4 ms·

You're conflating electrons and electromagnetic radiation. Also light doesn't act like electricity or water, it just bounces at the reflection angle. There is

You're conflating electrons and electromagnetic radiation. Also light doesn't act like electricity or water, it just bounces at the reflection angle. There is no volume or pressure. Also there is no such thing as a light 'particle'. That is an abstract concept to make simulation easier.

RyEgswuCsn 4y ago
Are you being serious? > You're conflating electrons and electromagnetic radiation. Isn’t that one of the main points of quantum physics? Light does apply pressure. Also photon exists?
- CyberDildonics 4y ago
  Isn’t that one of the main points of quantum physics? Do you think quantum mechanics says that light is made up of electrons? That would be like saying sound and water are the exact same thing because water going through a hose makes sound. Light does apply pressure. On the other hand, no it doesn't. If you shine light into a tube, it doesn't fill up with light until the tube blows apart. This is what is being talked about in this thread, so try to understand that context. Also photon exists? Are you asking if photons exist? Electromagnetic radiation is magnitude of frequencies over time. There are no individual packets of light just like there are no individual packets of sounds. Photons are a useful idea in simulations because you need to sample specific paths.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > On the other hand, no it doesn't. If you shine light into a tube, it doesn't fill up with light until the tube blows apart. This is what is being talked about in this thread, so try to understand that context. I don't see what that proves. If you pour water or CO2 or whatever into a normal tube, it doesn't fill up until the tube blows apart, it overflows. And you can easily show those fluids exert pressure. To blow up a tube you need to have enough pressure at the fill valve. And if you do that, you can blow up a tube with light. It just happens to be hard to concentrate light that much.
    - CyberDildonics 4y ago
      Are you sure you are following the context of this thread, where pressure finds the path of least resistance? you can blow up a tube with light. Show me an experiment where light exerts itself physically on other light through being constrained to the extent that it finds the path of least resistance. Really, this is the epitome of a hacker news discussion where there is something reasonable being twisted into absolute nonsense with excessively convoluted arguments.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        I really don't understand what you're trying to argue. You can't just pour electrons into something and blow it up either. So what does it prove that you can't pour photons into a tube to blow it up? If you want the analogy to electrical flow then it's not trying to blow things up, it's having different sized holes for light to go through, and some scattering in the nodes. Also my edit to the previous post was late so I'll move it here: > There are no individual packets of light just like there are no individual packets of sounds. Photons are a useful idea in simulations because you need to sample specific paths. Sound is carried by individual particles. Light is quantized (aka packets) unless you happen to have an alternate explanation for the ultraviolet catastrophe?
        CyberDildonics 4y ago
        If you push electrical pressure into a capacitor, it blows up. If you push too much voltage (pressure) into a battery, it blows up. Sound is carried by individual particles. Electricity is carried by a conductor like copper, but electricity is not copper and sound is not a particle. Electromagnetic radiation is magnitude of frequencies over time. There are no individual packets of light just like there are no individual packets of sounds. Photons are a useful idea in simulations because you need to sample specific paths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation This whole thread is about finding the path of least resistance in a pragmatic sense, not some abstract theory that you can't demonstrate. Even the wikipedia article talks about 'light particles' as an 'alternate view with no mass'.
  - RyEgswuCsn 4y ago
    > Do you think quantum mechanics says that light is made up of electrons? No, only that electrons can exhibit light-like behaviours (e.g. interference patterns). Light and pressure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
tsimionescu 4y ago
You might have missed some more recent physics, but light is absolutely quantized, it comes only in integer multiples of a photon.
- CyberDildonics 4y ago
  Electromagnetic radiation is magnitude of frequencies over time. There are no individual packets of light just like there are no individual packets of sounds. Photons are a useful idea in simulations because you need to sample specific paths.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    This is simply wrong. The energy of light is always an integer multiple of the energy of a photon. It is not a question of simulations, it is a fundamental aspect of nature. The photovoltaic effect, for example, is not explainable with your model. Simulations are around 50-60 years newer than the discovery of the photon. Now, in QFT, I believe the photon itself is not fundamental, the electromagnetic field is fundamental. But even then, fluctuations in that field happen only in integer multiples of the energy of the photon.
    - CyberDildonics 4y ago
      You can give a name to a small quantity of electromagnetic radiation if you want, but there is no physical particle. Saying the same thing more forcefully doesn't change how things work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        I don't understand your point. If you are coming at this from a QFT perspective, then there are actually no particles at all: the electron is just a fluctuation in the electron field just as much as the photon is a fluctuation in the electromagnetic field (and the same holds true for quarks and thus protons and neutrons etc). If this is the poibt you are making, than I completely agree witht you. But if you are coming at this from a more old-school QM or even classical mechanics perspective, where fields and particles are different things, then the photon is just as much a particle as the electron and the quark are. That is, in certain experiments, light behaves like a classical wave (for example, double slit experiment), while in other experiments, it behaves like a classical particle (photoelectric effect [0]). If your theory is simply that light is a classical wave (EM wave, obeying Maxwell's equations), then you should expect that shining a bright low-frequency light over a surface will eventually dislodge a number of electrons equal to the number of electrons dislodged when a dim high-frequency light is shone on the same surface. However, in real life experiments, this doesn't happen. Instead, no electrons are dislodged by the low-frequence light regardless of intensity, while some electrons are dislodged by the high-frequency light even at very low intensities. The explanation for this phenomenon is that light consists of individual photons. Each individual photon has an energy that corresponds to the so-called frequency of the light. When a low energy photon hits an electron, nothing happens - so, regardless of how many low-energy photons you generate, nothing will continue to happen. Conversely, when a high-energy photon hits an electron, that electron is dislodged. So, even a sparse beam of high-intensity photons will dislodge some electrons. Even more impressively, you can directly count the number of electrons dislodged and compare to the number of photons contained in the beam, and you will find that they are actually equal, proving even more that the photon is a particle in this type of experiment. There is no way to explain this phenomenon if you try to explain light as simply a wave in the classical EM field. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

RyEgswuCsn 4y ago

Are you being serious? > You're conflating electrons and electromagnetic radiation. Isn’t that one of the main points of quantum physics? Light does apply pressure. Also photon exists?

CyberDildonics 4y ago
Isn’t that one of the main points of quantum physics? Do you think quantum mechanics says that light is made up of electrons? That would be like saying sound and water are the exact same thing because water going through a hose makes sound. Light does apply pressure. On the other hand, no it doesn't. If you shine light into a tube, it doesn't fill up with light until the tube blows apart. This is what is being talked about in this thread, so try to understand that context. Also photon exists? Are you asking if photons exist? Electromagnetic radiation is magnitude of frequencies over time. There are no individual packets of light just like there are no individual packets of sounds. Photons are a useful idea in simulations because you need to sample specific paths.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > On the other hand, no it doesn't. If you shine light into a tube, it doesn't fill up with light until the tube blows apart. This is what is being talked about in this thread, so try to understand that context. I don't see what that proves. If you pour water or CO2 or whatever into a normal tube, it doesn't fill up until the tube blows apart, it overflows. And you can easily show those fluids exert pressure. To blow up a tube you need to have enough pressure at the fill valve. And if you do that, you can blow up a tube with light. It just happens to be hard to concentrate light that much.
  - CyberDildonics 4y ago
    Are you sure you are following the context of this thread, where pressure finds the path of least resistance? you can blow up a tube with light. Show me an experiment where light exerts itself physically on other light through being constrained to the extent that it finds the path of least resistance. Really, this is the epitome of a hacker news discussion where there is something reasonable being twisted into absolute nonsense with excessively convoluted arguments.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      I really don't understand what you're trying to argue. You can't just pour electrons into something and blow it up either. So what does it prove that you can't pour photons into a tube to blow it up? If you want the analogy to electrical flow then it's not trying to blow things up, it's having different sized holes for light to go through, and some scattering in the nodes. Also my edit to the previous post was late so I'll move it here: > There are no individual packets of light just like there are no individual packets of sounds. Photons are a useful idea in simulations because you need to sample specific paths. Sound is carried by individual particles. Light is quantized (aka packets) unless you happen to have an alternate explanation for the ultraviolet catastrophe?
      - CyberDildonics 4y ago
        If you push electrical pressure into a capacitor, it blows up. If you push too much voltage (pressure) into a battery, it blows up. Sound is carried by individual particles. Electricity is carried by a conductor like copper, but electricity is not copper and sound is not a particle. Electromagnetic radiation is magnitude of frequencies over time. There are no individual packets of light just like there are no individual packets of sounds. Photons are a useful idea in simulations because you need to sample specific paths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation This whole thread is about finding the path of least resistance in a pragmatic sense, not some abstract theory that you can't demonstrate. Even the wikipedia article talks about 'light particles' as an 'alternate view with no mass'.
- RyEgswuCsn 4y ago
  > Do you think quantum mechanics says that light is made up of electrons? No, only that electrons can exhibit light-like behaviours (e.g. interference patterns). Light and pressure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

tsimionescu 4y ago

You might have missed some more recent physics, but light is absolutely quantized, it comes only in integer multiples of a photon.

CyberDildonics 4y ago
Electromagnetic radiation is magnitude of frequencies over time. There are no individual packets of light just like there are no individual packets of sounds. Photons are a useful idea in simulations because you need to sample specific paths.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  This is simply wrong. The energy of light is always an integer multiple of the energy of a photon. It is not a question of simulations, it is a fundamental aspect of nature. The photovoltaic effect, for example, is not explainable with your model. Simulations are around 50-60 years newer than the discovery of the photon. Now, in QFT, I believe the photon itself is not fundamental, the electromagnetic field is fundamental. But even then, fluctuations in that field happen only in integer multiples of the energy of the photon.
  - CyberDildonics 4y ago
    You can give a name to a small quantity of electromagnetic radiation if you want, but there is no physical particle. Saying the same thing more forcefully doesn't change how things work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      I don't understand your point. If you are coming at this from a QFT perspective, then there are actually no particles at all: the electron is just a fluctuation in the electron field just as much as the photon is a fluctuation in the electromagnetic field (and the same holds true for quarks and thus protons and neutrons etc). If this is the poibt you are making, than I completely agree witht you. But if you are coming at this from a more old-school QM or even classical mechanics perspective, where fields and particles are different things, then the photon is just as much a particle as the electron and the quark are. That is, in certain experiments, light behaves like a classical wave (for example, double slit experiment), while in other experiments, it behaves like a classical particle (photoelectric effect [0]). If your theory is simply that light is a classical wave (EM wave, obeying Maxwell's equations), then you should expect that shining a bright low-frequency light over a surface will eventually dislodge a number of electrons equal to the number of electrons dislodged when a dim high-frequency light is shone on the same surface. However, in real life experiments, this doesn't happen. Instead, no electrons are dislodged by the low-frequence light regardless of intensity, while some electrons are dislodged by the high-frequency light even at very low intensities. The explanation for this phenomenon is that light consists of individual photons. Each individual photon has an energy that corresponds to the so-called frequency of the light. When a low energy photon hits an electron, nothing happens - so, regardless of how many low-energy photons you generate, nothing will continue to happen. Conversely, when a high-energy photon hits an electron, that electron is dislodged. So, even a sparse beam of high-intensity photons will dislodge some electrons. Even more impressively, you can directly count the number of electrons dislodged and compare to the number of photons contained in the beam, and you will find that they are actually equal, proving even more that the photon is a particle in this type of experiment. There is no way to explain this phenomenon if you try to explain light as simply a wave in the classical EM field. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect