What is the speed of dark?
My husband found this question in his fortune cookie tonight. Neither one of us knew how to answer it. And we certainly didn't know how it related to fortune. So, I thought it might be interesting to throw it out here and see others had to say.
Some of the best answers are at http://www.freakface.com/speedofdark/
Dark, by definition, is the absence of light. So I suppose the logical answer would be zero. But there is nothing that stands still. You are traveling at least 100,000 miles per hour through space as you read this.
The Earth is turning at 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, and hurling around the Sun which is hurling around the Milky Way which is hurling around the super cluster of it's local system of galaxies which is also moving through space. Nothing ever sits still and, if it did, reality would grind to an instant halt.
This sounds almost like a sort of modern koan. Koans are zen riddles which are meant to confer a cessation of the usual rational thought processes upon the person who properly meditates on them. An example of an classic koan is "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
Maybe its exactly the same speed. We know radio waves are, and we can't see them.
If the visual universe is expanding, why not the invisible one. Our view on total reality of WHAT IS is so miniscule as to be off the page with a trillion zeros in front of it. Ultra violet to infra red and that bit in the middle called White Light is only a fraction of a fraction of the whole.
It's a good quesiton, though.
I think that darkness is the natural state without light, likened to a void, it is nothing, like a blank sheet of paper before you write on it. I don't think it has a speed.
The speed of darkness is one divided by the speed of light. (Ha! I a have become a scientist!)
Fantasic Q! The dual nature of light of wave/particle means that a light wave emenating from outer-space 'collapses' into a particle when observed in our eyes. Darkness is lightness un-observed?
"What is the sound of one hand clapping?" = that's easy! A slap across the face! (backhanded?)
My question: IIf excactly 100 light waves left a light bulb into a room - how come the light does not get dimmer with the more observers are in the room?
How come a light bulb doesn't get dimmer when there is a 100 eyes receiving the particle impact as opposed to just one eye?
From: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-Is-Q … 0009.shtml
"Niels Bohr argued that the collapse was caused by the act of observation itself and proposed that in quantum mechanics there is no longer a distinction between the thing observed and the observer. This is probably one of the most unfortunate ideas ever put forward in physics and many are still entangled in it. They wonder for example what exactly causes this supposed collapse of the wave: is it the consciousness of the observer or the contact to any "macroscopic object" (whatever that means)? Ideas such as the Schr?dinger cat were invented to emphasize the paradoxical consequences of Niels Bohr idea."
Hm... If darkness is the absence of light, that means the speed of dark is how quickly light becomes absent. So basically, it means that the speed of dark should be equal to the speed of light. Am I right? Ha ha
Darkness moves at the tail end of a light that has gone off.
Therefore, I can say that it moves at the speed of light.
i think darkness has the same speed as light. imagine switching off the lights in a room at night, darkness envelops the room at the same same speed it would take for the room to light up when you turn on the lights. that just my opinion anyway.
That is an old George Carlin joke. "I know the speed of light, but does anyone know the speed of dark?" He doesn't ponder the question, or look to physics for an answer, he just frowns and looks at the audience while they laugh.
The simple answer is we can't measure things that are incomprehensible and dark light is beyond our ability to comprehend at this time.
My initial response was that dark had no speed: It is a state of being, in the absence of light.
Upon reading the comments, I decided to agree with those that said it was equal to the speed of light.
Either one is ok by me. Fun question!
It's a good question and I'd like to answer it in a humurous but at least from a scientific point of view.
Darkness is the absence of light. If the speed of darkness has to be meassured, then it would have to be in regard to the blinking "on and off" of light. This, I believe, gives a view that at the moment of "light-off", darkeness is present.
But darkness itself does not travel. It merely presents itself when light is absent.
There is no speed of dark. Dark is merely an absence of light. Some people could supposedly say it is equal to the speed of the receding light, but darkness occurs after the light is already gone. Darkness is more of a state of being then an actual substance that has speed.
by jomine 8 years ago
Suppose a light ray travelling near a black hole, which has so much gravity that the escape velocity is twice the speed of light, got caught in its gravitational field. Will the light travel at the speed of light or travel at double the speed of light?Similarly what happen to other objects...
by quicksand 9 years ago
Were Protons Accelerated To Reach The Speed Of Light In The Large Hadron Collider?A particle accelerated to reach the speed of light will begin to reduce in size when nearing the speed of light. According to this theory, at 90% the speed of light, the length of the particle in its direction of...
by swedal 10 years ago
Ever wonder what the speed of lightning would be if it didn’t zigzag?
by Mikel G Roberts 7 years ago
Does light have a terminal velocity? Is lights terminal velocity "the speed of light"?If we held a race between two beams of light, one beam being on a moving object and one from a stationary object, would the beam of light from the moving object arrive first at the finish line?
by ahmed.b 9 years ago
If you're in a car which is on the speed of light, what happens when you turn on the headlights?
by Emile R 8 years ago
I've put this into the philosophy forum because I'm interested in what those who ponder the meaning of the cosmos would consider the ramifications of the answer to be.We talk of the Space-Time Continuum. We know the following:Cosmologists tell us it would be impossible to go back in time because...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|