We are Rainbows

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

So lightning is not photons?

Do you electrocute yourself when you cut a fibre-optic cable?

Lightning in the main is electrons and ions.

There's no electrical light energy in our brains?

There is electrical energy in the brain, ions, electrochemical not photons.

Purple is a wisdom color.

Also the colour you go when asphyxiating.

Pain is nerve impulses but what of the qualia of those nerve impulses?

I think pain is the 'qualia' of nerve impulses.

Don't have any fibre optic cables so I dunno.

Dunno why you say electricity is not photons.

I've never really understood the relationship between electrons and photons. I'm told that electricity is the flow of electrons through a circuit, however I'm also told that the electro-magnetic force is quantised (is that the right word?) by the photon.

The electron is a particle which has a certain mass and negative electric charge. A particular electron exists at a specific position in space, travelling in a certain direction at a certain speed*.

If you accelerate an electron (eg if it passes close to a proton), it causes a disturbance in the electromagnetic field, which will propagate away from the disturbed electron at the speed of light. We call this propagating packet of energy a photon.

Electrons and photons both respond to the electromagnetic force, but they differ in:
mass: electron is 9×10−31 kg; photon is zero
charge: electron is negative, −1.6×10−19 Coulombs; photon is zero
speed: electron may be zero, or anything less than the speed of light; for a photon in a vacuum, it always travels at exactly the speed of light (a bit slower in denser media)
spin: electron: half; photon: 1
antiparticle: electrons have positrons; photons have themselves
For more, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

Besides electrons, other particles of matter like protons, positrons and mesons also carry an electric charge, and have a position and velocity in space. They differ in many ways from each other, but their electric charge also makes them respond to the electromagnetic force.

*Footnote: Quantum theory says you can't exactly know its position & velocity, but that's another topic.
Logged
kodyg44
Newbie
*
Posts: 2
View Profile

Re: What is the difference between electrons and photons?
« Reply #2 on: 22/05/2013 02:41:33 »
A photon is created when electrons return to a domestic state from a chaotic state. Valence electrons move from atom to atom, polarizing each atom and making them either positive or negative. When the electron moves back to its original atom and enters a domestic state, the electron releases a photon. I'm not totally sure why, but I hope that helped a little.

next contestant

I have this theory that people who claim to love purple are actually seeing what I see as 'green'. That is the only possible explanation for anyone liking such a putrid, depression-inducing colour. People with purple houses are demonstrating an outward manifestation of insanity (unless they see it as green, which is not their fault).

You can make any color look good. Value hue and saturation. There is no such thing as a bad color only a bad color scheme or interpretation of color.
Video about this: Green and Purple https://youtu.be/XQnolt_hqBA?t=450


Pages about photons as a mechanism of conscious action
http://cogprints.org/3539/1/tunnelling.pdf
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/42 ... the-brain/
http://www.bioopticsworld.com/articles/ ... ivity.html

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Hmm. I've tried to give purple the benefit of the doubt, but it always looks like the visual equivalent of an off-key note.
There is a strong connection between colour and music apparently, and some people actually hear certain notes as colours.

[Arising_uk]

Don't have any fibre optic cables so I dunno.

The answer is no and since they appear to be photons travelling along a 'wire' they appear to not be electric.

Dunno why you say electricity is not photons.

Because in the main its fields and not quanta but the simple explanations use protons and electrons not photons but I guess that if you use QM then a photon and an electron will always be involved.

I've never really understood the relationship between electrons and photons. I'm told that electricity is the flow of electrons through a circuit, however I'm also told that the electro-magnetic force is quantised (is that the right word?) by the photon.

The electron is a particle which has a certain mass and negative electric charge. A particular electron exists at a specific position in space, travelling in a certain direction at a certain speed*.

If you accelerate an electron (eg if it passes close to a proton), it causes a disturbance in the electromagnetic field, which will propagate away from the disturbed electron at the speed of light. We call this propagating packet of energy a photon. ...

Is the electromagnetic force the same as electricity?

I have this theory that people who claim to love purple are actually seeing what I see as 'green'. That is the only possible explanation for anyone liking such a putrid, depression-inducing colour. People with purple houses are demonstrating an outward manifestation of insanity (unless they see it as green, which is not their fault).

How would you prove this theory?

You can make any color look good. Value hue and saturation. There is no such thing as a bad color only a bad color scheme or interpretation of color.
Video about this: Green and Purple https://youtu.be/XQnolt_hqBA?t=450

Then loons appear to have bad purple and green colour schemes or bad interpretation of colours.

Pages about photons as a mechanism of conscious action
http://cogprints.org/3539/1/tunnelling.pdf
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/42 ... the-brain/
http://www.bioopticsworld.com/articles/ ... ivity.html

Given how computational neural nets work I find reductionism at this level misplaced. Conscious action is to all intents and purposes is intentionality and I think that is found at the level of thought.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Conscious action is to all intents and purposes is intentionality and I think that is found at the level of thought.

Not that type of conscious action. I think they meant the action of consciousness, not so much decision making on a human life-choices scale.

Hmm. I've tried to give purple the benefit of the doubt, but it always looks like the visual equivalent of an off-key note.
There is a strong connection between colour and music apparently, and some people actually hear certain notes as colours.

Color is associated with music. Lighter less saturated colors are higher pitch notes. Darker colors are more low pitch sounding. Saturated colors are more triangle wave fitting.

It's not so much C3 note equals a color, but that C3 feels like a certain band of color based on what instrument it is.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Hmm. I've tried to give purple the benefit of the doubt, but it always looks like the visual equivalent of an off-key note.
There is a strong connection between colour and music apparently, and some people actually hear certain notes as colours.

As far as your avatar, blue gray and brown. Not sure what that's about. If only you added some saturated redorange so it could absolute hit rock bottom, we'd be in the territory of so bad its good.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Hmm. I've tried to give purple the benefit of the doubt, but it always looks like the visual equivalent of an off-key note.
There is a strong connection between colour and music apparently, and some people actually hear certain notes as colours.

As far as your avatar, blue gray and brown. Not sure what that's about. If only you added some saturated redorange so it could absolute hit rock bottom, we'd be in the territory of so bad its good.

I just noticed you are wearing a purple dress lol. The avatar is actually green, gold, a bit of blue and orangey. It's not very good quality.

[Arising_uk]

Not that type of conscious action. I think they meant the action of consciousness, not so much decision making on a human life-choices scale.

Physicists generally make for bad philosophers.

[Blaggard]

Well UK that is cleary not true as both Schrodinger, Einstein, Newton, Liebnitz, Keppler,and Bhor wrote several philosophical treaties and I could go on throughout history naming physicists who indulged in philosophy and the list would be endless. It would be true to say bad physicists don't indulge in the physical and philosophy of their work. It would also be true to say bad philosophers do not do anything but wax on about bad physicists"because" they have not done their homework. And there's a growing number of philosophers who wont do their homework, and think science is the enemy, because they are taught by a growing number of retards who couldn't be assed to either. Like if I may dare say you.It's very easy to hate what you don't understand but you still sound like a **** nonetheless, as vacuous and uninformed as you clear;y have been for 10 years since you gave up reason for bs. Learn how to not be a dinosaur is my advice or get fosillised in the usual trite shit you come out with because you are too lazy to know anything at all modern or real history, or anything about the subject.

I've said it before and I Will say it again you are a boring placid old dinosaur mate, and you are everything that is wrong with reason, and philosophy: you have decided in your old age to dry up and die. Lazy opinionated and living in the past. Who the hell cares, go wax lyrical in your bed while you sleep.

Here's a list of "bad" philosophers in science for your edification whilst you lie you way past reason for indolence.


Plato
Aristotle
Empedocles
Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen)
Robert Grosseteste
Roger Bacon

16th century

Sir Francis Bacon

17th century

Galileo Galilei
René Descartes
Sir Isaac Newton

18th century

George Berkeley
Immanuel Kant
David Hume

19th century

Auguste Comte
John Stuart Mill
William Whewell
George Henry Lewes
Edmund Husserl
Ernst Mach
Charles Sanders Peirce
Frederick Engels

1900–1930

Henri Poincaré
Pierre Duhem
Niels Bohr
Albert Einstein
Bertrand Russell
Frank P. Ramsey
Moritz Schlick
John Dewey
Alfred North Whitehead

1930–1960

Alfred Ayer
Hans Reichenbach
Georges Canguilhem
Kenneth Craik
Alexandre Koyré
Sir Karl Popper
Rudolf Carnap
Michael Polanyi
Otto Neurath
Carl Gustav Hempel
Paul Oppenheim
Gaston Bachelard
R. B. Braithwaite
Werner Heisenberg
Taketani Mitsuo
Stephen Toulmin


I would supply more modern philosophers who were perhaps Scientists because they indulged in science, but I fear that would be wasted on an incorrigible and lazy audience such as it is.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Hmm. I've tried to give purple the benefit of the doubt, but it always looks like the visual equivalent of an off-key note.
There is a strong connection between colour and music apparently, and some people actually hear certain notes as colours.

As far as your avatar, blue gray and brown. Not sure what that's about. If only you added some saturated redorange so it could absolute hit rock bottom, we'd be in the territory of so bad its good.

I just noticed you are wearing a purple dress lol. The avatar is actually green, gold, a bit of blue and orangey. It's not very good quality.

The dress isn't really purple, it's more like a navy blue. It just looks purple because my jacket and tights are purple. (Colors turn into the colors they are nearby, optical illusion mechanism.) Although my dress was originally purple in my original picture when I had to convert it to gif it turned more blue-ish. (hue of 172 much closer to the blue spectrum than purple. The original had a hue of 183, more purple than blue.)

[Arising_uk]

What happened to the ignore?

Well UK that is cleary not true as both Schrodinger, Einstein, Newton, Liebnitz, Keppler,and Bhor wrote several philosophical treaties ...

Which ones and about what topics? Newton and Leibniz were natural philosophers not the physicists that arose from their thoughts. Have you read Leibniz? I doubt it as you can't even be bothered to spell his name correctly. Still, I was too broad and did say in general but I do thank you as I'd not known Schrodinger's writings so have downloaded what I can and look forward to reading him.

and I could go on throughout history naming physicists who indulged in philosophy and the list would be endless. It would be true to say bad physicists don't indulge in the physical and philosophy of their work.

I was not clear, as I think it should be physicists that indulge in the philosophy of their subject but many appear to think that a pointless pursuit, what I meant was when some physicists decide to engage in philosophy outside of their field they appear to have, like you, not bothered to do their homework first.

It would also be true to say bad philosophers do not do anything but wax on about bad physicists"because" they have not done their homework. And there's a growing number of philosophers who wont do their homework, and think science is the enemy, because they are taught by a growing number of retards who couldn't be assed to either. Like if I may dare say you.

You dare wrongly, I comment pretty much not at all upon what Physics does and what the physicists do and hold both in high regard, as I do most of the sciences, as I have an MSc myself.

It's very easy to hate what you don't understand but you still sound like a **** nonetheless, as vacuous and uninformed as you clear;y have been for 10 years since you gave up reason for bs. Learn how to not be a dinosaur is my advice or get fosillised in the usual trite shit you come out with because you are too lazy to know anything at all modern or real history, or anything about the subject.

I understand science from the point of view of Philosophy, i.e. epistemologically, and spent a few years reading those scientists who were interested in the subject and in expounding upon theirs, its why I say that it is my opinion that physicists, and biologists like you, who don't bother reading what philosophy has said, make bad philosophers.

I've said it before and I Will say it again you are a boring placid old dinosaur mate, and you are everything that is wrong with reason, and philosophy: you have decided in your old age to dry up and die. Lazy opinionated and living in the past. Who the hell cares, go wax lyrical in your bed while you sleep.

See that bit about 'who cares', you apparently. Once more you are yakking to your pet-straw man. Have fun.

Here's a list of "bad" philosophers in science for your edification whilst you lie you way past reason for indolence.
Plato - read him
Aristotle - read him
Empedocles
Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen)
Robert Grosseteste
Roger Bacon

16th century

Sir Francis Bacon

17th century

Galileo Galilei
René Descartes - read him
Sir Isaac Newton - read some

18th century

George Berkeley - read him
Immanuel Kant - ditto
David Hume - ditto

19th century

Auguste Comte
John Stuart Mill - ditto
William Whewell
George Henry Lewes
Edmund Husserl - ditto
Ernst Mach - tiny bit
Charles Sanders Peirce - ditto
Frederick Engels - ditto

1900–1930

Henri Poincaré
Pierre Duhem
Niels Bohr
Albert Einstein - ditto - at least his philosophy and his little book for the layman on Relativity
Bertrand Russell - ditto
Frank P. Ramsey
Moritz Schlick
John Dewey
Alfred North Whitehead - ditto

1930–1960

Alfred Ayer - ditto
Hans Reichenbach
Georges Canguilhem
Kenneth Craik
Alexandre Koyré
Sir Karl Popper - ditto
Rudolf Carnap - some
Michael Polanyi - ditto
Otto Neurath
Carl Gustav Hempel
Paul Oppenheim
Gaston Bachelard
R. B. Braithwaite
Werner Heisenberg
Taketani Mitsuo
Stephen Toulmin

Which ones have you read?

I would supply more modern philosophers who were perhaps Scientists because they indulged in science, but I fear that would be wasted on an incorrigible and lazy audience such as it is.

Since many of the above were not scientists I think your goggling pointless. Goggle's a wonderful thing but its like travel.

[Dalek Prime]

This discussion is brought to you by Skittles; "catch the rainbow, taste the rainbow".

(Apologies. Couldn't resist.)