Photons and light

[John John]

We all see light or so we think. I will attempt to convince you that what we experience and what is real are two very different things.

I shall start with an example or two before I move on to the humble photon. Have you ever heard the expression, if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it fall does it still make a noise?

If you burn your skin but you have no brain will you feel the pain?

So now let us look at light or should I say the photon, when we cast our eyes on an object that emits protons we see the object and determine that it is indeed illuminated, but is it?

Well, I can tell you that what we see is all in our mind, we live in a very dark, very quiet, and painless universe outside of our mind.

We see, hear, and feel by our very senses that relay the information to the brain. What our brain calls sound is just a pressure wave, what our brain calls pain is just a physical force applied to the nerves, and what the brain calls light is just a photon particle that stimulates our optical nerves.

All of the outside phenomena that fall upon us are not what we perceive but what our brain makes of them.

I could elaborate further but It would be best if I just respond to any questions that my topic has stimulated.

Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

Edited August 16 by John John

[joigus]

22 minutes ago, John John said:

So now let us look at light or should I say the proton, when we cast our eyes on an object that emits protons we see the object and determine that it is indeed illuminated, but is it?

You mean photon, not proton, right? Or is that your speculation, that light is made up of protons instead of photons?

As I understand, the brain very heavily post-processes every signal that comes in to give you these "sensorially consistent" perceptions of pain, sound, spatial extension, colour, love and what have you. Other people more knowledgeable than me will elaborate on that, I'm sure.

[John John]

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

You mean photon, not proton, right? Or is that your speculation, that light is made up of protons instead of photons?

As I understand, the brain very heavily post-processes every signal that comes in to give you these "sensorially consistent" perceptions of pain, sound, spatial extension, colour, love and what have you. Other people more knowledgeable than me will elaborate on that, I'm sure.

Yes, Photon. Thank you.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, John John said:

All of the outside phenomena that fall upon us are not what we perceive but what our brain makes of them.

Not really an earth-shattering observation here. It might seem so when you first learn or realize it, but it’s not like this is cutting-edge science. It’s great that you’ve arrived at this, but it’s rather mundane knowledge. 

[John John]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not really an earth-shattering observation here. It might seem so when you first learn or realize it, but it’s not like this is cutting-edge science. It’s great that you’ve arrived at this, but it’s rather mundane knowledge. 

So does sunlight fall on plants, I would like your cutting edge thoughts on that.

[Mordred]

39 minutes ago, John John said:

So does sunlight fall on plants, I would like your cutting edge thoughts on that.

Ever use light sensors you don't require a brain to detect light.

Take an infrared camera for example you can see plants in the camera though it won't show as green lol not only does sunlight reach plants aka photosynthesis but they can also absorb and emit light.

The main point however is that you can detect light by other means other than the human brain.

Edited August 16 by Mordred

[studiot]

Hello John John and weelcome since I see you joined 2 hours ago.

I also see your favourite subject is optics.

Perhaps you would like ti fill ou a bit more so we can set the correct levels for discussion ?

I thought your first post in the microscopy thread was very perceptive.

 

But this curent thread suggests you are just starting optics as your terminology is somewhat adrift.

There are many models of light, each suitable for a particular purpose. The photonic model is best suited to matters other than illumination (except for laser diode lamps).

For illumination we tend to use other models whcih are rather simpler to handle.

 

 

2 hours ago, John John said:

So now let us look at light or should I say the photon, when we cast our eyes on an object that emits protons we see the object and determine that it is indeed illuminated, but is it?

To illuminate something means to shine a light on it. It does not mean that the something emits photons itself, but that it reflects at least some of the light we shine on it.

If that something emits light of its own accord we say that or that it is a source of light, not that it is illuminated.

This is an important distinction in optical theory.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, John John said:

So does sunlight fall on plants, I would like your cutting edge thoughts on that.

“Fall” is a colloquial term, but yes. Do you have a point?

[KJW]

4 hours ago, John John said:

All of the outside phenomena that fall upon us are not what we perceive but what our brain makes of them.

As swansont said, not really an earth-shattering observation here. Indeed, there is a term that covers the notion you are describing: solipsism.

 

[John John]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

“Fall” is a colloquial term, but yes. Do you have a point?

Yes. It is the photon that falls on the plant, that is my point the plant has no eyes or brain so it can't see. There is a profound difference between photons and light.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, John John said:

There is a profound difference between photons and light.

I used to be light, but then I gained weight. 

See, I can play word games, too. Boring. There’s another word for you. 

[MigL]

There is no point discussing photons unless you want to discuss Quantum Mechanical aspects of the interaction.
As Studiot has suggested, everything you have inquired about can be handled by classical models.
Why complicate matters and confuse yourself.

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, John John said:

Yes. It is the photon that falls on the plant, that is my point the plant has no eyes or brain so it can't see. There is a profound difference between photons and light.

In science the term “light”  refers to EM radiation in the visible region of the spectrum, not just the sensation we perceive. So light is composed of photons. 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, John John said:

Yes. It is the photon that falls on the plant, that is my point the plant has no eyes or brain so it can't see. There is a profound difference between photons and light.

Not much, really. Light is made up of photons, which are the quanta of light. The profound difference is the concept of discrete energy, but there’s no indication that this is what you’re referring to.

[joigus]

Plants react to light by means of certain chemicals like phototropins and such. They are a certain kind of proteins. That's how plants know in what direction to tilt when light comes from a very particular direction, as well as when to trigger growth, if I remember correctly. Maybe this is a topic more for the likes of @CharonY?

Some animals have eyes that are only barely sensitive to light's direction and intensity, and not much else. Animals with more developed eyes, like most vertebrates, except a few which live underground or in complete darkness for some reason or another, have eyes that are a dioptric apparatus, which maps object points into image points consistently (preserving geometric relations for neighbouring points and therefore allowing the mapping of objects with spatial extension). 

(Dioptric is optical jargon for "lens". Catoptric is optical jargon for "mirror".) Plants have neither dioptric nor catoptric systems.

So I suppose what I mean is, if we could say in some sense that a plant "sees" something, it would be a very different way of seeing than ours. Something like "hmm, there's light in that direction, let's tilt and grow".

But light is what it is. As everybody's telling you: photons, quanta of the electromagnetic field.

[John John]

Well, I see everyone has difficulty so fare understanding my original post.

I am being told over and over that photons are light and this is not true.

My post clearly stated that we see not what is outside of our brain.

The brain receives electrical signals via the optical nerves and the brain converts and processes the signal into what we call light.

What enters the eye is not what travels to the brain.

Photons enter the eye and it is electrons that reach the brain and it is the brain that sees not the eye.

My conclusion is photons are not light, light is elumination the very thing our brain manifests from converted photons to electrons.

Please read my original post again and comprehend what it tells you.

 

 

[Mordred]

No one telling you photons is light. Light is composed of a large multiparticle collection of photons. Light nor energy of any form exists on its own. As per QED.

If you believe light does not include photons your incorrect 

Edited August 18 by Mordred

[John John]

On 8/17/2024 at 11:10 AM, iNow said:

I used to be light, but then I gained weight. 

See, I can play word games, too. Boring. There’s another word for you. 

You were never light only dark that is how you come across.

On 8/17/2024 at 6:22 AM, Mordred said:

Ever use light sensors you don't require a brain to detect light.

Take an infrared camera for example you can see plants in the camera though it won't show as green lol not only does sunlight reach plants aka photosynthesis but they can also absorb and emit light.

The main point however is that you can detect light by other means other than the human brain.

That is not the main point of my post. My post is about what we see plants and other photon detectors can't see.

[Mordred]

So nothing more profound than how signals are interpreted as opposed to any real science got it.

Why not incorporate both ? Why is nearly every metaphysics argument I ever come across so diligent in avoiding the actual physics beats me.

Edited August 18 by Mordred

[John John]

On 8/17/2024 at 12:33 PM, MigL said:

There is no point discussing photons unless you want to discuss Quantum Mechanical aspects of the interaction.
As Studiot has suggested, everything you have inquired about can be handled by classical models.
Why complicate matters and confuse yourself.

I think the information that you are referring to is complicated.

What is complicated about my short post?

The big books of science are complicated I have made it simple for you to understand.

 

[KJW]

14 minutes ago, John John said:

it is electrons that reach the brain

No. However, I shall defer to Wikipedia on how neurons function.

 

[Mordred]

9 minutes ago, John John said:

I think the information that you are referring to is complicated.

What is complicated about my short post?

The big books of science are complicated I have made it simple for you to understand.

 

No the textbooks discuss actual physics which none of your posts actually do. Real physics requires the mathematics to make predictions of cause and effect. Interpretations involve how to interpret those formulas and research studies.

However one can arbitrarily ignore Any interpretation and stick to the hard complicated physics.

No interpretation I am aware of ever changes the results of any experiment.

Edited August 18 by Mordred

[MigL]

5 minutes ago, John John said:

The big books of science are complicated I have made it simple for you to understand.

The 'big books' of science are are factual and explain the science as we understand it.
If you think they are complicated then you obviously don't understand them, and, as a result, you are confused.

Have I have made it simple for you to understand ?

[John John]

14 minutes ago, Mordred said:

So nothing more profound than how signals are interpreted as opposed to any real science got it.

Why not incorporate both ? Why is nearly every metaphysics argument I ever come across so diligent in avoiding the actual physics beats me.

Some people like me can think for themselves without referring to the same old books that parrot the same old information over and over.

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

The 'big books' of science are are factual and explain the science as we understand it.
If you think they are complicated then you obviously don't understand them, and, as a result, you are confused.

Have I have made it simple for you to understand ?

You are like an old dog that only lives for the bones, open your eyes and you just may find some meat.

[Mordred]

Ah so just because I studied the mathematics sufficient to recieve degrees in physics I get accused of parroting physics textbooks ?

Is that how that works ?

You have no idea how often that accusation occurs for the record. Have you ever considered that understanding physics requires one to look beyond the textbooks themselves?

How is knowing those formulas somehow equate to not thinking for myself ?

What makes you believe philosophical arguments is the only valid "thinking for oneself " method is erroneous

Edited August 18 by Mordred