Sorry for this little diversion, but it has occurred to me that physics has a bit of a logical contradiction and I think highly of the group's rational faculties here to help me sort this out. If light travels at a. different speed for different colors in order to account for the rainbow of a prism, how fast is the. speed of light then? Is there real physics to optics? How can light know what direction to bend after it leaves the lens? Am I the first to discover these discrepancies? I know everyone tends to bow to the priesthood on these topics, but I believe the Establishment has failed to deliver us a secular revolution. Cheers, Marcos
On 5/12/19 9:59 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
Sorry for this little diversion, but it has occurred to me that physics has a bit of a logical contradiction and I think highly of the group's rational faculties here to help me sort this out.
If light travels at a. different speed for different colors in order to account for the rainbow of a prism, how fast is the. speed of light then? Is there real physics to optics? How can light know what direction to bend after it leaves the lens?
The speed of light is a physical constant. The frequency (or wavelength) of a photon determines its energy and therefore, to the human eye, its color. Longer answer: https://www.asu.edu/courses/phs208/patternsbb/PiN/rdg/color/color.shtml https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy Our ability to perceive light, and construct models of what it's bouncing off in realtime, has presented interesting problems to many noted scientists over the years. An illustrative example: https://vimeo.com/70051022 :o)
On 5/12/19 9:59 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
Sorry for this little diversion, If light travels at a. different speed for different colors in order to account for the rainbow of a prism, how fast is the. speed of light then?
The speed of light is a physical constant. The frequency (or wavelength) of a photon determines its energy and therefore, to the human eye, its color.
If light's speed is a physical constant, then light wouldn't separate into colors within a prism.
Is there real physics to optics? How can light know what direction to bend after it leaves the lens?
Longer answer:
https://www.asu.edu/courses/phs208/patternsbb/PiN/rdg/color/color.shtml
I didn't see any example of how light knows which way to bend towards a focal point in that reference. Full disclosure: I already know there's no physical explanation to these problems. I am deist. There is no way to explain the rainbow, either. raindrops are MOVING objects -- whatever lensing effects that are present are nullified by the waving of the water near terminal velocity. Just a headsup for those who report to the Church (of Science). As a deist, I'm content knowing that forces in GOD make these things happen, and finally takes a load of my mind in explaining things like the double-slit experiment. (Which, btw, is beyond a naive "god does it", but an understanding of theology and METAphysics: how god optimizes processing and "computation"). Cheers, Marx's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(optics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunable_laser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-prism_dispersion_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_amplifier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_splitter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_optics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism_lighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength-division_multiplexing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_add-drop_multiplexer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength_selective_switching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_optical_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_tapping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=quadruple+rainbow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YoDt-MxhHg
On 5/13/19 2:12 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
On 5/12/19 9:59 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
Sorry for this little diversion, If light travels at a. different speed for different colors in order to account for the rainbow of a prism, how fast is the. speed of light then?
The speed of light is a physical constant. The frequency (or wavelength) of a photon determines its energy and therefore, to the human eye, its color.
If light's speed is a physical constant, then light wouldn't separate into colors within a prism.
Because light's speed is a physical constant, light separates into colors when passing through a prism. The higher the frequency of a photon, the higher its energy. Since more energetic photons can not speed up, and less energetic photons can not slow down, they behave AS IF they had more or less 'mass.' Higher and lower energy photons deflect slightly more or less when forced to change direction in a refractive medium, in a way analogous to heavier and lighter moving objects acted on by, for instance, the wind... :o)
Sorry for this little diversion, If light travels at a. different speed for different colors in order to account for the rainbow of a prism, how fast is the. speed of light then?
The speed of light is a physical constant. The frequency (or wavelength) of a photon determines its energy and therefore, to the human eye, its color.
If light's speed is a physical constant, then light wouldn't separate into colors within a prism.
Because light's speed is a physical constant, light separates into colors when passing through a prism.
The higher the frequency of a photon, the higher its energy. Since more energetic photons can not speed up, and less energetic photons can not slow down, they behave AS IF they had more or less 'mass.'
That's a fascinating view that I haven't heard proposed before. You're proposing that they DO NOT change speed, as commonly explained. The separated light would presumably lose mass, because it is now only *part* of the original.
Higher and lower energy photons deflect slightly more or less when forced to change direction in a refractive medium, in a way analogous to heavier and lighter moving objects acted on by, for instance, the wind...
That's a more parsimonious explanation -- that they have more or less energy, not speed. But I think, in fact, that this is where there is a tradeoff in the energy vs. information/data equation of the universe. Information (or data) is the opposite side of energy. Color is data, more than illumination (at least in a rainbow, where it is questionable whether it would illuminate anything). I think you answered part of my question, which was partly didactic to force science to get more rigor in its explanation. I think I will have to content myself with this because I know that rainbows and the sky being blue will NEVER be explainable by science. Mark
On Friday, May 17, 2019, 10:55:25 AM PDT, \0xDynamite <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
I think you answered part of my question, which was partly didactic to force science to get more rigor in its explanation. I think I will have to content myself with this because I know that rainbows and the sky being blue will NEVER be explainable by science. Mark
No, the reason the sky is blue was explained long ago. It's called "Rayleigh scattering". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering Rayleigh scattering (pronounced /ˈreɪli/ RAY-lee), named after the nineteenth-century British physicist Lord Rayleigh (John William Strutt),[1] is the predominantly elastic scattering of light or other electromagnetic radiation by particles much smaller than the wavelength of the radiation. Rayleigh scattering does not change the state of material and is, hence, a parametric process. The particles may be individual atoms or molecules. It can occur when light travels through transparent solids and liquids, and is most prominently seen in gases. Rayleigh scattering results from the electric polarizability of the particles. The oscillating electric field of a light wave acts on the charges within a particle, causing them to move at the same frequency. The particle therefore becomes a small radiating dipole whose radiation we see as scattered light. This radiation is an integral part of the photon and no excitation or deexcitation occurs. [end of quote] However, that explaination does not include a reference to what my understanding of Rayleigh scattering entails. Considered on the scale of the wavelength of the light involved, the density of air varies statistically. Blue is a shorter wavelenth than red, so statistically that variation in air density is greater. So, blue is scattered more than red. Blue sky means that more blue is scattered. Jim Bell
I think you answered part of my question, which was partly didactic to force science to get more rigor in its explanation. I think I will have to content myself with this because I know that rainbows and the sky being blue will NEVER be explainable by science. Mark
No, the reason the sky is blue was explained long ago. It's called "Rayleigh scattering".
Mr. Bell, I understand this "explanation" which is not really science. To my knowledge this data has never been replicated by any lab nor measured in the field by balloon in the upper atmosphere. It is a great example of a mansplaination--the attempt merely to hold dominance of "why everything is the way it is".
However, that explaination does not include a reference to what my understanding of Rayleigh scattering entails. Considered on the scale of the wavelength of the light involved, the density of air varies statistically. Blue is a shorter wavelenth than red, so statistically that variation in air density is greater. So, blue is scattered more than red. Blue sky means that more blue is scattered.
There is no way for the atmosphere to be so stable over both time and space on the short-scale (meters and seconds) or over time on the long-scale (every day). The variance in atmospheric content of carbon dioxide, oxygen, etc. also varies, so cannot simply be reduced to a sound bite like Rayleigh scattering. Please consider donating less at the wikipedia denomination of the Church of Science. Mark
On 13/05/2019 02:59, \0xDynamite wrote:
Sorry for this little diversion, but it has occurred to me that physics has a bit of a logical contradiction and I think highly of the group's rational faculties here to help me sort this out.
If light travels at a. different speed for different colors in order to account for the rainbow of a prism, how fast is the. speed of light then? Is there real physics to optics? How can light know what direction to bend after it leaves the lens?
The speed of light in glass is slightly less than the speed of light in air. This causes light to be refracted (roughly speaking, change the direction of its path) when it enters glass at an angle. The mathematics of this is called Snell's law, sin(a)/sin(b) = v(a)/v(b) where sin(a) is the angle of incidence, sin(b is the exit angle, v(a) is the velocity of light in air and v(b) is the velocity of light in glass. However, light of different frequencies travels at different speeds in glass. Thus blue light bends more than red light, and if the light travels through a triangular prism the familiar spectrum is formed. Peter Fairbrother
If light travels at a. different speed for different colors in order to account for the rainbow of a prism, how fast is the. speed of light then? Is there real physics to optics? How can light know what direction to bend after it leaves the lens?
The speed of light in glass is slightly less than the speed of light in air. This causes light to be refracted (roughly speaking, change the direction of its path) when it enters glass at an angle.
The mathematics of this is called Snell's law, sin(a)/sin(b) = v(a)/v(b) where sin(a) is the angle of incidence, sin(b is the exit angle, v(a) is the velocity of light in air and v(b) is the velocity of light in glass.
Thanks for your response. The problem with Snell's Law, AFAIK, is that there are actually two angles of incidence to account for since there are two dimensions to its surface.
However, light of different frequencies travels at different speeds in glass. Thus blue light bends more than red light, and if the light travels through a triangular prism the familiar spectrum is formed.
Yes, this is the part where science "fills in the gaps" it seems without just cause. Is light a physical constant dependent on material properties or is the lens effecting different frequencies differently or does light change speed for the viewer. I think the only way to account for the axiis of a lens (even though it may be symmetrical), is through the relationship to the viewer. Ie. it is both subjective and objective phenomenon. Mark
On 13/05/2019 19:59, \0xDynamite wrote:
If light travels at a. different speed for different colors in order to account for the rainbow of a prism, how fast is the. speed of light then? Is there real physics to optics? How can light know what direction to bend after it leaves the lens?
The speed of light in glass is slightly less than the speed of light in air. This causes light to be refracted (roughly speaking, change the direction of its path) when it enters glass at an angle.
The mathematics of this is called Snell's law, sin(a)/sin(b) = v(a)/v(b) where sin(a) is the angle of incidence, sin(b is the exit angle, v(a) is the velocity of light in air and v(b) is the velocity of light in glass.
Thanks for your response. The problem with Snell's Law, AFAIK, is that there are actually two angles of incidence to account for since there are two dimensions to its surface.
No, there is only one angle between a line and a plane.
However, light of different frequencies travels at different speeds in glass. Thus blue light bends more than red light, and if the light travels through a triangular prism the familiar spectrum is formed.
Yes, this is the part where science "fills in the gaps" it seems without just cause. Is light a physical constant > dependent on material properties
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant. The speed of light in glass depends on its wavelength. This is known as dispersion. The amount (and direction) of the dispersion depends on the type of glass.
or is the lens effecting different frequencies differently
Yes
or does light change speed for the viewer.
No.
I think the only way to account for the axiis of a lens (even though it may be symmetrical), is through the relationship to the viewer. Ie. it is both subjective and objective phenomenon.
now you have lost me Peter F
Mark
The speed of light in a vacuum is fixed, and is called 'c', about 299,272 kilometers per second.The speed of light (including radio waves, and all other frequencies) in a vacuum does not vary with wavelength.One way that astronomers know this to be true is displayed by the flash of a supernova, which can be seen billions of light-years away. If the speed of different colors of light through a vacuum varied by frequency, then that flash would relatively quickly appear to change color over a period of minutes, hours, or days.It doesn't, showing that all the frequencies of light travel as the same speed in a vacuum. The speed of light in gases is slightly slower: It is about 0.05% lower in air at sea level. The speed of light in typical glass is about 2/3's of 'c'. In typical glass, the speed of light varies a bit with wavelength.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism For many decades, diffraction gratings have been used to separate colors of light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating The shiny surface of a CDROM or DVD approximates that of a diffraction grating,You can aim the beam from a laser at a CDROM or DVD to see different reflections.If you start with a light beam generated with a LED (Light Emitting Diode; which has a much wider spectrum than a laser) you could see the spectrum it possesses. Jim BellFrom that Wikipedia article on 'c'] "The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its exact value is 299,792,458 metres per second (approximately 300,000 km/s (186,000 mi/s)[Note 3]). It is exact because by international agreement a metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 second.[Note 4][3] According to special relativity, c is the maximum speed at which all conventional matter and hence all known forms of information in the universe can travel. Though this speed is most commonly associated with light, it is in fact the speed at which all massless particles and changes of the associated fields travel in vacuum (including electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves). Such particles and waves travel at c regardless of the motion of the source or the inertial reference frame of the observer. In the special and general theories of relativity, c interrelates space and time, and also appears in the famous equation of mass–energy equivalence E = mc2.[4] On Sunday, May 12, 2019, 7:00:36 PM PDT, \0xDynamite <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote: Sorry for this little diversion, but it has occurred to me that physics has a bit of a logical contradiction and I think highly of the group's rational faculties here to help me sort this out. If light travels at a. different speed for different colors in order to account for the rainbow of a prism, how fast is the. speed of light then? Is there real physics to optics? How can light know what direction to bend after it leaves the lens? Am I the first to discover these discrepancies? I know everyone tends to bow to the priesthood on these topics, but I believe the Establishment has failed to deliver us a secular revolution. Cheers, Marcos
Although most students who covered classical physics understand the high-level concepts it turns out the details, when you get down to the quantum level, where the photon-electron interactions are occuring, are much trickier. Feynman et al got a Nobel prize for their explanation of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). See http://libgen.io/search.php?req=Richard+Feynman+QED&lg_topic=libgen&open=0&view=simple&res=25&phrase=1&column=def On Sun, May 12, 2019, 7:00 PM \0xDynamite <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry for this little diversion, but it has occurred to me that physics has a bit of a logical contradiction and I think highly of the group's rational faculties here to help me sort this out.
If light travels at a. different speed for different colors in order to account for the rainbow of a prism, how fast is the. speed of light then? Is there real physics to optics? How can light know what direction to bend after it leaves the lens?
Am I the first to discover these discrepancies? I know everyone tends to bow to the priesthood on these topics, but I believe the Establishment has failed to deliver us a secular revolution.
Cheers,
Marcos
Hey cypherpunks / nerdcoin hoarders, On 5/12/19 6:59 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
If light travels at a. different speed for different colors in order to account for the rainbow of a prism, how fast is the. speed of light then? Is there real physics to optics? How can light know what direction to bend after it leaves the lens?
Tangent, but there's a somewhat similar question in philosophy of mind. People sometimes imagine human consciousness to be a kind of "theater"[1]: all the sensory input is arriving from behind the curtain (optic nerves etc. transmitting inbound info), then that traveling sensory input crosses some sort of finish line, and then is presented, entirely bundled up together (audio, video, etc.), on some some of inner theater, to some inner self, who then makes a rational decision about the display on the theater, and consequently sends output ("strike keyboard with finger") to the body, etc., until new sensory input arrives on the internal movie screen, triggering more decisions from the inner self/captain of the ship/homonculus... An interesting complication to the above is, like the different colors of light going through the prism at minutely different speeds, thereby introducing confusing complexity to a model generally taken as straightforward, well, the sensory input traveling through the body, the brain neurons, etc., do not always perform properly, do not all operate at the same speed, etc. So there's lag among these different inbound, command, and outbound signals, and perhaps the theater is dishonestly representing the various confusing input as straightforwardly bound together. Maybe one optic nerve is slightly longer than the other due to some congenital reason. So on and so forth. I'm not sure what the implications of the above would be for, e.g., neuro-surgeons performing operations, athletes trying to master their mind-bodies, Libet and free will[2], etc. Sometimes I think the above is just well-off people with copious spare time flapping their jaws -- elementary school lunch table shit ("How do I know you see green when I see green?") just with bigger words and longer sentences, while everyone else suffers, does the jaw-flappers' unpaid domestic labor, disappears into ICE prisons, etc., their views and insights on the above never recorded to history. Doug [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Implications_of_Libet%27s_exper...
The area of consciousness studies suffers from clarity of definition which is a major constraint on research outside the mainstream narratives. A good example is the widespread dismissal of Jaynes', "The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind", mostly due to reviewers failing to even read in detail this work and understand how he defines a particular aspect of consciousness. On Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:52 PM Douglas Lucas <dal@riseup.net> wrote:
Hey cypherpunks / nerdcoin hoarders,
On 5/12/19 6:59 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
If light travels at a. different speed for different colors in order to account for the rainbow of a prism, how fast is the. speed of light then? Is there real physics to optics? How can light know what direction to bend after it leaves the lens?
Tangent, but there's a somewhat similar question in philosophy of mind. People sometimes imagine human consciousness to be a kind of "theater"[1]: all the sensory input is arriving from behind the curtain (optic nerves etc. transmitting inbound info), then that traveling sensory input crosses some sort of finish line, and then is presented, entirely bundled up together (audio, video, etc.), on some some of inner theater, to some inner self, who then makes a rational decision about the display on the theater, and consequently sends output ("strike keyboard with finger") to the body, etc., until new sensory input arrives on the internal movie screen, triggering more decisions from the inner self/captain of the ship/homonculus...
An interesting complication to the above is, like the different colors of light going through the prism at minutely different speeds, thereby introducing confusing complexity to a model generally taken as straightforward, well, the sensory input traveling through the body, the brain neurons, etc., do not always perform properly, do not all operate at the same speed, etc. So there's lag among these different inbound, command, and outbound signals, and perhaps the theater is dishonestly representing the various confusing input as straightforwardly bound together. Maybe one optic nerve is slightly longer than the other due to some congenital reason. So on and so forth.
I'm not sure what the implications of the above would be for, e.g., neuro-surgeons performing operations, athletes trying to master their mind-bodies, Libet and free will[2], etc. Sometimes I think the above is just well-off people with copious spare time flapping their jaws -- elementary school lunch table shit ("How do I know you see green when I see green?") just with bigger words and longer sentences, while everyone else suffers, does the jaw-flappers' unpaid domestic labor, disappears into ICE prisons, etc., their views and insights on the above never recorded to history.
Doug
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater [2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Implications_of_Libet%27s_exper...
On Fri, 17 May 2019 13:52:01 -0700 Douglas Lucas <dal@riseup.net> wrote: -
elementary school lunch table shit ("How do I know you see green when I see green?")
do you think that's a trivial question with some 'scientific' trivial answer?
just with bigger words and longer sentences, while everyone else suffers, does the jaw-flappers' unpaid domestic labor,
lolwut - the fuck is 'unpaid domestic labor' - do you mean stupid cunts who marry and then don't want to wash the dishes?
disappears into ICE prisons,
yeah that seems like a somewhat bigger problem than 'unpaid domestic labor'. But hey! never miss an oportunity to babble some feminazi propaganda...
etc., their views and insights on the above never recorded to history.
Doug
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Implications_of_Libet%27s_exper...
participants (8)
-
\0xDynamite -
Douglas Lucas -
grarpamp -
jim bell -
Peter Fairbrother -
Punk -
Steve Kinney -
Steven Schear