Originally Posted by melgross
So, instead of arguing this, why then don't you post the links. Quite frankly, these don't look like entire definitions.
Those are full definitions? The first and last don't even look like complete sentences, or definitions. The middle one is clearly not complete, as no one would ever define light as "electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength.".
It's also on the wikipedia page on light:
"Light is electromagnetic radiation, particularly radiation of a wavelength that is visible to the human eye (about 400–700 nm, or perhaps 380–750 nm). In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.
Reference 3 is:http://books.google.com/books?id=Iry...age&q=&f=false
The phenomenon of emission of electrons from a metallic surface when illuminated by "light of appropriate wavelength
or frequency is known as photoelectric effect.
Different substances emit photoelectrons when subjected to different radiations. For instance, X-rays
incident on heavy metals eject electrons from K, L shells. Certain semi-conductors like transistors respond to infrared
radiations. The alkali metals respond very well to visible and ultraviolet
But hey...what does the author of Comprehensive Physics
know about light?
Here is the definition from Dictionary.com:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/light
I'll quote the definition further down which says Physics:
b. Which you quoted, is derived from a. It doesn't include gamma rays. It doesn't include the radio spectrum. It doesn't include microwaves, and it doesn't include infrared or ultraviolet. It includes the visible spectrum from 400 to 700 nm, as I stated way back in the beginning.
So, no, what you quoted was NOT the full definition.
No...b is not derived from a. It means that light also refers to radiant energy such as ultraviolet or infrared. In fact definition a) ALSO clearly indicates that light is "Also called luminous energy, radiant energy." and the definition of radiant energy is:
1.\tenergy transmitted in wave motion, esp. electromagnetic wave motion.
2.\t light 1 (def. 2a)."
Now, should I look up the other ones as well?
Just to end this, if you really want me to, I'll grant you near infrared and near ultraviolet. Under certain limited circumstances, it MAY be considered to be light in some definitions. But not infrared and ultraviolet in their totality, as not even insects can see that far out.
Please. If the physicists refer to X-Ray light then full range of UV and IR counts.
"Swift-detected GRB080307 showed an unusual smooth rise in its X-ray light curve
around 100s after the burst, at the start of which the emission briefly softened."http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.395..328P
"Other examples of EM radiation are microwaves, infrared and ultraviolet light"http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/sc...NRAS.395..328P
"We present a unified model of near infrared, optical, and X-ray light curves for V2491 Cyg,..."
Gee...three forms of light...including x-ray.http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/abs/0902.2424
"The Advanced Light Source
(ALS), a division of Berkeley Lab, is a national user facility that generates intense light for scientific and technological research. As one of the world's brightest sources of ultraviolet and soft x-ray beams--and the world's first third-generation synchrotron light source in its energy range
--the ALS makes previously impossible studies possible."http://www.als.lbl.gov/
"The Linac Coherent Light
Source (LCLS) produces ultrafast pulses of X-rays
millions of times brighter than even the most powerful synchrotron sources — pulses powerful enough to make images of single molecules."http://lcls.slac.stanford.edu/
Gee...them physicists sure are dumb to call a linear accelerator a light source. They called them x-rays light where any damn fool knows if you can't see it, you can't call it light.
Another example where gracefully admitting you were wrong would have resulted in less embarrassment. 30 seconds of googling X-Ray and Light resulting in scads of hits from national laboratories calling their big assed accelerators and synchrotrons LIGHT SOURCES
But obviously you have a better understanding of the word "light" than physicists.