Well there is a speed of light isn't there. Is there a speed to darkness? Or is darkness not have a speed.
speed of light... speed of dark?!?!
This is only my guess but i think it dousnt have a speed, because darkness is only there when there is no light. I would say that darkness is everyware on the same spot but light moves true it letting us see stuff.
spot on revvion
Darkness means the absence of light. You can't define its speed as it isn't an object nor wave.
yup. Darkness is nothing, nothing can't have a speed. Light moves through darkness. Darkness, or a vacuum, is a medium, as opposed to a particle or wave
How about this for a formula:
Speed of Darkness = Mass x Speed of Light x 0.
Speed of Darkness = Mass x Speed of Light x 0.
| Svarn wrote: |
| How about this for a formula:
Speed of Darkness = Mass x Speed of Light x 0. |
LOL Im not sure what you were getting at there, but anything multiplied by zero = zero. so you could say:
Speed of Darkness = Speed of light + 43894558632986593865
------------------------------------------------ x 0
7
JB
| sir.paul.chaplin wrote: |
| yup. Darkness is nothing, nothing can't have a speed. Light moves through darkness. Darkness, or a vacuum, is a medium, as opposed to a particle or wave |
Sort of agreed, apart from the vacuum bit. A medium is normally accepted to mean 'something' for storage or transmission of information' in its most general sense and a material through which waves or particles are propogated in physics. EM does not require a medium, in this sense, to propogate and vacuum is best left defined as 'a space or area with a pressure close to 0' I think....
Chris
The "darkness" doesn't necessarily "have no speed". One could always argue that the darkness is an energy --> The energy of absence of matter, and as such has infinitely high speed.
| ne2 Luka wrote: |
| The "darkness" doesn't necessarily "have no speed". One could always argue that the darkness is an energy --> The energy of absence of matter, and as such has infinitely high speed. |
1. No...you really couldn't argue that.
2. All energy is limited by c. Everything in the spacetime continuum is limited by c
Have you ever heard of string theory. One of it's first assumptions is that information is spread across universe infinitely fast. All matter is bound to c, however information could possibly travel faster up to infinite speed.
On the other hand this goes against:
as all energy is bound to c. I take it back.
And on the other hand to argue that "darkness" is an energy is a lot far-fetched (almost insane). Anyway "darkness", how could you define it? As empty space?[/quote]
On the other hand this goes against:
| Quote: |
| One could always argue that the darkness is an energy |
as all energy is bound to c. I take it back.
And on the other hand to argue that "darkness" is an energy is a lot far-fetched (almost insane). Anyway "darkness", how could you define it? As empty space?[/quote]
Ok, listen up!
You have the answer already!
Darkness is the absence of light thus it also travels at the speed of light!!
if not then what would exist after light has moved from a spot untill darkness arrives?
You have the answer already!
Darkness is the absence of light thus it also travels at the speed of light!!
if not then what would exist after light has moved from a spot untill darkness arrives?
| Rymdpingvin wrote: |
| Ok, listen up!
You have the answer already! Darkness is the absence of light thus it also travels at the speed of light!! if not then what would exist after light has moved from a spot untill darkness arrives? |
No it doesn't. Darkness does not travel, move, or even exist in a meaningful sense. Anything which is defined as the absence ot something has no existence of it's own so it is wrong to talk about it travelling or anything else.
Sorry, that's just the way it is. You can 'imagine' darkness sweeping in as light moves, but light is moving. Where it is, then it is light, where it is not, then it is dark.
Chris
To humor you, I'll say in a fully lit room, darkness is the same speed as the light as it is retracted from the room, how about that?
Before any bashing, read my first sentence, eh?
Before any bashing, read my first sentence, eh?
| QrafTee wrote: |
| To humor you, I'll say in a fully lit room, darkness is the same speed as the light as it is retracted from the room, how about that?
Before any bashing, read my first sentence, eh? |
I did read it...I always do before replying. It still, unfortunately, is logically wrong. Let me try and demonsrate the fallacy. 1st, physical reality.
When a source of light is present, the assumption is that when that is removed there will be a state of 'no-light' = 'darkness'. That is not necessarily the case though. In some strange space it may be that gravitons wizz round and release photons by smacking into zero-energy virtual particles...whatever; - the actual mechanism is not important. Let's just say there is a positive entity there which is of the subset Light.
Removing the light source (L) from a space (S) gives S-L which may or may not equate to a notional state we call darkness. The only thing you can be positive about when turning your light off is that the space will now be without the photons you were previously a source for. The light does not 'retract' as you imply, as though there is some fundamental balance going on with dark pushing one way and light the other. Extrapolating this scenario shows immediately another reason why the statement is faulty. In a case with 2,3 or more light sources, how does 'Darkness' move ?
2nd Logic..Darkness can, in a very general sense, said to be NOT{L} where {L} is a set of all the light sources in a particular space - let's use your room. Darkness as entity has no existence, it is merely the lack of light. It cannot, therefore, interact with spacetime in any way since it doesn't actually exist. Any attempt to attribut qualities or characteristics to it is, therefore, logically non-sensical (fallacious).
That's why I object to the statement - because it will ultimately lrad to a faulty view of what is happening.
Chris.
The speed of Darkness is as fast as you like ... because no-one can see you 
This is a crazy but interesting thread, and it does make me wonder if light is radiation, and cosmic rays are radiation, is anywhere actually ever dark ? .... Ok we personally cant see all this radiation , as we can not personally measure the speed of light without some form of instrument, so can we look for darkness using instruments, and could we consider darkness the absence of radiation ?
This is a crazy but interesting thread, and it does make me wonder if light is radiation, and cosmic rays are radiation, is anywhere actually ever dark ? .... Ok we personally cant see all this radiation , as we can not personally measure the speed of light without some form of instrument, so can we look for darkness using instruments, and could we consider darkness the absence of radiation ?
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| The speed of Darkness is as fast as you like ... because no-one can see you
This is a crazy but interesting thread, and it does make me wonder if light is radiation, and cosmic rays are radiation, is anywhere actually ever dark ? .... Ok we personally cant see all this radiation , as we can not personally measure the speed of light without some form of instrument, so can we look for darkness using instruments, and could we consider darkness the absence of radiation ? |
Well we only percieve a small part of the spectrum as 'light' so it is not difficult to make a dark space for us. For something which perceived a greater frequency range of EM, though, dark would be light, This is another reason that darkness is a meaningless concept in this sense. Using the word darkness as an 'object' is bound to result in a problem...
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
No it doesn't. Darkness does not travel, move, or even exist in a meaningful sense. Anything which is defined as the absence ot something has no existence of it's own so it is wrong to talk about it travelling or anything else. Sorry, that's just the way it is. You can 'imagine' darkness sweeping in as light moves, but light is moving. Where it is, then it is light, where it is not, then it is dark. |
PPL! Stop mixing up definitions! This question is purely philosophical. There is no need to mix in physics in this since darkness as you stated does not exist and therefore does not apply in physic laws.
Darkness is the absence of light that we can see. That means darkness is different for every person depending on their eyes.
Of course we 'imagine' darkness sweeping in, since it only exists in our imagination.
To make my point. No physic laws apply! This is all in our imagination. Darkness is defined to be the absence of light. This means that darkness actually is instant! Where there is no light there is instantly darkness. If we could remove the light from a room instantly there would be instant darkness in the there. No crossover period or anything.
However, since light move at the speed of light then this is the speed required of darkness to fit its definition.
| Rymdpingvin wrote: | ||
PPL! Stop mixing up definitions! This question is purely philosophical. There is no need to mix in physics in this since darkness as you stated does not exist and therefore does not apply in physic laws. Darkness is the absence of light that we can see. That means darkness is different for every person depending on their eyes. Of course we 'imagine' darkness sweeping in, since it only exists in our imagination. To make my point. No physic laws apply! This is all in our imagination. Darkness is defined to be the absence of light. This means that darkness actually is instant! Where there is no light there is instantly darkness. If we could remove the light from a room instantly there would be instant darkness in the there. No crossover period or anything. However, since light move at the speed of light then this is the speed required of darkness to fit its definition. |
This is why I wanted to know what definition of darkness we were using ,and I would agree from a unaided human perspective the speed of darkness is the same as the speed of light
This is a very funny topic. 
As darkness is the absense of light, it spreads exactly as quickly as the light goes away, hence it is exactly the same as the speed of light.
You could say the same about the speed of silence or the speed of cold.
You could say the same about the speed of silence or the speed of cold.
How fast does the light in a light-saber travel ? ..... Hmmmmmmmmmm 
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| How fast does the light in a light-saber travel ? ..... Hmmmmmmmmmm |
Well, I might be able to calculate that, if you give me more details on this "light saber" device of yours.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| As darkness is the absense of light, it spreads exactly as quickly as the light goes away, hence it is exactly the same as the speed of light.
You could say the same about the speed of silence or the speed of cold. |
Arghhhh....this is why I keep insisting on the difference between somthing and nothing.
Darkness does not spread or do any other flipping thing, because it is not an entity, has no real existence and is only a conceptual term we use to represent human perception of lack of light.
OK...consider this example: You switch off the light in the bedroom. The filament stops glowing, photons stop being produced and the room goes 'dark'.
Has something spread out in the room at the speed of light ? No.
How do we know?
Because the pet python in the tank in the corner of the room can still see fine, so if something had spread out it would surely have affected the snake as well. The fact that the snake sees in the infra-red spectrum should not affect the issue if something had actually travelled or spread out as the light was switched off.
Chris
Of course according to physics it would defiantly seem to be the case that absolute darkness is merely the perception of the lack of all matter, or energy of any sort for that matter, within our “system” (universe, multiverse; whatever the heck you think is out there). More specifically “absolute darkness” is in reality the scientifically agreed on (average of probability) calculated and theorized perception; what it is thought to be. No one can say for CERTAIN as in such a state of a existence would leave no room for an observer (because there being some form of energy radiating from said observer thus creating some form of “light”) so we are therefore dependant on mathematics, physics and imagination to put the picture together.
Philosophically this is an interesting idea. Of course when reading the initial pose I thought the obvious; that the question was inherently flawed in its reasoning and apparent (mis)understanding of what representation the word “light” actually represents (i.e. absence of, not present therefore having no measure – the negation of existence if you will). Upon second consideration of the idea behind the question I was someone captivated y the concept. In this framework of reasoning, light is simply defined as white and dark black. The observer conducting this experiment in “observational science” is standing within a room constructed on the physical laws of light=white dark=black. Of course we must note that these new definitions do not affect the compositional physics of said observer as they only apply to these particular photons specifically (otherwise observer will cease to exist upon the removal of light based on tradition physics where absolute dark=NOTHING). In this world the two forces are equal and opposite; dark as fast as light and light as fast as dark. It would seem that in such a simple existence there would be some other mechanism necessary to alternate the light/dark cycle. The darkness, as bikerman says, would have to physically replace the light in the room ( as his interpretation and analysis of this scenario is based solely in reality). The thought is somewhat interesting though, if you try to visualize and imagine it… light and dark 2 repulsing forces, like + and – magnetic forces, pushing the other into submission at the whim of some unknown regulator.
I suppose that if liberally applied, one might argue that Einstein’s relativity allows for equal footing for all observers. Of course to apply we would have to designate darkness as an observer as equally so as light is said to be. In this rational, both light and dark would perceive it from their framework, with no ability to discern absolute relation to absolute space. There is always the possibility that we will determine that there is actually a space time fabric and that darkness is actually something after all. Within our accepted model framework we have yet to make that distinction but it is possible that all reality within our existence is actually an existence within something else altogether, with different rule and regulations; an entirely different physics governing. Everything here, would be here and would be defined by that. Whatever exists outside of that, if it does in fact operate by a different set of physics, with be there, and will be defined as such. With different physics these definitions, too, are different. In this reality, who knows? Darkness may have properties. We are still looking for the dark matter making up the majority of our universe….
Philosophically this is an interesting idea. Of course when reading the initial pose I thought the obvious; that the question was inherently flawed in its reasoning and apparent (mis)understanding of what representation the word “light” actually represents (i.e. absence of, not present therefore having no measure – the negation of existence if you will). Upon second consideration of the idea behind the question I was someone captivated y the concept. In this framework of reasoning, light is simply defined as white and dark black. The observer conducting this experiment in “observational science” is standing within a room constructed on the physical laws of light=white dark=black. Of course we must note that these new definitions do not affect the compositional physics of said observer as they only apply to these particular photons specifically (otherwise observer will cease to exist upon the removal of light based on tradition physics where absolute dark=NOTHING). In this world the two forces are equal and opposite; dark as fast as light and light as fast as dark. It would seem that in such a simple existence there would be some other mechanism necessary to alternate the light/dark cycle. The darkness, as bikerman says, would have to physically replace the light in the room ( as his interpretation and analysis of this scenario is based solely in reality). The thought is somewhat interesting though, if you try to visualize and imagine it… light and dark 2 repulsing forces, like + and – magnetic forces, pushing the other into submission at the whim of some unknown regulator.
I suppose that if liberally applied, one might argue that Einstein’s relativity allows for equal footing for all observers. Of course to apply we would have to designate darkness as an observer as equally so as light is said to be. In this rational, both light and dark would perceive it from their framework, with no ability to discern absolute relation to absolute space. There is always the possibility that we will determine that there is actually a space time fabric and that darkness is actually something after all. Within our accepted model framework we have yet to make that distinction but it is possible that all reality within our existence is actually an existence within something else altogether, with different rule and regulations; an entirely different physics governing. Everything here, would be here and would be defined by that. Whatever exists outside of that, if it does in fact operate by a different set of physics, with be there, and will be defined as such. With different physics these definitions, too, are different. In this reality, who knows? Darkness may have properties. We are still looking for the dark matter making up the majority of our universe….
Interesting addition (at last :-). Nice one.
Would you accept that zero point energy/cosmological constant/quintessence (or whatever it finally ends up as) would seem to rule out the idea of 'darkness' altogether in physics ?
Just a thought....
Regards
Chris
Would you accept that zero point energy/cosmological constant/quintessence (or whatever it finally ends up as) would seem to rule out the idea of 'darkness' altogether in physics ?
Just a thought....
Regards
Chris
Darkness is not nothing. Nothing is nothing. Darkness is just the absence of light. And if light can "travel" then so can darkness! And our level of understanding currently is not such that we are able to calculate the "speed" of darkness. It'll happen. very philosophical but like most inventions it'll happen accidentally (Eureka!).
What scientists are basically reaslising is that even thought we have infinite space and a "linear" time (which is now slowly getting disregarded, the theory , that is), there is a way to measure the same but we just dont have the scales and the units!
What scientists are basically reaslising is that even thought we have infinite space and a "linear" time (which is now slowly getting disregarded, the theory , that is), there is a way to measure the same but we just dont have the scales and the units!
| iexplore wrote: |
| Darkness is not nothing. Nothing is nothing. Darkness is just the absence of light. And if light can "travel" then so can darkness! And our level of understanding currently is not such that we are able to calculate the "speed" of darkness. It'll happen. very philosophical but like most inventions it'll happen accidentally (Eureka!).
|
Ermm....that makes no sense at all to me I'm afraid.
If you insist that darkness can travel and it is also the absence of light then it must logically travel at light speed surely ?
| Quote: |
|
What scientists are basically reaslising is that even thought we have infinite space and a "linear" time (which is now slowly getting disregarded, the theory , that is), there is a way to measure the same but we just dont have the scales and the units! :roll: |
Neither of those are necessarily true.
Time is not linear...it is relative. What theory is being disregarded ?
Space may or may not be infinite.
I'm not sure what you mean about scales and units. Space is measured in Parsecs and Light Years and time is measured in seconds...where is the difficulty ?
maybe it is like looking on a glass of water and say it's half full or half empty hehe 
. the speed of darkness is the same as the speed of light because it's the rate of speed the light leaves an object.
. the speed of darkness is the same as the speed of light because it's the rate of speed the light leaves an object.Darkness = absence of light.
Consider a steady light source providing light passing through line AB. Suppose source is now swtched off.
Speed of darkness = length of AB/(time at which light stops at B - time at which there's no light a B)
Hence, speed of darkness = speed of light
Consider a steady light source providing light passing through line AB. Suppose source is now swtched off.
Speed of darkness = length of AB/(time at which light stops at B - time at which there's no light a B)
Hence, speed of darkness = speed of light
So basically what we are twisting to get at here is the speed at which a specific given space can vacate all photons contained within this smallest of measurable space.
Based on this concept the answer is simple. The speed of light is, as we all know, 186,282.397 miles per second (or 299,792,458 meters per second - depending on your geo location). Space can then, by the currently accepted model, vacate photons at 186,282,397 mi/sec (if we are defining space as the construct framework in which the entire universe (all known and UNKNOWN forms of existence; for argument’s sake) exists) as this is the fastest speed currently allotted within that system for light (photons) - which is what we are actually measuring (because you cannot measure nothing unless quantifying the lack of presence against a specific initial condition or value).
Will things always be this way? Who knows... if you did, you would have the next big hope for the next "Grand Unified Theory". It may stay that this speed stays the same and light (or molecule) defines existence therefore meriting having properties, or we may redefine all existence anew and included nothingness to be encompassed in the definition of existence (that is if we determine there to be something else (outside)within the real(bigger) system) - If such a thing does exist.
Based on this concept the answer is simple. The speed of light is, as we all know, 186,282.397 miles per second (or 299,792,458 meters per second - depending on your geo location). Space can then, by the currently accepted model, vacate photons at 186,282,397 mi/sec (if we are defining space as the construct framework in which the entire universe (all known and UNKNOWN forms of existence; for argument’s sake) exists) as this is the fastest speed currently allotted within that system for light (photons) - which is what we are actually measuring (because you cannot measure nothing unless quantifying the lack of presence against a specific initial condition or value).
Will things always be this way? Who knows... if you did, you would have the next big hope for the next "Grand Unified Theory". It may stay that this speed stays the same and light (or molecule) defines existence therefore meriting having properties, or we may redefine all existence anew and included nothingness to be encompassed in the definition of existence (that is if we determine there to be something else (outside)within the real(bigger) system) - If such a thing does exist.
| eznet wrote: |
|
Will things always be this way? Who knows... if you did, you would have the next big hope for the next "Grand Unified Theory". It may stay that this speed stays the same and light (or molecule) defines existence therefore meriting having properties, or we may redefine all existence anew and included nothingness to be encompassed in the definition of existence (that is if we determine there to be something else (outside)within the real(bigger) system) - If such a thing does exist. |
Well...nice post and I agree with it apart from an apparently niggly point - the speed of light. As you certainly know, it is dependant on the medium. Whilst this may seem a nit-picking point, in the light of recent work it may be more important than first appears.
Mallet's proposals for time travel, for example, are dependant on the fact that relativity applies even when light is slowed down so that time dilation occurs with slow light. I am extremely dubious about this myself. What are your thoughts ?
Chris
true i guess, darkness is refered as the absense of light. maybe science needs to figure that out too.. lol what are they paid for nywys?
WE CAN DO SPEED OF LIGHT
the latest Rocket energy founded are Positron Rocket...
its very fast rocket so it can send human to Mars only 80-120 dayo nly 10 MiliGram of Positron and very low radiation
the fastest Rocket to become in mars are Rocket ATLAS V it will be take about 1,5 Year (i dont remember exactly)
Positron Rocket can drive in interplanetary
LASER DRIVE
Laser Driver are the best way to become Speed Of light
some experiment in Lab, can moved object using laser without burning small tinny alloy
Laser drive are very Expensive, because using allot Energy about 100MegaWatt
this energy only supported by Nuclear Reactor and Fusion Reactor...which expensive and very dangerous testing for launching to the sky
All of my hobby its develop any special engine to drive human in light
maybe my idea drive with Electron Ultra Beam
can jump into 6-7 Speed of Light...i just need some extra time to make sure the impuls can do this,but i belive can drive Speed Of the Light very easy and does'nt need any Extra Power
metom
the latest Rocket energy founded are Positron Rocket...
its very fast rocket so it can send human to Mars only 80-120 dayo nly 10 MiliGram of Positron and very low radiation
the fastest Rocket to become in mars are Rocket ATLAS V it will be take about 1,5 Year (i dont remember exactly)
Positron Rocket can drive in interplanetary
LASER DRIVE
Laser Driver are the best way to become Speed Of light
some experiment in Lab, can moved object using laser without burning small tinny alloy
Laser drive are very Expensive, because using allot Energy about 100MegaWatt
this energy only supported by Nuclear Reactor and Fusion Reactor...which expensive and very dangerous testing for launching to the sky
All of my hobby its develop any special engine to drive human in light
maybe my idea drive with Electron Ultra Beam
can jump into 6-7 Speed of Light...i just need some extra time to make sure the impuls can do this,but i belive can drive Speed Of the Light very easy and does'nt need any Extra Power
metom
| metom wrote: |
| WE CAN DO SPEED OF LIGHT
|
Betcha you can't ! 10 quid on it ? The rocket does not address the problems of the light barrier at all, it just provides high power. Relativity doesn't care whether it is anti matter or normal rocket fuel.
| Quote: |
|
the latest Rocket energy founded are Positron Rocket... its very fast rocket so it can send human to Mars only 80-120 dayo nly 10 MiliGram of Positron and very low radiation |
Well that's about right for the claims I think. NASA press releases are even claiming 45 days as best possible case, but 80-90 seems the average, yep. Not bad at all...it will reduce the radiation hazard significantly.
| Quote: |
|
the fastest Rocket to become in mars are Rocket ATLAS V it will be take about 1,5 Year (i dont remember exactly) |
NASA use a reference rocket for predicting journey time and that is supposd to do it in about 180 days.
| Quote: |
|
Positron Rocket can drive in interplanetary |
That is getting too far ahead. We don't even know if it works yet for normal rocket distances. You have 2 problems that I can see :
1) Production of positrons or anti-hydrogen.
2) Containing the anti-matter. How do you contain it so that it does not anhillate spontaneously. Cern have managed to make about a billionth of a gram over the last decade and even with the new techniques of slowing the particles down they don't last for more than seconds. I guess the containment problem will be analogous to the one in fusion and that has kept phycists busy from the last 40 years (and counting).
It's all nice existing stuff but don't buy a ticket just yet.
| Quote: |
|
LASER DRIVE Laser Driver are the best way to become Speed Of light some experiment in Lab, can moved object using laser without burning small tinny alloy |
Will you stop with this speed of light stuff. It's not going to happen.
| Quote: |
|
Laser drive are very Expensive, because using allot Energy about 100MegaWatt :roll: this energy only supported by Nuclear Reactor and Fusion Reactor...which expensive and very dangerous testing for launching to the sky |
I think you may be talking about a nuclear explosive rocket which uses a laser to detonate a small pellet of fusion mass and cause a fusion reaction behind the ship which then rides the reaction force.
Is that what you mean ? The first example was the Orion Project (only a design study - not a built rocket), but the nuclear blasts were causing problems for that design which is where the Laser comes in. Orion dropped large reaction masses out of the back and then used a fission reaction to trigger a fusion reaction. and catching the blast with a 'pusher' plate.
The laser design is used on another design study called the Daedelus rocket and allows much smaller 'bangs' with a yield of only around 20 Ton TNT each - that would be much easier to control and harness.
| Quote: |
|
All of my hobby its develop any special engine to drive human in light maybe my idea drive with Electron Ultra Beam can jump into 6-7 Speed of Light...i just need some extra time to make sure the impuls can do this,but i belive can drive Speed Of the Light very easy and does'nt need any Extra Power :P |
Now I think you are being silly.
In fact, I'm pretty sure of it. I don't really think you know what you are on about here and I reckon a basic course in relativity would be a good start before building your 'electron ultra beam' which, as you may not realise, is limited itself to slightly less than the speed of light (that is done by photons) and mum might get annoyed when the lights blow.
I've described science but I think you are talking about sci-fi.
Chris
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
Well...nice post and I agree with it apart from an apparently niggly point - the speed of light. As you certainly know, it is dependant on the medium. Whilst this may seem a nit-picking point, in the light of recent work it may be more important than first appears. Mallet's proposals for time travel, for example, are dependant on the fact that relativity applies even when light is slowed down so that time dilation occurs with slow light. I am extremely dubious about this myself. What are your thoughts ?Chris |
Mallet's proposal is highly fascinating. His theory however does not seem to have many supporters. More discouraging is that EBSCO nor LexisNexis have more than one publication mentioning him or his theory and they are from 2004. The idea does seem to have a science fiction feel to it; but most science does at the heart of its theories.
I am holding reservations in regards to the supporting evidence for this though. It just seems a bold leap. I think that there is still so much that is fundamentally unknown about the true nature of reality to be able to support such claims. With even the inherent properties of light not even being relatively established (see link) it seems hard to tackle issues of space time curvature for time manipulation. It has not been long since we have discovered the properties of light could be manipulated or that quantum states of photons could be teleported over space.(link)
It gives me tingles thinking about the potential of the knowledge available in the universe while simultaneously feeling frustration in my ignorance in incomprehension of it all. Thinking about the properties of existence, based on Hawking Radiation, there is a split between existence and the lack-there-of. Virtual particles are whizzing around in some “other form” of existence; not existing in our realm. When under the influences of deep gravitational forces this non-existence virtual particle, or particle pair, snaps into existence, or at least half of it does, or one of it does – the constraints of the process of definition falls short of the task in this area as this level of existence is still barely comprehended in the DREAMS of our genius, let alone observably testable to the rest of us.
I hope that this science does unfold in leaps and bounds; sometimes it does. Right now I reserve the status of conscientious observer and have the (potentially pessimistic, though I like to call it realistic) nagging feeling that our questions and thirst for the knowledge to answer these questions has a much long time requirement than human existence is allotted on the grand stage. Hawking feels that if we do not kill ourselves in 100yrs we could have self sustainable colonies outside the planet. Obviously this is something vital to the species survival. Hopefully mankind can get its head out of its collective butt long enough to realize this but unfortunately the outlook is not currently good in lieu of the global political/spiritual/intellectual climate as of late – terrorism, murder, war, budget cuts in science and education, social issues, etc are preventing us from continuing our intellectual evolution, something we should collectively be nurturing not neglecting.
But this shouldn’t kill our dreams and imagination; they are vital.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge..." -Albert Einstein
hmmmm... never thought of it this way
darkness doesen't have to travel
does it?
darkness doesen't have to travel
does it?
Light has a speed because you can see it travel towards someone. For examle lightning. Darkness is simply the absence of light. Darkness cannot overcome light and therefore has no speed.
the equation v=d/t anyway as there cannot be a time for darkness to travel.
the equation v=d/t anyway as there cannot be a time for darkness to travel.
In a way, I do think darkness is nothing, yet at the same time, something. Scientifically it is the absense of light. But personally I think darkness is everywhere. So this is just my juvenile way of believing it. Darkness is always in the room. When you turn on a light, the light brightens the room, but yet there will be shadows, *spots of darkness that the light cannot reach.* And there will be some areas, like corners, that won't recieve the light either. Scientically, it's there because of the absence of light. I think darkness is like a perfect vacuum. It's just there. When you turn the light off, the brightness vanishes at the speed of light. That is not the speed of darkness. I do believe that the speed of darkness is infinite because it's always there. But I repeat this is just my own juvenile belief.
| chastise wrote: |
| In a way, I do think darkness is nothing, yet at the same time, something. Scientifically it is the absense of light. But personally I think darkness is everywhere. So this is just my juvenile way of believing it. Darkness is always in the room. When you turn on a light, the light brightens the room, but yet there will be shadows, *spots of darkness that the light cannot reach.* And there will be some areas, like corners, that won't recieve the light either. Scientically, it's there because of the absence of light. I think darkness is like a perfect vacuum. It's just there. When you turn the light off, the brightness vanishes at the speed of light. That is not the speed of darkness. I do believe that the speed of darkness is infinite because it's always there. But I repeat this is just my own juvenile belief. |
Not too juvenile a picture - quite reasonable. A couple of things though...
a) What about a spherical room lit from the middle with no furniture? - there would be no shadow and therefore no absence of light.
b) We now think that perfect vacuum is actually teeming with 'virtual particles' which pop in and out of existence continuously so this wouldn't work as an analogy
Regards
Chris
I always come across strange ideas here.
What is darkness?
How does it move?
There is no definition of the concept you are talking about then how can discussition goes on?
What is darkness?
How does it move?
There is no definition of the concept you are talking about then how can discussition goes on?
| osbits wrote: |
| I always come across strange ideas here.
What is darkness? How does it move? There is no definition of the concept you are talking about then how can discussition goes on? |
Darkness is the absence of light.
It doesn't move
The definition is pretty clear.
Regards
Chris
what would you be measuring? photons = light... so darkness = ?
If you look at the effects,
the first light turned on in a room has the most impact/effect.
The last light turned off in a room will have less effect than the first one on.
Take the classic "turd in a punch bowl" example.
The first turd in the punch bowl will have much more impact
than the last one pulled out.
the first light turned on in a room has the most impact/effect.
The last light turned off in a room will have less effect than the first one on.
Take the classic "turd in a punch bowl" example.
The first turd in the punch bowl will have much more impact
than the last one pulled out.
| TheSublime wrote: |
| what would you be measuring? photons = light... so darkness = ? |
The words are subjective since they imply light in the EM spectrum which we can observe. Darkness for humans would therefore be the absence of photons in the frequency range around 300 Terra-hertz.
Chris.
I'm surprised how many comments this topic has got. "The speed of dark" is a saying comically made up, not an actual thought question. Since darkness is the absence of light, then darkness basically doesn't exist. Asking the speed of "dark" is like asking the speed of nothing. Nothing has no speed, and therefore the speed of dark = 0.
there's a garfield comic out there that addresses that...it's the same speed as the speed of light.
Darkness is the absense of light. I fail to see how it would have a speed, or velocity. Personally, I would like to think of it as 0.
Probably not, since darkness is abscence of light.
ok.. to make this forum a little more intetresting.. why don't we make it more philosophycal? light = good and dark = evil.. therefore it would be, is there evil without good actions? yes, i know it's no science, but this question was solved ages ago...
The speed of dark isn't really a speed. The speed at which light can get its butt out of a place could be considered the speed of dark. However, darkness is the lack of light and therefore can't move or have a speed or anything.
Conversely it would be interesting to think of light as dark and dark as light. Such as that light is actually the lack of darkness, It doesn't make much sense but its interesting to think about
Rock on,
Kev01234
Conversely it would be interesting to think of light as dark and dark as light. Such as that light is actually the lack of darkness, It doesn't make much sense but its interesting to think about
Rock on,
Kev01234
| Kev01234 wrote: |
| The speed of dark isn't really a speed. The speed at which light can get its butt out of a place could be considered the speed of dark. However, darkness is the lack of light and therefore can't move or have a speed or anything.
Conversely it would be interesting to think of light as dark and dark as light. Such as that light is actually the lack of darkness, It doesn't make much sense but its interesting to think about Rock on, Kev01234 |
Hmm...OK try this one. Imagine yourself sat on the last photon of light left in the room and you are speeding away from the lightbulb just as it is switched off. Because you are travelling at c (speed of light in vacuum) you experience time dilation relative to anything stationary (like the bulb) of infinite extent. In other words you can travel to the other side of the galaxy with a zero time (local subjective) interval. Imagine looking back at the light bulb as you fly away - it will always look the same - just fading into black - no matter how far you go.
For this reason photons are said by most scientists to have only spatial existence and not temporal. Another effect of travelling at speed c is that distances contract (phptons frame of reference) so the photon will see distance as 0 and time as 0.
All this means that from the photons point of view it is emitted, travels to wherever and it absorbed again instantly - even if it travels billions of light years by our measurements - the photon has a lifespan of 0 from it's own frame of reference.
Quite a concept isn't it. Imagine a photon from the first star travelling 10 billion light years (by our measurements) to reach earth. It has experienced no time and no distance to get here.....
Just thought I'd stir the mix a little since everyone seems to have accepted that darkness is absence of light and not something in it's own right...now you can puzzle over whether something that exists for no time has existence itself
(Just being a bit mischievous here) |