobody intuitively understands advanced physics, because nobody 'lives it'. they certainly do understand the models they created, on an analytical level. like you can understand how a star works, but you will never get a 'feel' for it.

What do you mean? Electrons are negatively charged, and repel other electrons. If an electron is oscillating very fast, it's pushing other electrons (which might be really far away) up and down at the same frequency that the first electron is oscillating at.

That's what light is. Electrons repelling each other. (Can also make light with positive charges)

the theory you stated has elegance, but don't let that blind you. try to explain why the repelling does not happen instantly, and not omnidirectional(=in every direction)?
in other words, imagine you have a laserpointer:
--when you power it on, the device uses up power! but the red dot does not appear immediatelly. only after a delay, the red dot will appear. so where did all the energy that we supplied to the lasterpointer go in the meanwhile? and why is there a delay, if the electrons are supposed to repell each other directly?
--when you kill the power, or rotate the laser away from the target, the red dot will remain for a while, before disappearing/changing it's position. That means it will keep heating up the target even after the laserpointer itself is already turned off. where did the energy for that come from?
--if you have a laser, it sends light in 1 direction only, how do you explain the immediate surroundings of the laser being dark? electrons usually repell each other in all directions.

note that all delays are small, but measurable.

 

[k9b4]

the theory you stated has elegance, but don't let that blind you. try to explain why the repelling does not happen instantly, and not omnidirectional(=in every direction)?
in other words, imagine you have a laserpointer:
--when you power it on, the device uses up power! but the red dot does not appear immediatelly. only after a delay, the red dot will appear. so where did all the energy that we supplied to the lasterpointer go in the meanwhile? and why is there a delay, if the electrons are supposed to repell each other directly?
--when you kill the power, or rotate the laser away from the target, the red dot will remain for a while, before disappearing/changing it's position. That means it will keep heating up the target even after the laserpointer itself is already turned off. where did the energy for that come from?
--if you have a laser, it sends light in 1 direction only, how do you explain the immediate surroundings of the laser being dark? electrons usually repell each other in all directions.

note that all delays are small, but measurable.

There is a delay because charges do not interact with each other instantly. In a transmitting antenna, electrons are oscillating up and down and repelling far away electrons in all directions. Light does travel in all directions. A laser 'focuses' light in one direction somehow, I don't know exactly. But that's a property specific to things which are built to focus the light in a direction.

 

[Grayman]

What do you mean? Electrons are negatively charged, and repel other electrons. If an electron is oscillating very fast, it's pushing other electrons (which might be really far away) up and down at the same frequency that the first electron is oscillating at.

That's what light is. Electrons repelling each other. (Can also make light with positive charges)

The exciting of electrons in atoms is heat and happens the way you described it. The release of the photon is light and this release occurs during electron excitment.

 

[Pizzabeak]

No, the charged particles which oscillate and 'create' light exist, because they have an effect on reality. Charged particles attract or repel other charged particles.

That's about it really. Pretty much everything happens due to charged particles. Except perhaps gravity but I suspect gravity is somehow caused by charged particles also.

Yes, it actually is, because traditionally the massive objects responsible for gravity are, actually, made out of those very same charged particles. So, gravitrons are caused by particles.

There is a delay because charges do not interact with each other instantly. In a transmitting antenna, electrons are oscillating up and down and repelling far away electrons in all directions. Light does travel in all directions. A laser 'focuses' light in one direction somehow, I don't know exactly. But that's a property specific to things which are built to focus the light in a direction.

Charges can influence other charges instantly.

Lasers use mirrors and a cavity to collect, reflect, and focus light but the mirrors don't actually exist since they reflect and absorb light.

The color of some stuff depends on what it's made of, such as photosynthesis utilizing plants. But that's different from light - that's due to particles. The light is just certain various movements influencing vicinities. Sure with more movement there's a more intense effect due to the movement being characterized by our reference sheets, which indicates different colors, but that almost means space being more densely occupied than anything related to color. Because the energy is equal but will occupy either a longer or shorter amount of area, if shorter it will be more densely concentrated, more intense. But that's totally different.

There's still the hackneyed thing about what if we all see different colors but will never be able to tell; the red I see could be the green someone else sees. How would one describe a hue? The manufactured food colorings they make are actually, those colors. It's not like we all see different shades of infrared radiation.

 

[Teax]

There is a delay because charges do not interact with each other instantly. In a transmitting antenna, electrons are oscillating up and down and repelling far away electrons in all directions. Light does travel in all directions. A laser 'focuses' light in one direction somehow, I don't know exactly. But that's a property specific to things which are built to focus the light in a direction.

you still have not explained the bold part:
--when you power it on, the device uses up power! but the red dot does not appear immediatelly. so where did all the energy that we have supplied to the lasterpointer go in the meanwhile?

 

[Grayman]

you still have not explained the bold part:
--when you power it on, the device uses up power! but the red dot does not appear immediatelly. so where did all the energy that we have supplied to the lasterpointer go in the meanwhile?

*raises hand jumping around yelling "oo Oo!"

 

[Reluctantly]

I don't know if you are aware, but if photons collide, they produce an anti-electron and an electron. It's as if to suggest that light is made up of particles dancing together in such a fashion that it may appear to most other objects that they have no measurable mass. That however, is debatable.

As a theoretical example to counter your assertion, one could argue that if you increase the rotation of a planet, its gravitational field weakens because now objects that enter its orbit have less centripetal force to pull them in. And as far as I'm aware, this is a very real phenomenon in particle accelerators, which requires massive external forces to ensure that high energy particles will collide and entangle.

So anyway, one could argue that photons have such a high amount of energy that they do not seem to easily effect the particles around them (and do not seem to be easily effected by the particles around them either). This does not however mean they are truly without mass, but that practically speaking, we don't measure any.

 

[k9b4]

Charges can influence other charges instantly.

What do you mean? Electric field is said to travel at the speed of light (not instant).

when you power it on, the device uses up power! but the red dot does not appear immediatelly. so where did all the energy that we have supplied to the lasterpointer go in the meanwhile?

I don't know exactly how a laser pointer works, but keeping it really simple:
-Turn on the power
-Electrons flow through the switch
-Electron flow somehow causes other electrons to oscillate at required frequency for visible light
-After a short delay, we see the red dot appear (because the oscillating electrons in the laser light are repelling electrons in the spot where the red dot appears)

The 'energy' (in the form of electrons moving through a wire) that we supplied to the laser pointer always goes into causing electrons in the laser pointer to oscillate at the required frequency.

 

[Teax]

I don't know exactly how a laser pointer works, but keeping it really simple:
-Turn on the power
-Electrons flow through the switch
-Electron flow somehow causes other electrons to oscillate at required frequency for visible light
-After a short delay, we see the red dot appear (because the oscillating electrons in the laser light are repelling electrons in the spot where the red dot appears)

The 'energy' (in the form of electrons moving through a wire) that we supplied to the laser pointer always goes into causing electrons in the laser pointer to oscillate at the required frequency.

it doesnt matter how the laserpointer works exactly, so your abstract model is perfect for this point:
so now imagine you turn the laser on, and off again, then put it in your pocket. but you do it so fast, that the dot still didn't appear. I mean the dot appears after you put it in your pocket. how do you explain that the dot still appears? afterall, the laser is not capable of repelling the electrons on the wall where the red light appears, because you put it out of sight, but it still appears.

 

[Grayman]

it doesnt matter how the laserpointer works exactly, so your abstract model is perfect for this point:
so now imagine you turn the laser on, and off again, then put it in your pocket. but you do it so fast, that the dot still didn't appear. I mean the dot appears after you put it in your pocket. how do you explain that the dot still appears? afterall, the laser is not capable of repelling the electrons on the wall where the red light appears, because you put it out of sight, but it still appears.

You are not seeing the laser light only the visible light expelled by the atoms the laser hit when it absorbed the IR light.

 

[Teax]

*raises hand jumping around yelling "oo Oo!"

You are not seeing the laser light only the visible light expelled by the atoms the laser hit when it absorbed the IR light.

you just can't help yourself can you :icon_pferdehaufen: hahaha perfect smiley

what if you "blink you laserpointer twice", and then put it in the pocket?
how to you explain that after you put it in the pocket, the dot will blink twice?

 

[k9b4]

it doesnt matter how the laserpointer works exactly, so your abstract model is perfect for this point:
so now imagine you turn the laser on, and off again, then put it in your pocket. but you do it so fast, that the dot still didn't appear. I mean the dot appears after you put it in your pocket. how do you explain that the dot still appears? afterall, the laser is not capable of repelling the electrons on the wall where the red light appears, because you put it out of sight, but it still appears.

Hmmmm... I can't explain this without admitting that something exists which travels in space. I'll have to think about it more lol.

 

[Grayman]

you just can't help yourself can you :icon_pferdehaufen: hahaha perfect smiley

what if you "blink you laserpointer twice", and then put it in the pocket?
how to you explain that after you put it in the pocket, the dot will blink twice?

You would have to put it in your pocket before the photons got to the wall but no one is that fast. Is this wall the distance of the moon?

 

[k9b4]

You would have to put it in your pocket before the photons got to the wall but no one is that fast. Is this wall the distance of the moon?

Yes it helps to imagine this situation as the wall being very very far away, such that you have enough time to put it in your pocket before the red dot appears.

 

[Grayman]

Hmmmm... I can't explain this without admitting that something exists which travels in space. I'll have to think about it more lol.

Try quantum entanglement.

Edit: NVM, it requires an initial transaction between the atoms.

 

[Grayman]

Hmmmm... I can't explain this without admitting that something exists which travels in space. I'll have to think about it more lol.

Does that mean gravity travels through space using particles?

 

[k9b4]

Does that mean gravity travels through space

Probably. Gravitational field probably works the same way as electric field. If you have a big planet, and you move it, are things instantly attracted towards the new spot? Or do they continue being attracted to the old spot for a short time?

 

[computerhxr]

Matter and energy are the same thing. Energy is just matter oscillating at a high frequency relative to its mass. They're not different things, just two different states of the same thing.

A comedian once said so.

Yeah, Einstein was known for having an interesting sense of humor.

 

[computerhxr]

What do you mean? Electric field is said to travel at the speed of light (not instant).

There is an equal or opposite reaction to any force. If you have two magnets, they would both be repelling each other. You're imagining that one magnet is pushing the other submissive magnet around which is incorrect.

It's all a system of energy. There is no light and everything you see is just your interpretation of reality. In reality you don't have skin, it's a matrix of energy spheres that repel and attract each other based on their polarity relative to all other energy in the matrix. The energy travels by induction from atom to atom. Our brains interpret this as matter and gravity when it's electromagnetism and interdimensional folds in your perception of energy flowing trough your (insulated) body system. Light is just energy that is absorbed kinetically by other insulated systems of energy.

Or maybe I'm just making crap up...

 

[k9b4]

There is no light and everything you see is just your interpretation of reality.

There is light though. As teax pointed out, EM waves continue to travel through space after its source is removed.

In reality you don't have skin, it's a matrix of energy spheres that repel and attract each other based on their polarity relative to all other energy in the matrix.

I do have skin. Skin is the word which is used to describe the particular arrangement of 'energy spheres' found on the outside of my body.

 

[computerhxr]

There is light though. As teax pointed out, EM waves continue to travel through space after its source is removed.

The EM wave is the source of light. The EM wave hits your eyeballs and it's interpreted as light. Light is just one frequency of energy. At other frequencies it would be x-rays, or sound.

I do have skin. Skin is the word which is used to describe the particular arrangement of 'energy spheres' found on the outside of my body.

In another dimension, it would not be skin.