4 ms·

Fortunately we completely understand light; if you actually wonder about radio and want to bring it out of the realm of mystery potentially hiding dark magic, l

Fortunately we completely understand light; if you actually wonder about radio and want to bring it out of the realm of mystery potentially hiding dark magic, learn some basic quantum mechanics. As to what you ingest, learn how its made and understand the basic chemistry of the end product. No label gives insight into that, its just alot of research. Sure, systematic disinformation campaigns are real, but in 2016 those don't eliminate the also very real and verifiable scientific knowledge.

merpnderp 10y ago
The most believable claim I've seen so far is that DNA might be very slightly conductive. Just barely enough to slightly increase replication errors. I discount it without further evidence, but sounds plausible.
grecy 10y ago
> Fortunately we completely understand light So is it a wave, or a particle?
- pharrington 10y ago
  Neither: it's a packet of information that has properties of both. I'm sure you've already heard that the subatomic world completely defies the expectations developed from having evolved to comprehend the macroscopic world. A large part of this, which is assumed but I believe needs to be explicitly mentioned in this context, is that mammal brains are shit garbage at intuiting probabilities.
  - mxfh 10y ago
    Pilot waves get some backing again, so I wouldn't be surprised if another common theory changes again: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-gains-experimental-support/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-ga... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave
thedaemon 10y ago
I am sorry to inform you that we don't completely understand anything at all. We barely understand the world and universe around us. To say that we completely understand anything is a fallacy. Also with the scientific method, nothing is set in stone as fact. Anything can change our understand at anytime.
- pharrington 10y ago
  What behavior of light have we observed that the standard model doesn't accurately model? Where is the standard model inaccurate regarding light?
  - thedaemon 10y ago
    Here is one that I know of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence I'm not saying we are inaccurate. But look at the history of physics, there will always come a time when a new theory trumps the old.

merpnderp 10y ago

The most believable claim I've seen so far is that DNA might be very slightly conductive. Just barely enough to slightly increase replication errors. I discount it without further evidence, but sounds plausible.

grecy 10y ago

> Fortunately we completely understand light So is it a wave, or a particle?

pharrington 10y ago
Neither: it's a packet of information that has properties of both. I'm sure you've already heard that the subatomic world completely defies the expectations developed from having evolved to comprehend the macroscopic world. A large part of this, which is assumed but I believe needs to be explicitly mentioned in this context, is that mammal brains are shit garbage at intuiting probabilities.
- mxfh 10y ago
  Pilot waves get some backing again, so I wouldn't be surprised if another common theory changes again: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-gains-experimental-support/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-ga... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave

thedaemon 10y ago

I am sorry to inform you that we don't completely understand anything at all. We barely understand the world and universe around us. To say that we completely understand anything is a fallacy. Also with the scientific method, nothing is set in stone as fact. Anything can change our understand at anytime.

pharrington 10y ago
What behavior of light have we observed that the standard model doesn't accurately model? Where is the standard model inaccurate regarding light?
- thedaemon 10y ago
  Here is one that I know of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence I'm not saying we are inaccurate. But look at the history of physics, there will always come a time when a new theory trumps the old.