Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The prism is a strainer of sorts (material that can be passed through, or even if the original light does not pass through the prism, but the original energy makes its way through);

More of a sorter than a strainer. A strainer leaves things behind but not much visible light is left behind when it shines through a prism. It's sorted by frequency.

So now imagine in the brick wall there are 1000 holes each twice the diameter of a tennis ball;

And then imagine 1000 tennis balls were shot at the wall in the course of 3 seconds, I bet different frequencies would be detected on the other side;

This is nothing like the prism, as there is no sorting action going on with frequencies on one side of the wall being sorted into different places on the other side of the wall.

Does the white light to color glass prism concept only hold for the geometric shape a prism, does it work with the same material but cube shape?

It depends on the angle of the light entering versus the angle of the cube. If you shine the light straight into the cube and straight out the opposite surface, there's no prismatic effect. But angle the cube so it acts like a prism and it does so.

Is there theory as to about how many photons are required at about how many different frequencies in about how spacious proximity to one another to qualify as white light?

Three frequencies in a television set or laptop display make a white pixel from three different colored pixels. See the white in the center of the left image:

Digital Color Modes

This left close up foto of a LCD Monitor shows clearly how each monitor pixel is displayed by three colors – Red, Green, Blue.
The right sample shows a close up photo of a traditional CRT (tube) monitor. Three dots make one pixel, too.

Of course this doesn't imply all white light is made of only three colors. White light from the sun is a continuous spectrum, and that's often what we shine through prisms in classroom demonstrations.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Field theory is saying; we do not know where in space electrons and photons are, unless we measure them (and even then, there can be issues) but an electron could potentially travel there and there, and be there and there and a photon too, so field theory is to keep in mind that we do not know where electrons and photons are at all given times but they could be all around, and so we must consider them as potential actors on that which we do observe?

That seems to be true. We can also measure them indirectly. And we can never know both position and momentum to an accurate degree.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: greenreflections

More like the body is everywhere and information moving through it causes it to look as it does in said position (where info is measured). You were close but still thinking in terms of separation of physical constructs rather than of mental constructs. But then I don't want to get into that in this topic I guess, everyone is too materialistic - the only reality they can fathom is one made of solids. But yeah it was something I was leading into / proposing.

I sure anyone here can fathom mental constructs and all sorts of mystical concepts involving Odin and Jebus.
But the question is why do we want to mix untested and untestable concepts that have no mathematical framework with things that do?

Putting Gods in the gap has a horrible track record. Gods caused Earthquakes, storms, sickness. The sun was obviously a God.
"Forces" in science currently has a specific meaning which is the 4 fundamental forces. Are you saying the 4 forces are also "spirit"?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
More of a sorter than a strainer. A strainer leaves things behind but not much visible light is left behind when it shines through a prism. It's sorted by frequency.

You answered my prism/cube question, so it does seem to have to do with the geometry, the angle of the material, the length of the material the light travels through, possibly the geometry of the atoms/lattices.

But if it has more to do purely with the angle, the prisms side being angled, and so equal frequency photons passing near the top and the bottom would come out the other side different?

But this also relates to my question about what exactly qualifies as white light;

Is there anything objective above the concept white light; and before you are quick to say, there may be nothing objective about the ontology of color; I mean in regards to what is known about color, it is thought the frequencies of light exist objectively, so that means when we experience blue and experience red, there are objective differences between the quanta which caused those experiences, and we believe the objective difference is frequency;

So that is why I asked, how many photons, of how many frequencies, in how median a proximity might objectively qualify as white light;

Or is the concept of white, purely human based; the experience of white being a sensory overload?

If such is true, which it seems it might or must be (because if white is thought to be multiple real existing color frequencies together, red, blue, yellow, etc, then it is not stated that red, blue, yellow frequencies cease to exist when white light is said to exist, the concept white is false in this sense, and the true objective reality is that, simply, or complexly, many frequencies exist;

So in prism experiments, when white light is shone, this only means many different frequencies are shone, the many frequencies being in a spatially and temporally relatively close proximity, and so the frequencies hit the first angled wall of the glass, and then.....

Of course this doesn't imply all white light is made of only three colors.

Yes, I see, but does it imply that 3 photons of those particular frequencies results in white light? And that is interesting for black, if I understand, that different frequencies of light can be shone in the eye, and if they were shone separately they would be detected, but together, spatial proximity, even though light frequency is being generated and sent to the eye, the eye cannot detect it? I mean, in that CMYK image, does black have a frequency? Optical illusion?

a reply to: joelr

There are so many misconceptions in that post, so many assumptions, that I think it is better if I first ask you:

Do you honestly care about what I would have to say or are you simply wanting to debase my post?


p.s. Math can only measure math. number = number

a reply to: Bleeeeep

You're posting a word soup of pseudoscientific nonsense in a thread about physics in the science forum. What sort of response were you hoping for?

White light from the sun... split into its glory

www.solarnavigator.net...

originally posted by: ImaFungi
But if it has more to do purely with the angle, the prisms side being angled, and so equal frequency photons passing near the top and the bottom would come out the other side different?

This is not a well-defined question. It also strikes me as paradoxical that the person telling scientists they don't understand photons doesn't seem to know how prisms work. We've been studying how prisms work for centuries. You can shine a narrow beam of white light into the prism and different colors come out in different directions even when they enter at the same spot. The purpose of sending photons near the top and bottom is adding an additional variable which doesn't make any sense. You'll still get the same prism effect if you move the incoming beam up or down.

So that is why I asked, how many photons, of how many frequencies, in how median a proximity might objectively qualify as white light;

Or is the concept of white, purely human based; the experience of white being a sensory overload?
...
Yes, I see, but does it imply that 3 photons of those particular frequencies results in white light?

Einstein said "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". I think you're trying to do the latter if you expect meaningful answers to these questions in a forum post. You'd have to start by defining what you mean by "white light". If you're talking about what humans perceive with artificial constructs that's one thing, if you're talking about classifying the color of light produced by stars that's something else, so in both those examples it's context dependent.

You probably already know that humans can't see three photons. If you want to know if there's a study done to see what the minimum number of photons humans perceive as white is, you'll have to look for it, but it's more a question of biology than physics. I know that at low light levels humans can't see in color as the rod cells are used in low light conditions and the cone cells for color require more photons to operate well, and they have different sensitivities, it's not like a 1-1-1 correspondence. I think these are more issues of biology than pure physics.

Physicists studying starlight are looking at a complete color spectrum. We probably see most stars as white but scientists have determined from studying 200,000 galaxies that on average there's a slight beige tinge to the color of starlight:

Cosmic Latte

If people see stars of that color and call them "white" I don't see any reason to object, looks pretty close to white to me too. But more accurately that color is hex triplet #FFF8E7 whereas pure white would be #FFFFFF. So if you want to know if something is "white" or not I suppose you need to define "white". One possible definition is hex triplet #FFFFFF as your monitor displays white and in that example it's made by only three colored pixels. But that's not the only possible definition.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Bleeeeep

You're posting a word soup of pseudoscientific nonsense in a thread about physics in the science forum. What sort of response were you hoping for?

I was expecting a conversation on physics with open-minded people.

Physics (from Ancient Greek: φυσική (ἐπιστήμη) phusikḗ (epistḗmē) "knowledge of nature", from φύσις phúsis "nature") is the natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force.

Was my post not about the nature/behavior of physicality/matter, motion, and forces? So what if I use non-mathematical equations? Math can only be used to solve mathematical behavior, and not all behavior is mathematical. Moreover, most achievements accredited to math and science are really just a product of someone producing matching images, like a caveman rubbing sticks together and thinking that by producing said image (rubbing sticks together) he understands fire, not realizing that it wasn't the reproduction of the image, but the reproduction of the forces, or will, which caused the occurrence of the image. da materialists.

So what if my equations aren't necessarily falsifiable? Only false things are falsifiable - such a stipulation is nonsense. Everything in science can be argued to not be falsifiable, especially so if we live in a simulation-esque reality, or a reality in which matter is an image of something intangible.

Can we test if things are the measure of will? Do we even really need to? Just look at how much lifeforms behave alike, just look at how they define their will the same when they behave the same. Are the forces of matter life? Some of them definitely are. They produce life so life must be a portion of forces' information / instruction. You want a test or experiment you can try? Try to do something, anything, if you are successful, you have proven will exists. Can that be falsified? Maybe. If this reality is not "real", it could be false.

My point being, I am following guildlines where they're not completely idiotic (falsifiability.)

If you do not like my arguments, argue against them.

But this shhh:

You're posting a word soup of pseudoscientific nonsense

Explain or keep it to yourself.

If you're actually open to reason/consideration, then ask if you do not understand - don't just assume it is nonsensical.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I guess it was a long winded attempt to ask and wonder, or declare; there may be no such thing as objective white;

Red, blue, green, violet etc. all objectively correlate to a particular frequency;

If white light detected from the sun or off of a white wall or piece of paper, is only; red, blue, green, violet frequencies, but a certain quantity of them in a certain spatial proximity; then there may be no such thing as white;

as there is such thing as the frequency of red, frequency of blue, there is no frequency of white, the frequency of white is the frequency of red and blue and etc; It does not become some new object, it is just that when all those frequencies are spatially near one another, they produce what we experience and call 'white';


About the prism part of questions, yes, I am not entirely sure how it works, do you know how/why the frequencies go in together and come out separate?

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
Only false things are falsifiable - such a stipulation is nonsense.

No this only makes it clear you don't understand what science is. True things (or things we at least believe to be true) are also falsifiable. Example:

We believe that humans and T-Rex didn't live on Earth at the same time, specifically T-Rex became extinct over 60 million years ago and humans haven't been around for even 2 million years, according to modern theory.

As far as we know this is true, however if one were to discover T-Rex buried in permafrost with stomach contents of a human inside, such a discovery might serve to falsify the claim that humans and T-Rex didn't live on Earth at the same time, hence the claim is falsifiable by some conceivable (however unlikely) piece of evidence.

In contrast, claims which are not falsifiable can't be falsified by any conceivable evidence, whether actually discovered or not.

Math can only measure math. number = number

In pure mathematics, perhaps, but in physics and engineering numbers are not just numbers, they are compared to observable phenomena. The coordinates for a landing site for a Mars rover can be expressed in math terms but it's not just math, it's a physically real landing site target which is different from other landing sites. It's not "only math".

originally posted by: ImaFungi
About the prism part of questions, yes, I am not entirely sure how it works, do you know how/why the frequencies go in together and come out separate?

Let's try this, how about reading the wiki on prisms and specifically the section on "how prisms work" and if some part of that explanation is unclear refer to the unclear part and I'll see if I can clarify it.

Good News!

As you all know I've been looking into ways to reduce inertia and I think I've finally found a way.

I've come up with an invention that I'm rather excited and hopeful about, and request a peer review by you physicists and engineers, or anybody sufficiently smart enough in this forum.

So, I'm thinking you can reduce inertia by dumping the energy into the time domain. To accomplish this I propose the coupling of two technologies already proven to dilate time.

My Office Desk + a Stair Stepper. Together there is nothing that can slow time as efficiently.

DARPA guys! Tired of dealing with PITA Bose-Einstein Condensates? Tired of newfangled contraptions to warp the metrics of space time? SUpervisor deny your research into using a jaynes-cummings dimmer again because he thinks it sounds "dirty" or is a code word for internet porn you engineers use? Tired of congress putting a kabosh on your expensive programs because they can't connect the technology to anything they would understand?

Well your solution is here! Behold the power of the mind! This new technological innovation is the worlds first psyonic field propulsion warp drive. A safer, cheaper alternative to the current state of the art in inertial reduction drives, and best of all time dilation affects are guaranteed every time!!!

Currently looking for investors and program managers. This program has already gotten the endorsement of Col. Alexander! Act now before you loose this amazing opportunity to become involved in the latest in inertial drive advancement.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

To your first point: "We believe that humans and T-Rex didn't live on Earth at the same time" is not science. It is conclusion based on lack of evidence.

Honestly, what falsifiability does is destroys science in order to try to pigeonholed it.

Truth is not falsifiable. It is as simple as that.

Anything can be argued against. Anything can be denied. That is why I said as much about if we lived in a reality created by will. If will determines reality, then everything could just be illusory - everything falsifiable.

To your second point: Yeah, I was including geometry in math. Plotting a course using geometry is math. The assumption you're overlooking there though is that: 1. The course is fixed. and 2. Did you also use math when you decided where you want to land? (You want to look at certain rocks, was that desire determined by math? No.)

Wait, are you saying geometry isn't math?

a reply to: Bleeeeep

What's with the trend of calling credulous anti-intellectualism "open-minded"? That's the opposite of being open-minded. I really don't see what's so noble about cultivating a mindset that welcomes wishy washy magical thinking in favour the powerful tools and principles for objectively understanding the universe simply because we find the answers philosophically inconvenient.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Bleeeeep

What's with the trend of calling credulous anti-intellectualism "open-minded"? That's the opposite of being open-minded. I really don't see what's so noble about cultivating a mindset that welcomes wishy washy magical thinking in favour the powerful tools and principles for objectively understanding the universe simply because we find the answers philosophically inconvenient.

Explain or keep it to yourself.

Anyone can just say bs like you're doing.

Explain why what I am saying is wishy washy magical thinking or anti-intellectualism or get off my balls.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Arbitrageur

To your first point: "We believe that humans and T-Rex didn't live on Earth at the same time" is not science. It is conclusion based on lack of evidence.

Your lack of awareness of the evidence is not a lack of evidence. There is lots of evidence for the K-T extinction. The KT layer itself is identifiable and contains a unique signature of iridium from an extraterrestrial impact which apparently landed in Chixilub because this layer of deposits gets thicker closer to Chixilub and there's a huge impact crater there. Plus everywhere we've looked on both sides of this boundary, the dinosaurs existed before it but not after it, on the geological time scale.

If will determines reality, then everything could just be illusory - everything falsifiable.

Perhaps this is how you'd like the universe to be, nothing wrong with that desire, but your desire doesn't make it so and as you've already said it's not objectively verifiable.

To your second point: Yeah, I was including geometry in math. Plotting a course using geometry is math. The assumption you're overlooking there though is that: 1. The course is fixed. and 2. Did you also use math when you decided where you want to land? (You want to look at certain rocks, was that desire determined by math? No.)

I'm sure math is part of the landing site selection process too, and again the fact you're not aware of this doesn't mean it's not so. There are many unsuitable landing spots on Mars like volcanoes, mountains, valleys and canyons, craters, etc. After identifying these features in a survey math can be used to evaluate potential landing sites based how large the target areas are between these features.

Anyway the point is your "number = number" statement might be relevant to pure math but again in engineering and physics the numbers represent something objective, measurable and hopefully repeatable if it's good science. If the numbers are not repeatable like in cold fusion then maybe it's not good science, but that's one of the ways we tell the difference.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Evolution couldn't come up with a way for your cones to separate out fine gradations of photon frequency.

At one point, biologists thought that there MUST be a way for your retinal cells to parse out fine gradations of frequency, obviously you can see colors, and you can see 'white', so if you don't have receptors that can sense these things, how do you elicit a sense of fine gradations of color?

Eventually, someone figured out that you can do the trick with three color sensors, and an amplitude sensor, and while that limits you to a color gamut, it's just fine for the sort of environment we evolved in. After a bit of research and experimentation, that turned out to be just what we do.

And so evolution dictated that we used red, green and blue dyes and have trichromatic vision. A very very few humans have four color sensors and have a wider gamut.

You can sort of do the trick with two colors, but there are ambiguities if you do.

Even with trichromatic vision, your eyes have to normalize the image in order to derive 'color' from a trichromatic/amplitude sensor. So they make assumptions about lighting, what is a 'normal' color for certain objects, what 'white' is in the context of what you're seeing, and you get weird things like that 'what color is this dress' that went around recently.

The reason that prisms work is that the material they're made of is dispersive. The speed of light through the material varies with the frequency of the light passing through it. That means the refractive index of the prism is different for different frequencies of light. And thus each color is bent a different amount, and that separates out the various frequencies.

a reply to: Bedlam

What do you mean by normalize the image?

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Bedlam

What do you mean by normalize the image?

See also: white balancing

a reply to: Arbitrageur

My argument for Point 1 stands.

Point 1b. (How I would like reality to be.) My point there was simply that anything could be argued against, therefor meeting the falsifiability stipulation. Some scientists have or do research to see if we live in a hologram/simulation, right? If they find evidence that says we do live in a simulation, wouldn't that nullify most scientific evidence we have? That is all I meant by a reality based on will. If someone has programmed us to see simulations, most science is null, as what we see would be illusory. That is, the argument of being made by free will / nondeterministic order nullifies most causal science.

Point 2. Okay you're actually suggesting that we equate math to actual physical things instead of using math as a predictive / language tool? You want all of reality to actually = math? To that, no. My point about number = number stands. You understood me correctly the first time.

In your example, math is only a predictive language - it isn't a true equivalency, and I think you know this but just want to argue. Can we use it to predict things? Yes, if we pretend physicality is static in its forces/will and therefor will be the same on future dates, then math does a good job of predicting things but you should not conclude that it is therefor factual what math does or that math is really anything more than a predictive tool that we use.

e.g. If you do the same thing every day of the week: mondays you mow the lawn, tuesdays you do laundry, and on wednesdays you vacuum the house, then we can use math to determine, in advance, what youll be doing on the tuesday 5 years from now, yet it doesn't mean that you, as a house keeper, are a math equation anymore than it is true that forces won't change or evolve between the time a shuttle lives and arrives at pluto.