Is light created or is it always there? - Page 5 - Science and Technology - HWzone Forums
adplus-dvertising
Skip to content
  • Create an account
  • About Us

    Hello Guest!

     
    Please note - in order to participate in our community, comment and open new discussions, you must join as a registered member.

    Our members enjoy many advantages, including the ability to participate in discussions, enjoy raffles and promotions for members of the site, and receive our weekly content directly by email.

    Do not like being harassed by email? You can register for the site but do not submit your registration to the weekly email updates.

Is light created or is it always there?


Recommended Posts

  • תגובות 220
  • Opens on
  • Last comment

Prominent participants in the discussion

Prominent participants in the discussion

Only I can't help but laugh at seeing a high school student (no offense, spider)

And an expert on his own, who occasionally throws out an English sentence (with misspellings) to be seen

Wise, say the futon is a fiction?

As far as I remember, in science in general, and in physics in particular, proof is needed

Come and claim that there is a "website" (or whatever you call it), and there is no such thing as a really nice and "revolutionary" blank (remember, on the concept

Of "ether", the fifth element from which the stars and the sky are composed, the Greeks thought over 2000 years ago)

But without any evidence, it makes this discussion merge with the "religion and faith" debate.

The same goes for the claim of "futon is a fiction"

Now the question is a spider on the road,

Are you interested in the answers of a subject expert on his own (almonime) who disagrees with the establishment

Scientific, or do you want the "usual" answers to the topic?

And almonime,

What really interests me,

Based on what evidence do you justify your claim that "the futon is a fiction" and that there is no such thing as "empty"?

Or are you the ones who just love to head up and yell that the establishment is wrong, just because it's "cool" to be different? (Proper Disclosure: They've done it before too. It's not as special as you might think ...)

Link to content
Share on other sites

well said .

And I think there's a lot of truth in what you said, Emma what, nobody has a strong truth about it and it can be revealed to anyone regardless of formal education, (On the contrary, sometimes the theories that make up the mind need to be flipped to go through a consciousness stage)

Fiction here in the sense I explained ie found a name for a phenomenon that is not yet understood, like a language that invents words for the new uses, let's say almost the entire lexicon dealing with computers, these words did not exist in Japanese let's say 100 years (and much much less) but these words were born to describe New situations, that is what I mean by my word and consent to fiction. Not for anything else, also we are still in the process of establishing communication, I do not understand what you have intercepted an opinion that you have not heard and examined, if you would tell me that you have already heard what he wants to say then it is something else, I still do not know where he wants to lead, So please hold back and let him say.

almonime please i wait.

And remember, the question still remains: Are we creating something new or just releasing the potential inherent in the material when lighting a candle?

Link to content
Share on other sites

A photon is a dose of energy. Sometimes it behaves like a wave, and sometimes as a particle, like everything else in our universe.

An electron also behaves as a wave and as a particle (the 2 crack experiment), and humans could also have a wavy nature if we were small enough.

To start a sentence with photon words is a wave, or a photon is a particle, indicating a basic misunderstanding of the principle of duality.

Link to content
Share on other sites

Obviously no one has a presumption of truth, and anyone can discover something new

Yet,

I don't think the level we reached in physics allows anyone without any formal education

On the subject of coming up and claiming new (or old-new, which they have already claimed) just like that.

If he came up with neat proofs, or at least writes what is the problem with the experiments they performed

So far, but for now, he's just throwing blown sentences into the air behind which there is very little.

And of course, futon is a "fiction" in the sense that it is a new concept, because before they did not know of its existence.

After all, new words and concepts must always be invented.

But (and correct me if I'm wrong) it seems as if almonime claims "photon is fiction"

That it does not exist, and that there is no such thing as photons

And he's invited to load whatever he wants, I have no problem with that. The problem is that he brings no proof or reference.

And as I said before, if everyone just throws blown sentences into the air and that's enough to be proof then

This discussion can be merged with a "religion and faith" discussion ...

"And remember, the question is still: are we creating something new or just releasing the potential inherent in the material when lighting a candle?"

As Bethard has written before,

These photons did not exist before, but the material emits energy that it did not have before, and it emits it (among other things, it can also be emitted as heat, for example)

In the form of an electromagnetic wave (i.e., photons), ie light.

of course,

This is assuming that you believe what these lying physicists write that their whole purpose is to constrict your world

And in general, it's all a government conspiracy designed to hide the alien landing and the truth about Kennedy's murder

Link to content
Share on other sites

Good Morning World. How is everyone ? Those who agree with me and those who do not .. also.

The one whose conclusions are that I rattle on a website and friends ... lol.

infer73, what education do you have in the field of physics and what do you know and what experiments you did or did not do and which lab you visited?

Come and impress me with cat juice style.

You want proof? like everybody. 300 year of proofs and experiments (I don't have to repeat)

Everyone has a nose and some kind of mysterious and spent way of explaining ... the interpretation there is, and the way it becomes "scientific truth"

Disabled by bizarre levels you're probably the one who thinks Newton is no less than a superior entity.

I wonder if you've ever done research on the history of science and what role each has in what is called today. " Based "

Haven't you read any of it before (or at least what I say should be its exact definition)? Brick, can temperature be measured?

Spider, did you sleep well? See, first of all you need an open and empty mind from previous information. Mandatory duty

Don't cancel it, just put everything aside. And don't let different concepts jump into your questions

Shall we continue?

Link to content
Share on other sites

I'll try to answer you the question in a relatively simple way:

Some material is in a position where it prefers to be, just as a ball falls down, water downstream, the guiding principle in our world is that systems seek to be in a state of minimum energy.

So we have such material, which is in the situation described above, how do I make it shine that I turn on the switch? So what the switch does is releases energy (in our case - electricity) into the system, and raises the atoms in the material to a higher level. What happened here is I actually invested energy in the form of electricity and took a sample of material that was at its lowest energy level and raised it to a higher level. Now according to the principle I stated at the beginning, it will go down. After the descent, the energy conservation law must be preserved, so the energy it needed to release must be released in some form. This form is the basic energy dose called photon.

Back to your question, you could say that the potential was in the material all the time, or that we actually created a process of giving energy while knowing what we would get to make the process effective for us.

And another little thing before questions pop up, the example above is true for neon bulbs, and lasers although the mechanism there is more complicated, not for bulbs. But that shouldn't change anything.

Link to content
Share on other sites

Some material is in a position where it prefers to be, just as a ball falls down, water downstream, the guiding principle in our world is that systems seek to be in a state of minimum energy.

This is one of the most common mistakes that unfortunately comes from studying physics in high school (I remember how they would grind us this saying every lesson).

In practice, it is not true that systems are at a minimum of energy, but rather a balance between maximum entropy and minimal energy.

To almonime ....

We surfed a bit of personal tracks that neither I nor I wanted to enter. In any case, my intention was good.

Physics is Is renewed mainly in the field of particle physics, which is mostly theoretical. As the technology progressed, we began to explore more and more the fundamental building blocks of matter. However, it is important to note that we are about a distance away from 15 orders of magnitude, which tests the latest theories in laboratories (such as the famous accelerator).

Link to content
Share on other sites

I would be happy to point out the existence of entropy in Einstein's field equations, or in Langranjian of analytic mechanics, or in the matrix of field theory.

I would be very grateful if you would show me where these doctrines use entropy, due to the problematic fact that they are all derived from the principle of minimal action to energy only.

But why, if you can take a line from an idea I'm trying to convey, and just point out what's wrong there.

So if you're such a great physicist, I ask you again, where does the entropy appear in the equations above?

Link to content
Share on other sites

It seems to me that you are a little bit in trouble with this ... : Silly:

I inform in advance, I am not a physicist and do not understand it too much!

But the basic question is, are we creating something new?

Because it is energy, it does not really recreate. And that's the answer .. (The Energy Conservation Law and all that :P)

It just goes from energy that exists in an electricity company (which doesn't matter how it was created there)

Into electrical wires in the home, to a hot wire, and then converted to another energy which is photons.

That's the whole answer.

It's not like there were photons hiding in the lamp, and then the electricity released them.

And it's not that electricity created new photons in the lamp.

It's like warming something that was cold, and then it will emit heat. Where did this heat come from? Was it hidden in the same object?

No .. he just moved to him from the object that warmed him. And so was the photon's energy emitted from the filament after passing

To it in another energy (electricity) from another place (electricity company) ...

No? : s05:

Link to content
Share on other sites

Cat juice:

Get my sincere apologies if I wrote something personal that hurt you.

Physics is indeed Renewable but most of it (currently) is based on the past and the way things looked in the past. Mood and social culture as well as power games. A disgrace to his name.

If you have an open mind and certificates from different certificates are not interesting but the person in front of you and his words, we have to discuss the fun.

If you embrace all the previous information you purchased (ie, formal education) as a Sinai Torah that you will have for health, we have nothing to discuss.

Tell me, mother That does not contain a measurable mass is " blank " ? Don't quote me the sub-lesson you learned, tell me your personal opinion.

And a little explanation.

Another thing, "mass" ... what is it?

The famous LHC ... I hope for the benefit of the world that there is someone among the scientists who thinks (a little) about the unknown and the potential risks of super high energies.

And about the matter that maybe (just maybe) they are dealing with something without any understanding at all.

A black hole on my face is not an idea I want to live with. It is an entity that cannot be killed and its appetite ... Allah Justor.

Another thing in general for their "proof" applicants, one of the principles that guides me (and many others) is the Copernicus principle.

Copernicus, for those who do not know, was the person who claimed that the earth was not the center of the universe and considered the father of modern astronomy theory.

In 1543 (just before he died) his book on the subject was published. (So ​​he was no longer afraid of the Inquisition)

Legend has it that his last words were ... "And yet, Noah will move ..."

What proofs aside from observations and healthy logic did he have in 1500 + ?? Sure.

Only 450 years later in the aftermath of World War II and von Braun's missile research flew a satellite observation into space and the idea received final approval.

Link to content
Share on other sites

I would be happy to point out the existence of entropy in Einstein's field equations, or in Langranjian of analytic mechanics, or in the matrix of field theory.

I would be very grateful if you would show me where these doctrines use entropy, due to the problematic fact that they are all derived from the principle of minimal action to energy only.

But why, if you can take a line from an idea I'm trying to convey, and just point out what's wrong there.

So if you're such a great physicist, I ask you again, where does the entropy appear in the equations above?

I meant particle systems ... I may not have understood you correctly (or I was not clear enough)

Link to content
Share on other sites

OK

almonime Let's assume that everyone has an unqualified opportunity to express the truth as they see it and continue the theory you wanted to raise.

For the rest,

So, if I understand an institute, is the light an excess of energy generated as a result of transmitting energy through a hot wire?

So first we didn't create anything new, but just "filtered" energy through matter? That is to say, the fiery wire is only behaving in such a way when it passes energy, so now the question is why is it over? And do they have a non-biodegradable lamp? (I don't think there is, that is, material dissolves when it transmits energy after time) (I would say when you are confronting each other with time and place - it suits me a lot of perceptions).

Another thing, so perhaps the photon before us is faint unmeasurable remnants in terms of the means at our disposal of the "combustion material", because otherwise why is the yarn burnt away? Why has the sun consumed itself? Are many zeros worth a little more than one?

Anonymous, go with your theory, just erase all the discussion you didn't recognize and give it, (are you able to - hahah)

Link to content
Share on other sites

ארכיון

This discussion has been archived and new comments can not be added.


  • Latest news

  • Buzz-Zone: Everything hot on the net

×
  • Create new ...

At the top of the news:

new on the site