|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:51:41 GMT
<NbBlh.332962$1i1.31901@attbi_s72>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
>> <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:31:11 GMT
>> <Pfylh.193754$bz5.47775@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:ksfi64-kue.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> | In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
>>> | <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> | wrote
>>> | on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:28:03 GMT
>>> | <7Avlh.191791$bz5.43332@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> | >
>>> | > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:1167486944.076621.265240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Sorcerer wrote:
>>> | > |
>>> | > |
>>> | > |
>>> | > |
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Der_alte_Hexenmeister
>>> | > |
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Der_alte_Hexenmeister&oldid=59354775
>>> | > |
>>> | >
>>> | > No I didn't write that, Dennis, you did, you fuckin' liar.
>>> | > I stand by what I said in wackypedia, though.
>>> | >
>>> | > I've never seen an electron, have you?
>>> | >
>>> |
>>> | No one can.
>>>
>>>
>>> The point is, Dennis doesn't believe in photons because
>>> he's never seen one, and Sue is Dennis because a relativist
>>> said so.
>>>
>>> [lecture to an electronic engineer snipped unread]
>>>
>>
>> One cannot see photons, either. The reason why should be
>> obvious, but let me sketch it anyway: what one is seeing
>> is a rather complex process starting with a chemical
>> reaction somewhere in the eye retina (usually but not
>> always triggered by a photon wandering in through the
>> lens and eyeball) resulting in a nervous impulse leading
>> to the brain. There are a number of interesting failures
>> and machinations going on during the process (and various
>> "optical illusions" demonstrating certain deficiencies
>> therein).
>>
>> Granted, experiments such as Compton's scattering
>> and Einstein's photoelectric effect indicate that
>> something is hitting those electrons, and that something
>> acts as a collection of bundles of energy which is
>> frequency-dependent.
>>
>> That's as close to "seeing" a photon as one might
>> possibly get.
>>
>
> Seeing? I can see photons in my spinthariscope.
Interesting little device, that. However, according to
Wiki it contains a phosphor (zinc sulphide); therefore
one is seeing the phosphorluminescence therefrom. In some
ways that makes it a variant of black and white monitor.
I'll admit I'm not sure if one can see single photons
therefrom or not (it uses a lens to collimate the light
flashes, or "sparks" -- hence the name Crookes gave it).
There is also the issue of the "noise reduction circuitry"
in the eye, optic nerve, or brain, which AFAIK filters
out anything less than about 5 photons, so that we don't
get overwhelmed by noise in the dark.
Also, the spinthariscope is triggered by alpha particles.
If one assumes Th-232 is the sample (the most common),
the alpha particle apparently is ejected with a mean
(?) energy of a bout 4.083 MeV. That's enough to generate
about 1,500-2,000 photons per "spark".
(Nice try, though. :-) )
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|