Refresh Comments
Anonymous comments allowed.
9 comments displayed.
#65
-
radtroll (08/25/2015) [-] 
That 3rd post about the physics teacher is ******** , any decent physicist know this immediately.
The picture is what is looks like, it's an art project by someone you can look it up
The picture is what is looks like, it's an art project by someone you can look it up
#66 to #65
-
jzwangpk (08/25/2015) [-] Well, if there's nothing in it, then there'd be no light source. No light source means no reflections. So it'd basically just be pitch black.
I mean, I agree that any decent physicist should know this immediately, I'm just pointing out that that picture isn't exactly accurate to the room described in the post.
I mean, I agree that any decent physicist should know this immediately, I'm just pointing out that that picture isn't exactly accurate to the room described in the post.
#70 to #69
-
jzwangpk (08/25/2015) [-] Did I really ask for it? Did I really? The ******* post says 'WITH ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN IT'. I think having a candle in there disqualifies that. Of course I'm assuming that the mirrors are joined perfectly at the sides such that no light leaks in, but again the post says 'room', not 'box', so I don't think it's too far-fetched of an assumption.
#71 to #70
-
radtroll (08/25/2015) [-] you're not really helping your situation
if you wanna be a smartass then here goes:
1- a room with nothing in it to most people means no objects. trapped light isn't an object to most people, plus that was tumble, you know what they meant.
2- a room with nothing in it does not exist, if there is an observer in it then there IS something in it, if there is no observer in it than it does not exist because it has no observer (can I get an Amen for quantum physics?)
3- a room is a big box, or a box is a small room, they are one and the same, just prospective issue.
if you wanna be a smartass then here goes:
1- a room with nothing in it to most people means no objects. trapped light isn't an object to most people, plus that was tumble, you know what they meant.
2- a room with nothing in it does not exist, if there is an observer in it then there IS something in it, if there is no observer in it than it does not exist because it has no observer (can I get an Amen for quantum physics?)
3- a room is a big box, or a box is a small room, they are one and the same, just prospective issue.
#134 to #71
-
testaburger (08/25/2015) [-] "trapped light"
You mean shining a light inside and closing the door real quick?
lol
You mean shining a light inside and closing the door real quick?
lol
#100 to #71
-
ribbedandstudded ONLINE (08/25/2015) [-] If you want to get down to it, "trapped light" would make no difference.
Mirrors reflect most of the light that hits it, not all. Light goes really fast fast enought to go around the earth 7 times in a second In a fraction of a second, that light would have been bounced around so many times that the mirror will have absorbed all of the light. Now you have a pitch black room.
Let's toy with the idea that you have 2 things: mirrors that reflect 100% of light that hits them and a light source that is 100% transparent. What would you see? also assuming that you can observe without being there, as your body would absorb ask of the light in this scenario
You would see endless reflections of the same empty space, defined only by the shape of the wall. This shape would get increasingly smaller until it gets incomprehenably small... and then it gets smaller... what it would do once it gets smaller that the photons that make the image in the first place beats the heck out of me.
Mirrors reflect most of the light that hits it, not all. Light goes really fast fast enought to go around the earth 7 times in a second In a fraction of a second, that light would have been bounced around so many times that the mirror will have absorbed all of the light. Now you have a pitch black room.
Let's toy with the idea that you have 2 things: mirrors that reflect 100% of light that hits them and a light source that is 100% transparent. What would you see? also assuming that you can observe without being there, as your body would absorb ask of the light in this scenario
You would see endless reflections of the same empty space, defined only by the shape of the wall. This shape would get increasingly smaller until it gets incomprehenably small... and then it gets smaller... what it would do once it gets smaller that the photons that make the image in the first place beats the heck out of me.
#74 to #71
-
jzwangpk (08/25/2015) [-] Bruh, you're the one being a smartass by invoking quantum and all that **** . I'm literally thinking about this as basic as it gets. A room with nothing in it is pitch black inside, no matter what it's made of. It also does exist, regardless of whether there's an observer inside it. There's a time and place for invoking 'if a tree falls in the forest' and this isn't it. That's as simple as it gets. An empty box that just happens to have mirrors for walls is still nothing more than an empty box.
If you want to get down to the nitty-gritty about **** like trapped light then you start getting into questions about how the room/box was constructed, and the post literally gives no context aside from 'a room with absolutely nothing in it'. I don't think I'm the one reading too far into it here.
If you want to get down to the nitty-gritty about **** like trapped light then you start getting into questions about how the room/box was constructed, and the post literally gives no context aside from 'a room with absolutely nothing in it'. I don't think I'm the one reading too far into it here.
