Timeline for How do we see? Where do the photons disappear?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 13, 2016 at 23:45 | history | edited | JDługosz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
love em-dashs
|
| Aug 29, 2015 at 7:34 | comment | added | Russell McMahon | @JDługosz Hmm - it won't allow me to +1 your comment - sorry. My understanding, based on Feynman's comment and much other, is that QM demands that it not make sense in the Copenhaghen interpretation. In the many-worlds interpretation it can make sense except that the interpretation violates all sense of sensibility. (Which is not to say that it is necessarily invalid). ie when we start to think that QM is just a convenient way of looking at things which are understandable with enough effort I think the key point has been lost - Our reality is founded on a phantasm. | |
| Aug 29, 2015 at 7:29 | comment | added | Russell McMahon | @JDługosz +1 for taking the effort to follow up such a (nowadays) obscute utterance. Dictionaries are largely mealy-mouthed on useful definitions but an excellent treatment is give here in .... Epistemic expressions in 16th and 17th Century English - it may be well enough rendered in the current vernacular as "IMHO" :-). | |
| Aug 28, 2015 at 14:56 | comment | added | JDługosz | @RussellMcMahon I looked up "wot" and got world of tanks and "web of trust* neither of which scans here. So, what? | |
| Aug 28, 2015 at 12:22 | comment | added | Russell McMahon | @JDługosz [I wot that] QM is essentially logical gobbledygook, which just happens to work superbly. Thinking it "makes sense" is exceeding-dangerous, at best. You may not believe Feynman, but, if so, you may wish to consider why you don't. (It may actually have been Bohr who originated that ("Hvis man kan sætte sig ind i kvantemekanik uden at blive svimmel, har man ikke forstået noget af det")). Either way, it's turtles all the way down. | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 11:23 | comment | added | JDługosz | Quantum Field Theory is the reigning king. Any time you quantize a continuous field, particles show up in the math. That includes quasiparticles such as quantized electron density waves and quantized crystal lattice vibrations. With larger scale phenomena it's clearly an artifact of the rules, not a lump that exists independantly of the choior singing it. There are also non-particle field disturbances to consider. Cutting through the obfuscation that makes it mysterious is no more dangerous than insisting that it remain mysterious. | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 8:54 | comment | added | Russell McMahon | re " ... The particle-ness in this case is just part of the rules that state ..." and related intimations -> "All models arew rong, some models are useful". -> I'd feel more comfortable with something like "can be modelled as..." or "can be though of as like ..."-> turning wave particle duality into "just a metaphor" is dangerous, I think. | |
| S Aug 26, 2015 at 3:04 | history | edited | Kyle Kanos | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor spelling fixes
|
| Aug 26, 2015 at 2:48 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 26, 2015 at 3:04 | |||||
| Aug 25, 2015 at 10:38 | history | edited | JDługosz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1752 characters in body
|
| Aug 25, 2015 at 7:05 | comment | added | Neil Slater | Despite very good answers regarding systems in the eye, I feel this is closest start to the answer that OP is really looking for. The question is not asking "where does the energy go", but "where does the photon go". | |
| Aug 25, 2015 at 4:13 | history | edited | user36790 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Aug 24, 2015 at 22:26 | history | answered | JDługosz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |