Political leaders need to have a word with science forums.

Ok, I see what you're saying (the pun was intended by the way), but you're arbitrarily defining light as something different from what most other people define it as. Most people define light as one or more photons in a narrower band of the of entire EM spectrum. It sounds like you're defining light as a photon (or something else) that has been detected or measured. Like as in if there is no substance then there's nothing to detect it and thus it isn't really light?

 

You were banned for making no sense. And you're on a roll.

 

What is the source of the slides and your claim? What is the science that supports the claim? Also what is ERM? Why do you claim that visible light does not exist without substance rather than saying that light is invisible previous to colliding with something of substance?

 

How do you explain the results of the double slit experiment as it proves that light exists as a wave of probability previous to observation? In the double slit experiment, two probability waves interfere with each other previous to hitting the wall where the interference patters becomes observable. How can this be if light does not exist previous to hitting the wall? If light does not exist previous to observation then there would be nothing for the light to interfere with ergo there would be no interference pattern. How do you reconcile this discrepancy?

 

I would say that our current laws of physics are an indeterminate number pieces of a much larger puzzle and that we are likely very far away from completing the puzzle and likely never will as questions lead to answers which lead to new questions... phew, run-on sentence, sorry about that.

I do not entirely understand the argument if the OP, but I think the OP is arguing that in the absence of matter light does not exist. I would say that in the absence of observation light exists everywhere possible yet in no single place at all. Confusing as hell, but that is science.

 

Red flag right there as vision is not a matter of intellect. Your bias is showing.

Simple to you does not = simple to others. You will not win people over by insulting their intelligence. Insulting ones intelligence is an ad hominem attack and perhaps a reason you were banned in other forums and perhaps this forum if your ad hominem attacks continue.

Many claims but no source citation. Do you have source citation for your claims?

 

I think what the OP is saying is that a photon is not light until it interacts with matter. I don't think (s)he is necessarily claiming that a photon doesn't exist. Though, that implication was mentioned tangentially so I don't know. Anyway, in other words, I interpreted the OP's argument as one of disagreeing with the definition of light than of actually disagreeing with the physics of it. But, I could be wrong.

 

A good question as we know the speed of light and that light passes through space in a wave of probability as per the double slit experiment. If light does not exsist in space then how can one account for the speed of light as it would have to go from point A to point B instantaneously ergo with zero elapse in time which there is no evidence of.

 

Quite clearly you have more intellect than some of the other members posting in this thread, apologies for my earlier comment. You quite clearly understand me and your description is quite accurate. Visible light is the wave length 400nm-700nm, we as humans can not observe light other than this.
You have understood , light is not really light unless it is detected.
I do not agree or disagree about Photons at this time although I have suggested I am swayed for disbelief, but only because it is subjective, I await further proof in time of Photons.

 

You know the speed of light? or you know the speed of EMR?

 

How would you expect a person to provide a citation that does not exist because the information being provided is new and as never been wrote before?

 

The double slit experiment is observer effect, the angled slit interfering with the natural nature of light, in other words the effect observed is being made by the observers experiment.

 

I know what scientists claim that the speed of light is in a vacuum which is 299 792 458 m / s according to Google

Define EMR. The top hit on Google is Emergency Medical Responder.

 

Electro-magnetic radiation, scientists know the speed of this, there is nothing that shows EMR to be light if it is not detected.

 

So far you posted two slides of an unknown source and made claims based upon the slides and insulted another member who saw black, just like I. You are going to need more evidence or a better demonstration of the evidence if you are going to sway me.

 

Ok, I have no problem providing more in aim of proving this. It depends on what you would define as evidence, would you accept axioms to be evidence?

For example : It is not light in space but it is not dark either.

Do you accept that example to be true?

 

The experiment does not create the effect, it demonstrates the effect in an observable way as that is what experiments do. What experiment do you have that proves your theory to be correct?

 

The double slit experiment proves that light exists in all possible places yet no single place previous to observation. Do you reject the conclusions based upon the double slit experiment? If so why, and what evidence do you have to refute the conclusions based upon the experiment?

 

The effect does not exist without the experiment, I am sorry but of course the experiment creates the effect.

I have observable experiments and thought experiments that show I might be correct. It would be presumption of me to say I was correct without agreement from other people in the discussion.

My first piece of evidence I would offer is the night sky and between the distant stars. We observe relatively darkness when according to present information it is light, but it is neither , the space is clear in appearance.

 

There is no light between emitter and detector, the only light observed in the slit experiment is the ''shadows'' on the wall. ''Shadows'' on the wall that would not be there without the observer affecting it.

 

Evidence: plain or obvious; clearly seen or understood. - Google

Do I accept axioms? Sure, if you can prove that the wave function does not exist and provide experiments that back your conclusions. But if you are going to argue an axiom based upon anecdotal evidence, then no, I will not accept that as there has to be a scientific anchor else anything can be claimed to be true.

Wave function explains this.

Yes.

 

Ok, your agreement that my example was true is the only real agreement I need, the rest is just a continuation of that explaining visible wave-lengths do not exist without EMR and ''substance'' interaction.


I can also prove we observe visible light in its exact geometrical relative position by simply measuring where the substance is.

Do you agree: The only visible light you see is that of the substance in the location of the substance?

 

What does it matter if the experiment creates the effect, demonstrates the effect, or does both? To me it is a matter of perspective that objectively does not change the conclusion.

Thought experiment is metaphysics so I am not interested in those if you are arguing fact. If you have observable evidence that proves your claim then I would be interested in seeing it.

Explained by wave function.

 

What do you mean by "shadows" on the wall? Are you referring to the dark areas between the bright areas where the highs and lows of the wave cancel each other out?

Which does not refute the wave function previous to observation.

 

Objectively the experiment is the cause and affect. An angled slit that is going to cause the ''EMR'' to congest by ''bottle necking'' causing the ''EMR'' to ''spit'' out the other side . To me it is bit like chipping a piece of something, the piece only existing because it has become isolated.

You have just ignored the relative observation and did not think to much about your first yes. Wave function does not explain why space is clear in appearance.