Hacker News Reader

Comment by CyberDildonics | Hacker News Reader

Isn’t that one of the main points of quantum physics?

Do you think quantum mechanics says that light is made up of electrons?

That would be like saying sound and water are the exact same thing because water going through a hose makes sound.

Light does apply pressure.

On the other hand, no it doesn't. If you shine light into a tube, it doesn't fill up with light until the tube blows apart. This is what is being talked about in this thread, so try to understand that context.

Also photon exists?

Are you asking if photons exist? Electromagnetic radiation is magnitude of frequencies over time. There are no individual packets of light just like there are no individual packets of sounds. Photons are a useful idea in simulations because you need to sample specific paths.

View on HN

> Do you think quantum mechanics says that light is made up of electrons?

No, only that electrons can exhibit light-like behaviours (e.g. interference patterns).

Light and pressure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

> On the other hand, no it doesn't. If you shine light into a tube, it doesn't fill up with light until the tube blows apart. This is what is being talked about in this thread, so try to understand that context.

I don't see what that proves. If you pour water or CO2 or whatever into a normal tube, it doesn't fill up until the tube blows apart, it overflows. And you can easily show those fluids exert pressure.

To blow up a tube you need to have enough pressure at the fill valve. And if you do that, you can blow up a tube with light. It just happens to be hard to concentrate light that much.

Are you sure you are following the context of this thread, where pressure finds the path of least resistance?

you can blow up a tube with light.

Show me an experiment where light exerts itself physically on other light through being constrained to the extent that it finds the path of least resistance.

Really, this is the epitome of a hacker news discussion where there is something reasonable being twisted into absolute nonsense with excessively convoluted arguments.

I really don't understand what you're trying to argue.

You can't just pour electrons into something and blow it up either. So what does it prove that you can't pour photons into a tube to blow it up?

If you want the analogy to electrical flow then it's not trying to blow things up, it's having different sized holes for light to go through, and some scattering in the nodes.

Also my edit to the previous post was late so I'll move it here:

> There are no individual packets of light just like there are no individual packets of sounds. Photons are a useful idea in simulations because you need to sample specific paths.

Sound is carried by individual particles.

Light is quantized (aka packets) unless you happen to have an alternate explanation for the ultraviolet catastrophe?

If you push electrical pressure into a capacitor, it blows up. If you push too much voltage (pressure) into a battery, it blows up.

Sound is carried by individual particles.

Electricity is carried by a conductor like copper, but electricity is not copper and sound is not a particle.

Electromagnetic radiation is magnitude of frequencies over time. There are no individual packets of light just like there are no individual packets of sounds. Photons are a useful idea in simulations because you need to sample specific paths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

This whole thread is about finding the path of least resistance in a pragmatic sense, not some abstract theory that you can't demonstrate. Even the wikipedia article talks about 'light particles' as an 'alternate view with no mass'.

If you have a sufficient strong source that pushes, yes you can blow things up.

That's true of light too.

Not just shining in a weak source indefinitely. You need a powerful source. Just like with electricity or fluids.

They behave the same.

Photons have no rest mass which is extra abstract. They do have mass, and them having mass is not abstract. And you didn't explain how to resolve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe without discrete packets.

Just like with electricity or fluids.

This stuff is pretty easy for someone to demonstrate with electricity or fluids, so show me it being done with light.

I don't have any super thin mirrors on hand, but do you really not believe that solar sails are a real thing? Or do you think a container would act differently from a too-thin solar sail for some reason?

This is about common science that can be done at home, I can show you video of water going through pipes or a capacitor blowing up. You're the one saying that light has volume for some insane reason, so show me. You keep going deeper and deeper into unrelated nonsense just to try to be contrarian.

What. I said pressure not volume.

I'm not trying to be contrarian, I think you brought up a weird example to complain about and you got rightfully downvoted for it (not by me).

This is about finding the path of least resistance so show me light finding the path of least resistance.

Your early comments were just a bunch of saying other people were wrong in general. It wasn't just about path of least resistance.

Also if you want to read my other comment chain on this thread, I would not say that electrons do find the path of least resistance. They follow every path, and so would light.

Other people were wrong in general, light doesn't work like electricity. Electricity takes available paths weighted by least resistance. Light bounces at the reflection angle. Not the same. Most people understand this during high school physics. They don't argue that light is the same as electricity and water because of quantum mechanics and solar sails, then not be able to back up anything they say in any way.

This was all about taking the path of least resistance, so show me anything that shows light doing that instead of just bouncing off the reflection angle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com