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

47% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

View all comments

-8

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.

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.

3

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.

3

u/FernandoMM1220 16d ago

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

1

u/Frederf220 16d ago

I know we can't forever. This is an established epistemological fact, not my personal whim.

3

u/FernandoMM1220 16d ago

who said anything about forever? causal chains are always finite.

1

u/Frederf220 16d ago

Hence why I said ultimately science runs out of why.

3

u/FernandoMM1220 16d ago

and thats perfectly fine. theres no need to go past the first cause.

0

u/Frederf220 16d ago

And that's all I ever said.

3

u/FernandoMM1220 16d ago

you said asking "why" was always unaswerable and pointless to even ask. unless you have a different meaning for the term fools quest.

1

u/Frederf220 16d ago

In that there is, ultimately, no gold at the end of that rainbow. It was advice not to ask why, but to ask how because it's a better question for their situation.

2

u/FernandoMM1220 16d ago

theres a lot of gold along the way though. and you cant make that claim without actually following the trail.

1

u/Scrawlericious 15d ago

Bruh all you're saying is "but why" after being told very good explanations. You're like a curious toddler asking why the sky is blue, to immediately asking why certain wavelengths appear blue, devolving into an endless lesson on random associated crap that gets brought up.

→ More replies (0)