Re: Why Does Light Travel So Fast???
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
Re: Why Does Light Travel So Fast???         

Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: Immortalist
Date: Dec 15, 2006 08:57

Prisoner at War wrote:
> If it takes INFINITE ENERGY to actually reach the speed of light, well,
> how does light do it?
>

Electromagnetic radiation is generally described as a self-propagating
wave in space with electric and magnetic components. These components
oscillate at right angles to each other and to the direction of
propagation, and are in phase with each other. Electromagnetic
radiation is classified into types according to the frequency of the
wave: these types include, in order of increasing frequency, radio
waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet
radiation, X-rays and gamma rays. In some technical contexts the entire
range is referred to as just 'light'.

...a time-varying electric field
generates a magnetic field
and vice versa.

Therefore, as an oscillating electric
field generates an oscillating magnetic
field, the magnetic field in turn
generates an oscillating electric
field, and so on.

These oscillating fields together
form an electromagnetic wave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=electromagnetic+radiation

Now think of a row of dominoes and how they can fall over one after the
other causing the next to fall. Now ask the question, 'what is the
speed of domino' bam.
> And another thing:how is it that we actually see with light?
>

In the particle model of EM radiation, a wave consists of discrete
packets of energy, or quanta, called photons. The frequency of the wave
is proportional to the magnitude of the particle's energy. Moreover,
because photons are emitted and absorbed by charged particles, they act
as transporters of energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Rod cells, or rods, are photoreceptor cells in the retina of the eye...
A rod cell is sensitive enough to respond to a single photon of light,
and is about 100 times more sensitive to a single photon than cones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_cell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cells
> I mean, the usual explanation is that light particles bounce off an
> object and then hit our eyes which somehow then duplicate the image of
> the object for our brains.
>

Representationalism is the philosophical position that the world we see
in conscious experience is not the real world itself, but merely a
miniature virtual-reality replica of that world in an internal
representation.

http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/Representationalism.html

Representationalism (or indirect realism) with respect to perception is
the view that "we are never aware of physical objects, [but rather] we
are only indirectly aware of them, in virtue of a direct awareness of
an intermediary [mental] object. (Dancy, 145) Because there are both
direct and indirect objects of awareness in representationalism, a
correspondence relation arises between the mental entities directly
perceived and external objects which those mental entities represent.
And thus perceptual error occurs when the two objects of awareness do
not correspond sufficiently well. In opposition to representationalism,
both (direct) realism and idealism agree that perception is direct and
unmediated, despite their disagreements about what the object of
perception is. (Dancy, 145) In any form of direct perception, no
correspondence relationship is possible, since there is only one object
of perception. Thus only representationalism will give rise to the view
that perceptual errors exist and must be part of a theory of
perception. Nevertheless, both idealism and realism must still account
for the facts that are referred to as "perceptual errors" by the
representationalist.

http://www.dianahsieh.com/undergrad/rape.html

...representation is central to psychology as well, for the mind too is
a system that represents the world and possible worlds in various ways.
Our hopes, fears, beliefs, memories, perceptions, intentions, and
desires all involve our ideas about (our mental models of) the world
and other worlds. This is what humanist philosophers and psychologists
have always said, of course, but until recently they had no support
from science...

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0162.html?

"The brain's earliest self-representational capacities arose as
evolution found neural network solutions for coordinating and
regulating inner-body signals, thereby improving behavioral strategies.
Additional flexibility in organizing coherent behavioral options
emerges from neural models that represent some of the brain's inner
states as states of the body, while representing other signals as
preceptions of the external world. Brains manipulate inner models to
predict distinct consequences in the external world of distinct
behavioral options. The self thus turns out to be identifiable not
with a nonphysical soul, but rather with a set of representational
capacities of the physical brain."

Some networks in the brain are involved in representing the external
world. Other networks represent states of the body. Some networks
operate on representations yielding meta-representation. This lets us
make decisions about body needs. Neural networks engaged in integrating
meta-representations are relevant to questions about
self-representations.

According to Churchland, A.R. Damasio has postulated that the
self/nonself distinction was originally developed to support a
'coherencing' - the act of creating a coherent model of oneself and
one's world - matching internal abilities with external conditions to
maximize rational behavior.

Schizophrenics for example, lack this coherencing ability which
diminishes their ability to engage in rational behavior - responding as
if they had abilities they do not have, or responding to things that
aren't in their environment - precisely because there's a breakdown in
the networks that support accurate self/nonself-representations.
> So does light "scoop up" some atoms from the object and massage it into
> our eyeballs?
>
> Seriously, just how does light do what it does to help us see?
>
> I don't see why a billiard ball of a photon hitting another billiard
> ball of an atom should then somehow excite the image of that atom when
> the photon in turn hits the atoms of our eyes....

In physics, absorption is the process by which the energy of a photon
is taken up by another entity, for example, by an atom whose valence
electrons make transition between two electronic energy levels. The
photon is destroyed in the process. The absorbed energy may be
re-emitted as radiant energy or transformed into heat energy. The
absorption of light during wave propagation is often called
attenuation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_%%28electromagnetic_radiation%%29

A crude analogy would be comet hitting the Earth and then the Earth
changing its orbit distance and pattern of peaks and trhoughs as it
revolves around the sun
no comments
diggit! del.icio.us! reddit!

RELATED THREADS
SubjectArticles qty Group
US-NJ: Ridgewood-Travel Counselor I / Travel Agent - Ridgewood, NJaol.neighborhood.nj ·