Shocking Theory: Light Bulbs Suck Dark In

  • Thread starter Thread starter BosonJaw
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light Theory
AI Thread Summary
A new theory suggesting that light sources, such as light bulbs, "suck in" darkness has emerged, challenging traditional beliefs about light. This concept, referred to humorously as "dark suckers," has sparked skepticism among forum members, with many dismissing it as a joke. The original article lacks credible sources, leading to confusion about its legitimacy and origin, particularly regarding claims of support from Bell Laboratories. Participants in the discussion emphasize the importance of citing sources to clarify the nature of such theories. Overall, the consensus is that the "dark suckers" theory is not taken seriously within the scientific community.
BosonJaw
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Without taking up too much time, I came across this ridiculous article (only pasted the first 2 paragraphs) which supposedly was discovered out of Bell laboratories. What is this nonsense??

"A few leading scientists have come up with a new theory that is sending shock waves through the world of physics. Ever since Benjamin Franklin -- and maybe before -- people have believed that light emitted outward and replaced the emptiness we call darkness. Today this old theory is in question.

According to some researchers the sources of light -- the sun, candles, light bulbs -- actually suck dark in. In enlightened circles light bulbs are more accurately called dark suckers. Behind this scientific breakthrough lie some shocking facts."
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the forum policies here are conflicting: should you have cited your source (so we can tell you whether it's humour, say), or are you prohibited from doing so?
 
Boson, in the future, do include a link to the source.

In any case, the theory of "dark suckers" is a joke, and a pretty funny one at that!

See, for instance, post #7: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=4463

Also see: http://home.netcom.com/~rogermw/darksucker.html
 
oh, sorry guys. It was a "heard it through the grape vine deal". I also heard it was backed by Bell labs, however I couldn't find anything official upon my search attempt, just the occasional physics enthusiasts "dark suckers" reiteration page. Out of respect for everyone here I did not want to waste your time. Sorry and thanks!
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?
Back
Top