What is Light?

[surfingbudda]

[Green Tiger]

It seems that I recently read/heard somewhere that all matter is condensed light. I'll have to double check to see if I can find the reference. Anyway, I appreciate the curiosity on light. Light is a funny thing.

 

Light is a particle AND a wave. Does that mean it can surf on itself?

[Vmarco]

[Vmarco]

[RiverSnake]

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6g-Vh4vcD0

Edited August 5, 2011 by OldGreen

[Todd]

[surfingbudda]

 

 

There is much misinformation in that opening post,...for example, it is misinformation that mass becomes infinite,...mass cancels itself out, that is, wholly dissolves. Neither mass nor energy can enter Undivided Light.

 

I'm sorry, I checked and actually it is relativistic mass that increases to infinity as someone reaches the speed of Light My link. Thanks for pointing out the correction . I have never heard though of mass canceling itself out, I would be interested in seeing where you found that.

[Vmarco]

Edited August 6, 2011 by Vmarco

[templetao]

No one ever really sees the light for what it is. What you see is the lights reaction to atmosphere and so on that causes the phenomenon that we call light.

 

but we never actually see what actually causes the light(the energy behind it).

 

the chain reaction(processing speed) that causes light is faster (than the ripple) speed of light.

 

So what is light?

 

It is that which makes you see.

 

You will reach a point in your cultivation to where you understand that energy is really just information.

Edited August 6, 2011 by templetao

[Vmarco]

Thanks for this. I enjoyed it, except for the last half of the last paragraph, since I do not choose to view Christianity only negatively, despite a lack of strong investment in it.

 

One of my favorite sayings is actually attributed to Jesus: "The birds have their nests in the trees, and the foxes have their holes in the ground, but the Son of Man has nowhere to rest his head."

 

My doorway has also been through the dark. I hear some Sufis call it the "dazzling darkness".

 

Others seem to approach things more through light, though I feel that they too must eventually pass through dark, just as we cannot avoid the manifestations of light forever.

 

As someone with credentials in Early Christian scholarship, and who has taken the Bodhisattva vow, I mostly agree with Thomas Jefferson, who said, "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology....The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

 

I fully agree that threshold to Enlightenment, that is, the direct realization of Undivided Light, comes by way of, and only by way of, the Dark polarity of Divided Light. Within this Dazzling Darkness is bodhi, the female noun for wisdom. The more you understand light, the more of what I said will be recognized.

 

If we want to experience the "Now", the journey, repeated over and over by the Enlightened, is to uncover Clear, Undivided Light.

 

V

[Vmarco]

No one ever really sees the light for what it is. What you see is the lights reaction to atmosphere and so on that causes the phenomenon that we call light.

 

but we never actually see what actually causes the light(the energy behind it).

 

the chain reaction(processing speed) that causes light is faster (than the ripple) speed of light.

 

So what is light?

 

It is that which makes you see.

 

You will reach a point in your cultivation to where you understand that energy is really just information.

 

The senses, or anything that arises from mass, cannot see stillness, it can only perceive motion. Both incandescent (yang)and radiative (yin)light have motion,...and that motion never ceases, except,...if they become balanced, in which case, they cancel each other out. The senses cannot see Undivided Light.

 

So,...we really need a better vocabulary so to distinguish the difference between the divided light of the electrodynamic spectrum,...and Undivided Light, which travels no distance in no time, and thus has no need for speed.

 

I look forward to dialoguing with those who take this subject both seriously and openly.

 

V

[lienshan]

Niels Bohr, a dane like I, said:

 

"That light is either particles or waves depending on the method used to define light"

 

This corresponds to the definition of darkness in the ancient chinese Shuo Wen dictionary:

 

"Darkness is black and red"

 

Niels Bohr was knighted; his coat of arms hanging in the church of the castle Frederiksborg:

 

Edited August 6, 2011 by lienshan

[zerostao]

until someone becomes a highly evolved taoist or buddhist

this may be a good starting point

Electromagnetic Radiation Quantum Theory 63:35

Intro 0:00

Waves and Their Characteristics 0:32

Amplitude, Trough, Crest 1:01

Wavelength 1:40

Frequency 2:11

Velocity (Speed of Light) 2:58

Electromagnetic Radiation 5:10

Gamma Rays and X-Rays 5:43

Visible Light 6:19

Infrared 6:54

Radio Waves 7:16

Spectra and Spectroscopy 7:58

Hydrogen Atom Spectrum 10:13

Emission Spectrum vs Absorption Spectrum 14:13

Rydberg Formula 14:51

Planck's Quantum Theory 16:55

Black Body Radiation and Quanta 17:30

Photoelectric Effect 23:29

Bohr's Theory of the Hydrogen Atom 28:20

Ground State 29:17

Excited State 29:26

Heisenberg and the Uncertainty Principle 34:48

De Broglie and the Wave Nature of Particles 40:07

Principle Quantum Number 44:05

First Quantum Number 45:46

m1 Quantum Number 51:00

Spin Quantum Number 54:28

Pauli Principle 54:58

Additional Example 1 5:30

VII. Periodic Table and Bonding

http://www.educator.com/chemistry/goldwhite/

http://www.thulasidas.com/2008-05/perception-physics-and-the-role-of-light-in-philosophy.htm

[i_am_sam]

http://mondovista.com/dnax.html

[lienshan]

[Vmarco]

Niels Bohr, a dane like I, said:

 

"That light is either particles or waves depending on the method used to define light"

 

 

That is relatively true, but very misleading. The statement should read: "That light is either particles or waves depending on the method used to define Divided, Electrodynamic light"

 

Electrocdynamic or divided light is either a (crystallized, slowed down) solid/yang; or high frequency torus/yin.

 

Light itself, that is, Undivided Light, not the projected simulation of the electrodynamic field, is Wu (Still), that is, without time, energy or mass.

 

V

[Vmarco]

[Vmarco]

 

OldGreen

 

 

right where it belongs

See the animal in his cage that you built

Are you sure what side you're on?

Better not look him too closely in the eye

Are you sure what side of the glass you are on?

 

See the safety of the life you have built

Everything where it belongs

Feel the hollowness inside of your heart

And it's all right where it belongs

 

What if everything around you

Isn't quite as it seems

What if all the world you think know

Is an elaborate dream?

 

And if you look at your reflection

Is that all you want it to be?

What if you could look right through the cracks

would you find yourself - find yourself afraid to see?

 

What if all the world's inside of your head

Just creations of your own?

Your devils and your gods all the living and the dead

And you're really all alone?

 

You can live in this illusion

You can choose to believe

You keep looking but you can't find the woods

While you're hiding in the trees

Edited August 6, 2011 by Vmarco

[lienshan]

No, that is a HUGE mistake,..."humans" cannot observe Undivided Light,...the six senses can only sense movement.

 

Second, and why evolved taoist's and buddhist's can grasp the True Nature of Light more correctly

Do you mean, that "evolved taoist's and buddhist's" are not "humans"?

 

Why do you ask "What is Light?", when evolved you know the answer?

[Vmarco]

Do you mean, that "evolved taoist's and buddhist's" are not "humans"?

 

Why do you ask "What is Light?", when evolved you know the answer?

 

My comment regarding Daoists and Buddhists being better able to understand the nature of light was pretty much explained in post #8. The better question would be, why do you ask the question you do, when you already know the answer to your "out take" of the full post in question.

 

Did you open the thread, and like a Christian blindly pointing to a particular scripture, just read that? Are you simply being nit-picky because you didn't understand the full #8 post? Or is there some other reason that compelled you to bring up what you did?

 

To me, as I'd imagine most who read post #8 could comprehend, that an evolved Daoist or Buddhist has shred a significant amount of beliefs, to allow them to understand light in a non-object-ive, non-subect-ive way.

 

V

[templetao]

Interesting what would you say is the nature of light?

Edited August 6, 2011 by templetao

[Vmarco]

Interesting what would you say is the nature of light?

 

 

First, this seems to be an open question for anyone.

 

Second, not sure what the question is asking.

a) "what would you say is the nature of light?"

b "interesting,...what would you say is the nature of light?"

c) something else

 

I'll take the question "what is the nature of light"

 

The word nature implies the light of the electrodynamic field, as there is no energy or mass beyond the nature of things. Thus, the nature of light is divided. As far as from what does this nature of light arise,...that is the subject of Undivided Light.

 

Although I'm quite capable of discussing both Divided Light and Undivided Light,...the length of effort to begin from the baby-steps is prohibitive for me (besides being no fun at all),...thus I suggested the on-line book 'Secret of Light' as a primer. Although, as I have mentioned, the book is permeated with religio-sciential imaginings, it does give a good foundation for understanding Divided and Undivided Light,...moreso in the second half.

 

However, the book as a whole, could very well precipitate a quantum leap in understanding for any Daoist interested in the cyclical nature of duality.

 

V

Edited August 6, 2011 by Vmarco

[lienshan]

That is relatively true, but very misleading. The statement should read:

"That light is either particles or waves depending on the method used to define Divided, Electrodynamic light"

 

Electrocdynamic or divided light is either a (crystallized, slowed down) solid/yang; or high frequency torus/yin.

 

Light itself, that is, Undivided Light, not the projected simulation of the electrodynamic field, is Wu (Still), that is,

without time, energy or mass.

Every bird sings its song and the sound of summary my postings:

 

Lightparticles are 2 from one point of view according to Niels Bohr

A lightwave is a pair from another point of view according to Niels Bohr

 

Light itself, undivided light, is without time, energy or mass according to Vmarco

Light itself, undivided light, is thus the choice particle or wave?

 

Light is the choice!

 

...thus I suggested the on-line book 'Secret of Light' as a primer.

I suggest 'Tao Te Ching' chapter One as a primer:

 

These 2 have same appearance and same meaning of different names

This pair has same appearance and same meaning of different names

 

Both translations preceeding the 'mystery sequence of chapter One' are legal,

because the character 'liang' has two meanings:

 

A pair

2 (the number 2 written to prevent fraud in official documents,

because 2 normally written II is easily changed to I (1) or III (3)

 

PS. That the light = a choice was not obvious to me before this thread!

[Vmarco]

Every bird sings its song and the sound of summary my postings:

 

I suggest 'Tao Te Ching' chapter One as a primer:

 

 

 

Tao Te Ching....Chapter One...the Light verson

 

The Light that can be told is not the essential Light

The name that can be named is not the essential name

The essential name is Undivided Light.

 

The Undivided Light is the source of existence

Naming is the origin of all things and distinctions

The source is not its origination.

 

If you have no desires, you will see the mystery

If you have desires, you will see the manifestation.

For to see beyond desire, is to see beyond the skandhas.

 

Divided Light come from the same source, but they have different names

This is difficult to see

But Form is Empty, and Empty is Form.

 

Darkness within darkness

The gateway to all mystery

Through the Empty cycle of Form, wisdom is gnown.

 

V

[lienshan]

My thoughts are related to this passage of Zhuangzi chapter 33 (translation Nina Correa):

 

Shen Tao said, "... A lump of earth doesn't lose Dao."

The powerful and talented scholars would get together and laugh at him, saying:

"The Dao of Shen Dao goes contrary to the behavior of a living person

and is more suited for the conduct of a dead person."

 

Light is only a choice to a human being, not to a lump of earth.

That's the core of Laozi's teachings in my present reading of his book.

 

But how is a "human being" defined?

 

2 legs or a pair of legs? A pair of two legs is double-wording and thus unnamable!

 

His solution was to use not a name (a noun) but a title (a not-noun): walking (dao)

 

Defining "light" and in chapter One "dark" is the same story, I presume?