/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11343891]

/sci/, if you would, tell me how fucking retarded I am for thinking these things I'm about to say. Don't hold back, I want to feel suicidal by the end of this:


One of the dumbest things of modern physics is to treat light as something that travels. It has no mass, it doesn't travel and doesn't have a speed.

The light is emitted from a starting point to affect all directions and all distances at the same time. The illusion of light "travelling" is simply us witnessing the speed that causality processes something that expands everywhere and is not bound by mass, speed or time.

If you look at it from a far enough distance, causality won't process the effect of light as fully as it would closer to the source, and it will keep diminishing until a certain distance that won't even recognize the event (the light being emitted and changing its surroundings) ever took place. For some reason, the ripple of causality weakens the longer that it travels. This causes the illusion that the "universe is expanding".

The cause/consequence of something that happens in space, and the speed by which space acknowledges that it happened. That's all there is. The observable universe is a spatial bubble of causality. Everything outside of it, will never reach the center. Move the center, and the bubble will accompany it.


>photons
Literal fantasy. By the way, light emits energy but the energy emitted isn't the light itself. Treat the infinitesimal point that light is emitted from as a microscopic black hole, but of light. Instead of sucking the surrounding space into its center, its center "leaks" something into space, which is light. This infinitesimal small point releases energy, but the energy it emits isn't an intrinsic part that constitutes it, only an immediate consequence of its existence.

[Anonymous No.11343995]

>>11343891
Time dilation occurs when you move through space (spacetime). The closer you get to the speed of light, the more intense the time dilation. So for a photon (or any massless particle), from it's own perspective it doesn't take any time to travel to it's destination. Likewise, it doesn't actually travel any distance.

So if you were to build a spaceship that could travel at the speed of light (more accurately called the speed of causality), and were to travel 165 million lightyears away. From your perspective, you would arrive there instantaneously, but the universe around you will have aged 165 million years, so everyone back on Earth will have died 165 million years ago when you reach your destination. This is the effect of time dilation.

Building a spaceship that can do that is fantasy though, only massless particles can move at the speed of causality. You need to understand it though because it describes the nature of the universe.

Looking at light as particles is probably incorrect like you say. The entirety of space and time are likely illusory, since inertia through space is inertia through time. I think a more accurate way to look at the universe would be as some kind of field and every manifestation of energy and matter as waves/wave interactions on that field. I don't know though, i'm just a neet stoner, not a physicist.

[Anonymous No.11344000]

>>11343891

light has momentum though

[Anonymous No.11344026]

>>11343891
You could conceivably come up with a theory of electrodynamics where a charged particle accelerates in one place, and some time later another charged particle accelerates, with no intermediary (light wave/photon) facilitating the interaction. Such a theory would be identical to our current theories of electromagnetic interaction, just with the ontological distinction that light is not "real", it's just a mathematical tool for describing how charged particles interact. I've had the same ideas you're describing, but there's really no value in such a theory.

[Anonymous No.11344041]

>>11343995
Oh yeah i wanted to remark about the fact that massless particles can move at the speed of light. Mass inhibits inertia. So not only are space and time connected as one thing (spacetime), but mass and inertia are very relevant too.

If a massless object traveling at the speed of causality doesn't actually travel any distance or through time, what would be the nature of a singular object encompassing all matter and energy in the universe? The proposed singularity that existed before the big bang. One solid object that is everything in our universe.

What you say about the universe expanding being an illusion really makes me think about this. It would make sense that at if at 0 mass, time and space are meaningless concepts and everything is effectively a singularity as it is. So what if the entire universe is actually an infinitesimally small point in a bigger picture that we will never be able to comprehend? I need someone who understands this shit to tell me why I'm retarded.

[Anonymous No.11344056]

>>11343891
>One of the dumbest things of modern physics is to treat light as something that travels. It has no mass, it doesn't travel and doesn't have a speed.

Light does actually move.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXHWJ4iUlZs

[Anonymous No.11344062]

>>11344041
You're basically right. You could rewrite the laws of physics without space and time, and basically call the two together "order of causality" or something. It wouldn't give you anything new or interesting. Physics doesn't care about ontology.

[Anonymous No.11344066]

>>11344056
Light "actually moves" in the sense that from our temporal perspective it does. But to something moving at the speed of light (ie. light itself), it would not physically experience the passage of time or distance.

[Anonymous No.11344073]

>>11343891
I agree that photons are bullshit but light doesn’t necessarily travel in all directions at the same speed. Light is like sound, it can be focused in a certain direction. But yes it travels in a continuous wavefront and Einstein was a fucking Jew

[Anonymous No.11344099]

>>11344000
Energy can be lost through light and light can transfer energy. Saying it has momentum is just an interpretation to account for this. Nigger

[Anonymous No.11344101]

>>11344056
>>11344066
OP is bringing up a deep point and you're not even close to on his level. We have no direct evidence that light even exists. We know charged particle A affects charged particle B, but we have no direct observation of light itself. Light can be regarded as simply a mathematical tool for describing how charged particles interact. I know this will go over your heads so don't bother replying.

[Anonymous No.11344108]

>>11344101
>number of posters remains the same
Holy phuc same fag

[Anonymous No.11344118]

>>11344066
They would. Gravity is now a medium. Hence gravity waves.

>>11344101
>deep
Deep for you perhaps. I have moved far past and beyond that depth.

[Anonymous No.11344226]

>>11344118
OP here. As of yet, this is my second post counting the OP itself. There's no samefagging or anything on my part.

I believe that I'm genuinely stupid, but I can at least see that you're being arrogant right now. Unravel the arrogance into an explanation for me. Modern science has this funny notion of "understanding" a thing. It doesn't entail understanding the principles behind a concept, only describing the interactions of the concept as it acts.

It's been a loooong time since science has properly explained something. They limit themselves to only the descriptive realm, and that doesn't entail a single explanation or understanding of anything.

As a display of the uselessness of our current model, we're asking the same questions now as philosophers asked in the long past, but fooling ourselves into thinking that we're actually answering them. Then fooling ourselves into thinking that our theories are any different in value from theirs.

>Why does an apple fall to the ground?
"Aristotle said that objects fall because each of the four elements (earth, air, fire, and water) had their natural place, and these elements had a tendency to move back toward their natural place."

As you can notice, this is an attempt to understand the principles that cause things to fall to the ground. The core concept is "understanding". Next, the modern view.

>why does an apple fall to the ground?
Because of gravity.
>what is gravity?
The constant that things with mass attract each other.

What I'm trying to point out here, is that the modern answer, gravity, is just a description of how things fall. It's not an attempt to understand, but to describe it. And the theories that sprout from it are malleable, merely an imaginative effort in the same way as Aristotle's attempt.

Our theories are even sometimes outright wrong, such as when it comes to the spin of galaxy arms and gravity. Dark energy/matter is a theory to justify that fundamental mistake and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.11344328]

>>11344226
>no same fagging
>still 6 posters

Nigger I agree photons are bullshit and here you are still acting like a Jew

[Anonymous No.11344371]

>>11343995
>The entirety of space and time are likely illusory
This sort of thing makes me take the whole "everything is one, everything else is illusion/tricks of the light" thing more seriously than I normally would; on that note, the alleged messenger of 'The Law of One' states that:

“... The Law of One, though beyond the limitations of name, as you call vibratory sound complexes, may be approximated by stating that all things are one ... All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator.”