WHAT THE FUCK IS LIGHT
How would you explain what light is?
A small piece of energy? An oscillating electromagnetic field? But what are those things. Please help me understand what light is at the most fundamental level (if u say photons u beter explain more)
Other urls found in this thread:
Light is a disturbance in the aether, like a wave in an ocean.
Figure out what the aether is and you'll understand light.
Unfortunately, no-one has ever seen or been able to observe light in any way, so all we know about is are vague hypotheses and supposition.
In fact, most scientists consider it impossible for light to exist based on what we know of physics, and the lack of an explanation is the biggest current obstacle to a unified theory.
photons.
except there's absolutely nothing that seems to support the existence of aether
>Light is a disturbance in the aether, like a wave in an ocean.
lol no
you guys are dense
0/10
Photons are nothing more than the smallest discreet packet of information of an electromagnetic field disturbance
Almost had me [spoiler] baited [/spoiler]
Light waves has all the same properties as the sound waves. We might say that sound and light waves are the same.
sound waves propagate trough the air, and the light waves need a medium too. And that medium is Luminiferous aether
>What is mass?
>It's numbers
>Please help me understand what light is at the most fundamental level
A wave propagating through a massless quantum field whose components transform as a four-vector in the theory of special relativity. The curvature of this field at the location of the wave effects electrically charged particles by exchanging energy with them, which can be understood as to create changing electric and magnetic fields.
>An idea propagating through another abstract idea whose idealistic components transform as ideas in the idealistic theory of special relativity.
A U(1) gauge field.
Specifically the [math]U(1)_{EM}[/math] gauge field obtained from breaking the [math]SU(2)_L \ times U(1)_{Y}[/math] gauge group of the electroweak theory.
That's complicated, but it's the fundamental answer.
They don't want to say what it actually is because people would freak out.
Photos are just radiation particles; it's what happens when point particles reach terminal velocity. They give off radiation.
People freak out when they "radiation" even though everything is giving off non-lethal radiation all the time.
>Photos are just radiation particles
In case idiots facepalm
>quantum of radiation
>particle
top kek
>quantum physics
>picking one
pick one
lel
lol kek nice one
>Light waves has all the same properties as the sound waves
no.
While it's true modern science has abandoned the idea of an aether, the properties of light are very similar to properties of waves that travel in other mediums:
1) constant velocity dependent on the medium type
2) wave diffraction and velocity change when passing from one medium to another
3) redshift and blueshift effects (eg. doplar)
4) wave interface phenomena
5) Etc.
And empty space has properties like a medium
1) It has a permeability
2) it has a permitivity
3) moving objects can affect the medium eg. spinning objects cause frame dragging
4) massive objects "curve" the aether
5) Etc.
I would go so far to say that the evidence supporting the idea that a medium exists is overwhelming. (At least compared to the idea that space is empty and light is merely a particle in empty space)
ma nigga
>you can't use X to explain it
Sorry OP, but I don't think you can escape the need to assume *something* to be known in order to explain other phenomena. Otherwise you'll end up with infinite regress.
If that seems dissatisfying to you in principle, that's too bad.
Now the question is what would be an acceptable answer for you, as it seems to me you might keep asking "but what IS that?" at any stage if people try to explain further.
Not OP, but it's a perfectly legitimate question when we know that quantum objects are neither particles nor waves. The true nature of matter is an open question. "What light is" is an open question
This is true, not false.
>"What light is" is an open question
Unless of course you're educated in physics, in which case it's just a poorly phrased sentence referring to the answers that we have already posted in this thread.
I'll never understand you retards and your obsession with questioning the validity of things you don't understand.
So its like when you put too much air into a balloon
Listen up faggot. I've read a decent amount on EMR, taken a class on Optics (undergrad), and I still don't really understand it further than a physics dictionary definition. Not much intuition for how to fundamentally describe light and that's why I'm asking for an explanation without the meme words
Fucking hell. It's became impossible to get a single accurate reply for scientific questions in this board.
>doplar
Doppler?
>meme words
You mean words with particular scientific or mathematical definitions that you should definitely look up if you don't know? The reason we use those words is because they're precise (on purpose), and not being precise usually means you're wrong. So you may as well be asking for a decent lie if you're not willing to hear about a "massless quantum vector field with U(1) gauge invariance," which is what the photon (a name, like any other) is.
I'm not trying to be a hater, but you came to Veeky Forums for answers, not for a good time.
wake up and smell the æther
>Listen up faggot.
That is a nice attitude to have. Anyway, what isn't satisfactory about the replies given here? What is it that makes you think your optics class (etc) gave an insufficient explanation, what do you need to know more clearly?
No one is going to type up an entire essay about light is if you don't phrase your question more concretely, I hope you understand that. Saying you want an explanation "without the meme words" isn't saying much at all, that's just gibberish.
we dont fucking know yet
piss off
Doesn't the fact that light travels at c mean the universe is squished seen from the photons perspective, meaning the universe and thus empty space is denser from its perspective causing it to function like a (weak)-medium
Heh, yeah.
Physics has nothing to say about whether there are actually electromagnetic fields, and if so what they are. Physics is silent on what a photon when it's not being observed, other than to say it's "intrinsically undefined", to quote the words of John Wheeler. Why are you such a dismissive faggot
*is
Light doesn't travel at c. Nothing does. There's always some refractory aspect which slows particles.
this is the worst board on Veeky Forums
>being this dumb
Did you just time travel from the 1890s to today? If so, can I borrow your time machine?
Quit being autistic, light can travel at C for long periods of time in a vacuum before the photon encounters any matter which will slow its progress.
If you want to get ultra-pedantic, it's interacting with the vacuum fluctuations.
But if you want to get ultra-pedantic, it's traveling at c the whole time, just not in a straight line.
Everything you know about light is wrong
>Everything you know is wrong.
Fixed.
>it's traveling at c the whole time, just not in a straight line
you dont even fucking know how refraction works you moron, you cant even begin to talk about pedantacy
>you dont even fucking know how refraction works
Are you suggesting that it travels in a series of connected line segments? Because that would be embarrassingly elementary of you. But a good first approximation!
>If you want to get ultra-pedantic, it's interacting with the vacuum fluctuations
No shit. That's what causes the values of [math]\epsilon_0\text{ and }\mu_0[/math]. That doesn't mean he's any less wrong.
> it's traveling at c the whole time, just not in a straight line
Incorrect. You should understand what you're saying before you make claims like that.
Please explain to me (in as hand-wavy a way as possible if that's what you like) how quantum field theory accounts for diffraction. It does, and I'm familiar enough to recognize the argument. I want to see if you have any clue what you're talking about.
Yes that would be ridiculous.
are you brain dead?
whoever said (i assume its you?) that it travels at c the whole time, just not in a straight line, is the one who assumes it moves in connected line segments.
This is wrong on several points, and no it is NOT a good first approximation, not by a long shot.
diffraction is caused by summing the total possible wave vectors caused by spherical scattering from an array of scattering centers in the medium.
in a dense medium, this results in a measureable change in both the speed and direction of the net wave vector. the stochastic effects of individual atomic absorption/deexcitation events are averaged out in this case, and their contribution to the total time delay is neglible.
in the vacuum case, the "medium" is so low density that all you get is the slightest attenuation of your primary wave, such that any delay or deflection is insignificant across stellar distances. dust and hydrogen "clouds" on the other hand will be of more importance.
sorry refraction
>whoever said (i assume its you?) that it travels at c the whole time, just not in a straight line, is the one who assumes it moves in connected line segments.
Do you even curves?
Are suggesting that refraction involves entering a magical resistive medium that slows the entire individual photons? Another decent first approximation.
It's funny how hostile people are when they are wrong.
Cool I'm going to leave the thread now and you can have fun with the people who don't know what vectors are.
Hi I'm someone else than the one who is wrong but could you explain how it DOES move in a resisitive medium (e.g. classical high school water tank)
holy fucking shit, are you the same dude that called a moron for speaking about an individual photon's path instead of the average photon's path? top brainlet tier. NO U NERD STOCHASTIC IS REALITY
>my reading comprehension is in the toilet
Light is 1 and Dark is 0
Everything between is matter(like a spectrum)
This is the currently accepted theory
oh come on now
Light exists in a manner that you might as well call magic because three-dimensional visualisation and human language can't handle weird physics stuff.
You win
uhm