if you tickle their electrons, they may laugh in the visible spectrum
Ooooh, my kid does this, but in a more devious way. When it’s bedtime or close, he’ll ask me questions that will make me go off on a tangent.
Two days ago he turned to me when I announced it was bedtime and asked “Why did you find ‘Subnautica Below Zero’ so disappointing?” and I just couldn’t help myself. He knew.
Little punk.
And? Why did you?
For me it just left an empty feeling. It was shorter, I felt like the world was much smaller, the above sea parts were confusing and I got lost so much. I ended up missing so much good stuff because of it. I remember when the credits rolled, I just exclaimed, what the fuck?!
OKAY, LISTEN:
[ !! Spoilers for both games written in this comment !! ]
The first game has you exploring and picking up clues, all served to you through the environment and audio logs.
The world was big, scary, and lonely. No dialog other than people long dead.
When you hear a sound, it can fucking TERRIFY you, because it’s either unknown, or a rare enough creature that you don’t want to encounter it.
Environments varied from underwater volcanic fields, to coral reefs, to fluorescent jellyfish caves… incredible.
The land is scarce and somewhat eerie, with its inhabitants leaving trails of life in wake of their tragic deaths.
The ending? You find life. Someone was trapped here like you. Only it’s too late for them… you understand this creature, and the sorrow of its ending but the hope of life it leaves you makes you feel something…
Then you orchestrate your own escape, piece by piece. It’s satisfying that you are the architect of your own future. You did this. You are leaving. And yet… there’s a sadness in it, as you grew to know and love this world, the creatures, and its many environments you have become so intimately familiar with.
You leave a note. And you finally… go home.
The second game:
DOES ANYONE EVER SHUT THE FUCK UP??? Please let me make my own observations about the world!!! I do not need a voiced character doing the reacting for me!!! In the first game,I would sometimes stop and look around frantically, like “wtf? What was that? Did I just hear something? Oh no…” as the dread creeps into me. “Below Zero” doesn’t need to have the “Wow oh no what was that??” From the protagonist. I AM THE PROTAGONIST. PIPE DOWN!! Took me right out of it.
You’re spoonfed everything through the dialog unnecessarily, because I picked up most of it through the environment. Like “hey dumb dumb! Here’s a recap in case you’re too stupid to put together the pieces to understand!” Give players some credit, dear lord.
Also: That ain’t my sister! I don’t know her! I do not have the same bond with her as the protagonist! Why y’all trying to make me care??
Too much talking. Even the creatures talked too much!! The first game had creatures coming at you in a spaced out manner, making noises as they came at you… sometimes not!! You needed to pay attention!! It spooked me! In BZ? I was hearing constant spooky noises so much that I just eventually ignored them and would even yell “shut up!!” as it got so annoying. Sparse sounds kept the atmosphere tense! Constant roaring desensitized me and just got on my nerves.
And the ending… oooooh, I had no sense of accomplishment of doing anything myself. Allen does all the cool stuff??? I just did fetch quests!! And then there is no real conclusion to make any of it satisfying!!! Other than a sequel teaser!! This game felt like a really fuckin’ long teaser trailer!!!
It’s not a terrible game. But compared to the first, I was left so disappointed in the atmosphere it failed to capture from the first.
I love Subnautica. Guess that’s why I have such a passionate opinion on this. It really moved me in a way that no game ever had before or since. The devs did a great job on both games, regardless of my opinion on their direction of the second. But the first Subnautica is a game I keep revisiting. It’s so wonderful, and I’d recommend it to anyone looking to go on a journey.
No one is going to bother reading this lol I am absolutely shocked at how many people took the time to read my rant. No idea it would have so many folks agreeing with it, either. Y’all are funny.
I couldn’t even bring myself to finish BZ. Finally admitted to myself only recently that I’m not going back. Thanks for writing this up, you put it into words I could not find.
Yes and no.
Eh, I think it’s an hard clear Yes. The radiation released by an element when coming out of an excited state depends on the energy difference between N levels and it is generally consistent for that given element.
How do they get excited? You give them energy. How? One way is by shinning a light.
Is there a name for radiation of a specific frequency within the visible spectrum? Yes. A color.
All rare gas lightbulbs even have a specific color.
The only way for us to discount the emission specturm as a color is if we go philosophical about the nature of color. And that’s for literary nerds, not physics nerds, and I doubt people google the former as frequently as the latter.
True, but a childish intuition about “having a color” would most likely imply that you can see a structure of the thing (like a ball) that is colored in (which you can’t with atoms). On the other hand if you consider an atom a tiny pointsource, like a star in the sky, then it makes sense again.
Instead of comparing it to a ball with colour on it, you could compare it to a ball of colour. Which atoms are.
No, they are transparent. “Color” as would be defined by a child is a phenomenon resulting from white light having some of its spectrum absorbed by a surface, and the resulting visible light diffusely reflected and absorbed by their retinal cells. Even ignoring absorption of narrow frequency bands, individual atoms reflect far less than 1% of the light that encounters them. Color is a phenomenon that relies on the bulk effect of lots of atoms working together. In the same way, a drop of water looks transparent, but get enough of it together and it becomes shades of blue or green, and eventually almost black.
I would disagree. Elements have an emission spectrum and emit visible light when excited electrons drop to a more stable orbital. Hydrogen, for example, emits 4 wavelengths of visible light. You can see these ias bands in a Balmer Series. The atoms emit the light instead of reflecting light.
While it’s true that atoms emit light in specific wavelengths when excited electrons drop energy levels, this isn’t the phenomenon most children would associate with something “having a color”. If you shine a white light at a yellow piece of paper, the paper would appear yellow and be described as yellow. If you shine a green light at yellow paper, it appears green, but most children would still say the paper is “yellow paper” that just looks green because of the light.
Similarly, if you ask what the natural color of a TV screen is, I think most people would say “black” even though depending on the state of the components inside it can produce different colors.
By extension, hydrogen atoms’ color would be naturally black, but if you energize it properly it can emit reddish light. That still doesn’t mean the atoms themselves have a reddish color.
(Not the same person)
I disagree, but I appreciate the reasoning behind your opinion.
If a lot of water molecules look blue, then what, if not the water molecules, have that color? Just because it’s faint doesn’t make it colorless. (Water is molecules, but the same applies to atoms)
Edit: also I would definitely call a low pressure sodium lamp orange, even if it requires electricity to run it.
This comic put me down a rabbit hole of quantum field theory that I was not ready for at midnight last night