What is the Nature of Darkness?

[MindOverMatter2]

We have all heard about particles of light. Is it possible that darkness is not simply a “privation” of light, but is in fact a substantial nature in and of itself?

Does it make sense to think of darkness as positively physical as opposed to simply being the absence of light - a negation? Or am I way of base?

It seems to me that darkness began to exist with the universe.

 

[johnnyjones]

We have all heard about particles of light. Is it possible that darkness is not simply a “privation” of light, but is in fact a substantial nature in and of itself?

Does it make sense to think of darkness as positively physical as opposed to simply being the absence of light - a negation? Or am I way of base?

It seems to me that darkness began to exist with the universe.

I think your right. In the vernacular we often make references to light penetrating darkness (particles of light). I think the impact on out sensory system of light breaking through darkness is more of a mental triumph than the opposite.

That’s not to say immediate darkness doesn’t impact us the same but it is not desired, so therefor light becomes the greater in the physical sense than darkness. Darkness smothers light, but it usually takes an abundance of blackness to shut out light where as even a flicker of light destroys darkness. The seeming tangibility of darkness then becomes less. In Genesis the earth was void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Darkness existed as an actual thing of consistency, so I see your point.

 

[Carolus_Martell]

I think you’re on to something with that …‘darkness is the absence of light…’ theory. We’ve all heard some science on the components of light; photons, the speed of light, it can curve etc. Can’t recall anything on the absence of light that we call “darkness”.

Huh, I guess you would think there would be more too it.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

We have all heard about particles of light. Is it possible that darkness is not simply a “privation” of light, but is in fact a substantial nature in and of itself?

Does it make sense to think of darkness as positively physical as opposed to simply being the absence of light - a negation? Or am I way of base?

It seems to me that darkness began to exist with the universe.

Darkness is the state of a system when the number of photons in the system is below some threshold value. The threshold value can vary, for example to explain how a room may seem dark after coming in from bright sunlight.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Darkness is the state of a system when the number of photons in the system is below some threshold value. The threshold value can vary, one example is how a room may seem dark after coming in from bright sunlight.

This merely tells me the conditions that must take place in order for a room to be dark. It does not tell me what the nature of darkness is.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

This merely tells me the conditions that must take place in order for a room to be dark. It does not tell me what the nature of darkness is.

Darkness is a space with a low number of photons. That is its definition. You seem to be asking about subjective implications of darkness.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Darkness is a space with a low number of photons. That is its definition. You seem to be asking about subjective implications of darkness.

Oooooh. Of coarse, a space that has no photons is dark. But why is space dark in the absence of photons?

Yes I know that a low number of photons is the “physical condition” that allows a room to be dark. But why is darkness present in the absence of photons. Why does that thing exist?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Oooooh. Of coarse, a space that has no photons is dark. But why is space dark in the absence of photons?

Yes I know that a low number of photons is the “physical condition” that allows a room to be dark. But why is darkness present in the absence of photons. Why does that thing exist?

“Darkness” doesn’t exist on its own; it is how we perceive a space that is dark. It is subjective.

 

[inocente]

We have all heard about particles of light. Is it possible that darkness is not simply a “privation” of light, but is in fact a substantial nature in and of itself?

Does it make sense to think of darkness as positively physical as opposed to simply being the absence of light - a negation? Or am I way of base?

Way off base. According to Jesus, darkness is simply the absence of light: Anyone who walks in the daytime will not stumble, for they see by this world’s light. It is when a person walks at night that they stumble, for they have no light. - John 11:9-10

So a shadow is not where the dark gets together to party. And on a dark and stormy night, put your dog on a lead and it will get you to -]the bar/-] church, darkness doesn’t seem to exist for dogs.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Way off base. According to Jesus, darkness is simply the absence of light: Anyone who walks in the daytime will not stumble, for they see by this world’s light. It is when a person walks at night that they stumble, for they have no light. - John 11:9-10

So a shadow is not where the dark gets together to party. And on a dark and stormy night, put your dog on a lead and it will get you to -]the bar/-] church, darkness doesn’t seem to exist for dogs.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Way off base. According to Jesus, darkness is simply the absence of light: Anyone who walks in the daytime will not stumble, for they see by this world’s light. It is when a person walks at night that they stumble, for they have no light. - John 11:9-10

Then what is the nature of light?

 

[empther]

TrueCentrist wrote

Darkness" doesn’t exist on its own; it is how we perceive a space that is dark. It is subjective.

When somebody from the A-team is the only one who gets it right,

it’s time to hit the panic button.

 

[inocente]

Then what is the nature of light?

I’m not a scientist so correct me - a transverse wave made up of carriers of the electromagnetic force called photons, which travels at a constant speed in a vacuum. We perceive waves in a narrow frequency band as a spectrum of colors, and when we perceive little or none in that visible range we say it’s dark. Yea!

Although I think Jesus was talking about not fearing death, an argument which in modern language would be “your time isn’t up until the fat lady sings and the bullet has your name on it”.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

Oooooh. Of coarse, a space that has no photons is dark. But why is space dark in the absence of photons?

For pretty much the same reason a room is quiet in the absense of sound. It’s also the same reason an object without phonons in its interior is cold.

Yes I know that a low number of photons is the “physical condition” that allows a room to be dark. But why is darkness present in the absence of photons. Why does that thing exist?

Does it exist, or are you engaging in a reification?

I’m not a scientist so correct me - a transverse wave made up of carriers of the electromagnetic force called photons, which travels at a constant speed in a vacuum. We perceive waves in a narrow frequency band as a spectrum of colors, and when we perceive little or none in that visible range we say it’s dark. Yea!

No need for correction, I think you’ve pretty much answered the question posed at the beginning of the thread.

Pretty much the same situation pertains with respect to waves of compression and rarefaction in the air (sound) and quantized vibrations (phonons) in solids and liquids.

Photons are to darkness as waves of compression and rarefaction are to silence in the air around us.

Photons are to darkness as phonons are to cold (and to sound) in solids and liquids.

Just my :twocents:

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

We have all heard about particles of light. Is it possible that darkness is not simply a “privation” of light, but is in fact a substantial nature in and of itself?

Does it make sense to think of darkness as positively physical as opposed to simply being the absence of light - a negation? Or am I way of base?

It seems to me that darkness began to exist with the universe.

Please tell me that you are merely joking?

Darkness is a vague description of the lack of sufficient photons oscillating in the frequency band we call ‘optical.’ There is no physical nature to darkness. If there were a quanta of darkness (an anti-photon, if you will), it’d have been found long ago.

And I would state quite the opposite of your last statement: the big bang was an enormous explosion of protons and photons. It would have been terribly bright, not terribly dark.

 

[Gidras05]

If you’re talking about the opposite of the transmission and absorption of light? Then yes, science currently holds a certain truth to the theory of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Dark Matter is matter that does not emit nor absorb light, and it is believed that a major portion of our known universe is made up of this.

Dark Energy is the theoretical energy that has accelerated the expansion of our known Universe, contradicting the theory before it that the expansion of the universe was slowing down (indicating a possible bouncing universe theory).

If you’re talking about the philosophical Darkness? I think that would refer to anything that is not of God or his will.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

If you’re talking about the opposite of the transmission and absorption of light? Then yes, science currently holds a certain truth to the theory of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Dark Matter is matter that does not emit nor absorb light, and it is believed that a major portion of our known universe is made up of this.

Dark Energy is the theoretical energy that has accelerated the expansion of our known Universe, contradicting the theory before it that the expansion of the universe was slowing down (indicating a possible bouncing universe theory).

If you’re talking about the philosophical Darkness? I think that would refer to anything that is not of God or his will.

MindOverMatter is not asking about mainstream cosmological theory, but if there is a quanta of darkness.

You also ought to be careful about making claims like “it is believed that a major portion of our known universe is made up of this.” First off, it’s not quite true; dark energy is the major portion with dark matter having an estimated value of about a third of that of the dark energy. Secondly, it’s also slightly erroneous; dark matter & dark energy make up about 96% of the mass-energy ‘budget’ of the universe with the remaining 4% made of up the baryonic matter we can see.