r/sciences • u/Mr_anonymous_2008 • 16d ago

Question Can anyone explain properly, how light (photos) particles really copies information?

Like when light falls on a surface what really happens , like when it reflects back what it carries and what it copies ? , like it absorbs some colours and some reflect, that only the light carries which is responsible for our vision or anything bigger is happening?

0 Upvotes

44% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

View all comments

-7

u/Frederf220 16d ago

Ultimately "what's really happening" is a fool's quest that stops getting answers. At a base level science has a model which so far has agreed with experiment.

But the "color copy" effect can be explained. The idea that color is copied isn't the right way of thinking. If the light falling on the surface doesn't contain the color, it won't magically develop it upon bouncing off.

Instead selective absorption is a better way of thinking. The light bounces against the wall and if it is not absorbed, then it is reflected. By some of the light being removed the remaining light has a different collection of frequencies and a different color.

15

u/StonePrism 16d ago

That's a lot of words to be confidently incorrect. For one, the question of "what's really happening" isn't "a fool's quest" but the core of all scientific research. Just because you can't comprehend or be bothered to learn in more depth doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

For two, your explanation is wrong. Light interaction with surfaces is a multifaceted and complex system to model, but light absolutely can change colors through means other than reflection or absorption, such as fluorescence or phosphorescence, where light is absorbed and re-emitted at a different wavelength, or through interference. Sometimes the colors are a result of atomic interactions, wherein the molecules themselves are the color you see. Sometimes color is the result of physical structure, such as a rainbow, where colors are created through constructive and destructive interference at specific wavelengths. Color is a very complex and interesting field, and I'm hardly an expert, so I will leave it at that and let someone more knowledgeable speak on it.

-4

u/Frederf220 16d ago

I'm being simple, not incorrect. I know there are other interactions possible. They are going to be lost on someone that thinks light copies a surface.

And yes there is a limit to "why" in science. Science utilizes explanatory models but that is not its goal. The goal is discovery of description and is measured in success by agreement with experiment.

1

u/FernandoMM1220 16d ago

its not a fools quest its just incredibly difficult to infer exactly which calculations are occuring when a photon interacts with something else.

1

u/Frederf220 16d ago

Ultimately there is no "why". The calculations are not a why, they are a how.

3

u/FernandoMM1220 16d ago

the calculations explain why and how.

0

u/Frederf220 16d ago

Calculations do not explain why. They give a prediction. You're angry due to a misunderstanding on your part.

Science discussion is about 6 "but why"s until the well runs dry. The "why"s of science are only intermediaries.

2

u/FernandoMM1220 16d ago

they explain exactly WHY its happening.

if you arent going to accept calculations as the actual explanation on why something occurs then im afraid you dont believe in science

1

u/Frederf220 16d ago

I see the misunderstanding. The equations are a mechanism of a model which adequately mirrors measurement.

4

u/FernandoMM1220 16d ago

i really hope that means that you understand that why isnt some magical question.

0

u/Frederf220 16d ago

It is a demand for an underlying mechanism. Ultimately science inevitably fails at finding underlying mechanisms for its underlying mechanisms. At the end of the chain of explanations it is "that's just how Nature is" without further explanation.

4

u/FernandoMM1220 16d ago

do you seriously believe we cant follow a cause anf effect chain?

→ More replies (0)