Questions about light..

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Magical Realist, May 25, 2023.

  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Yes it carries information

    Where is the conundrum?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,886
    That's not quite what I said.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,482
    Information seems to be one of those properties that stubbornly defies discrete and exact location in the world. While light is said to "carry information" it doesn't appear to do this without the presence of an interpreting mind. Like color, it is both derived from and projected onto light as the medium that manifests it. Information is therefore a hybrid between physical and mental phenomena. A binding of objective facticity with subjective experience. We appear to experience information as an objective property in the very act of deciphering it.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2023
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,370
    I suppose so. But there’s nothing special about light in this regard, of course. Almost any physical observation can convey information.
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  8. Guestfornow Registered Member

    Messages:
    63
    Would you agree that theories, in physics, represent what humans have interpreted about their observations?
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,370
    Sure. Scientific theories are explanatory and predictive models made by human beings.
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,886
    Sure.

    More precisely, theories are models that can be used to make predictions about what we should expect to observe.

    The more accurately they predict it, the better the model, the more robust the theory.
     
  11. Guestfornow Registered Member

    Messages:
    63
    How about completeness? Can any theory be said to be a complete model, or isn't that possible?

    I'm trying to imply there, that no theory can be a complete description of the physical world, it is necessarily always approximate or incomplete, for eminently logical reasons.
    But, you know, logic is just logic. Maybe the universe has some completely not-logical stuff we don't know anything about, yet.

    Theories are interpreted observations; what then is an observation of an observation?
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2023
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Would that be an analysis of a observation?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,482
    Yes..most definitely...
     
  14. Guestfornow Registered Member

    Messages:
    63
    Well that might work. What I'm trying to understand is why I can observe myself observing--I know when I'm observing and I know about the process of observation.
     
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,482
    We have an introspective grasp on our own mental processes. So we can know when we are observing. But I'm not sure we can be sure when someone else is observing. What does their act of observing objectively look like? A bunch of synapses firing off in their brain? How can we be sure it is an observation? We'd have to ask the person themselves to describe what they are observing and compare it with our observation of the same thing. But it isn't exactly "observing" their act of observing.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2023
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,370
    In science the door is always open for new observations that may in principle show that a model is defective or incomplete. It is sometimes said that in science all “truth” is provisional. But you can have a theory that seems to account for all relevant observations at a given point in history, certainly. That was true of Newtonian mechanics for a couple of hundred years.
     
  17. Pinball1970 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    842
    Light is part of the electro magnetic spectrum, the parts you can see between 400-700nm.
    You cannot see micro waves, IR, UV or radio waves but they are part of the same spectrum.
    If you look into the nature of light, it's properties you will get profound insights regarding the universe.
    Start at the beginning is my advice, take off from your high school training or college and take it from there.
    If you have gaps fill them. Wiki is a decent source.
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  18. Pinball1970 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    842
    We can be sure. We can use a radiometer or photospectrometer to measure a light source or reflectance respectively.
    I can store that data as a file and use it with colleagues.
    A value at 420 nm is a value, a measurement.
     
  19. Pinball1970 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    842
    Science is not philosophy, Science is empirical.
    Mathematics is not.
    Scientific theory builds on empirical evidence, it should explain it.
    The Theory of Evolution explains speciation beautifully even though not every detail is known.
    Atomic theory and quantum mechanics explain how the micro world work.
    GR how large bodies and space time work.
    Gaps though.
    Science is working on those gaps.
     

Share This Page