Misty concepts

[Outrider]

56 minutes ago, Dalo said:

Only mathematicians and physicists can understand the principles on which Nature works?

No but at some point, as a layman, I need to accept the experts explanation of how a particular process works. Either that or educate myself to their level.

When Strange, studiot, swansont, John Cuthber and Bill Nye the science guy all claim it works a certain way it probaly does.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Dalo said:

This is a very extreme position. Only mathematicians and physicists can understand the principles on which Nature works?

That quote was commenting on your claim about continuous vs discrete. And I don't think it's extreme at all to say that there are continuous functions in math. (IIRC the notion of a derivative is dependent on that)

As for the rest, you have no hope of developing anything more than a superficial understanding of physics without studying math and physics.

1 hour ago, Dalo said:

I will certainly agree with your view if you mean by that that mathematical proofs cannot be expected to be understood by non-mathematicians, or chemical proofs by non-chemists. To deny that would be denying that there is something as science and that not everybody has the same level of understanding of deep processes.

There is a very large distinction though whether Nature is to be incomprehensible for all but a minority of experts. It would destroy the idea that Man can understand the universe, even if he does not grasp all the details.

The devil's in the details. And quantum mechanics is more than a detail.

[Dalo]

On 11/11/2017 at 11:46 PM, Dalo said:

I will only mention in passing my lack of understanding how vibrations can make objects visible or invisible, which is what Bragg is implying. When light is vibrating vertically we do not see the beam when we are facing it, but only its reflection on the mirror above, and vice versa when it is vibrating vertically.
I wonder if it should be possible to make an object invisible just by the right choice of vibration. Also, I cannot remember any theory of vision that uses vibrations as a means of activating optical cells.

This is what I said in the first post of this thread.

There is no theory of vision, that I know of, that makes use of the wave theory of light. 

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, Dalo said:

There is no theory of vision, that I know of, that makes use of the wave theory of light.

Which part of vision are you referring to? The formation of an image on the retina cane described classically (wave theory). In fact that is far easier than the photon model.

The stimulation of the photoreceptors can also be described classically, but a more detailed/accurate description may depend on the fact that light energy is quantised (in the same way that the photoelectric effect can only be fully explained by quantum theory). 

[Dalo]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Which part of vision are you referring to? The formation of an image on the retina cane described classically (wave theory). In fact that is far easier than the photon model.

I am very surprised at this affirmation and would be very interested in references and links.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Dalo said:

I am very surprised at this affirmation and would be very interested in references and links.

You're joking, right? Surely you went to school at least a little bit? 

Just in case you are as stunningly ignorant as you seem (despite all your "I have studied in depth" claims): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optics#Lenses

http://www.ivyroses.com/HumanBody/Eye/Eye_Image-Formation.php

[Dalo]

 

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

The stimulation of the photoreceptors can also be described classically, but a more detailed/accurate description may depend on the fact that light energy is quantised (in the same way that the photoelectric effect can only be fully explained by quantum theory). 

this quote would have been more accurate. 

I am curious about the classical description you are mentioning. If it means the use of wave theory and vibrations to explain vision, I remain very interested indeed. In particular, I would be very interested in the process of transformation from wave to quanta you are referring to.

[Strange]

Do you need a hand moving those goalposts, they look heavy.

Waves contain energy. That energy can be transmitted to something that absorbs the wave. In some cases, there is sufficient energy to change the shape of the molecule, this can then affect its chemical behaviour. Ultimately, this leads to the release of a neurotransmitter that allows a signal to be sent to the brain. And so on. But, really, you should take an organised course of study rather than trying to pick up bits of information piecemeal and then trying to fit them together.

[Dalo]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Do you need a hand moving those goalposts, they look heavy.

Waves contain energy. That energy can be transmitted to something that absorbs the wave. In some cases, there is sufficient energy to change the shape of the molecule, this can then affect its chemical behaviour. Ultimately, this leads to the release of a neurotransmitter that allows a signal to be sent to the brain. And so on. But, really, you should take an organised course of study rather than trying to pick up bits of information piecemeal and then trying to fit them together.

I find your explanation of how eye cells are activated really fascinating. I have read quite a lot on this subject and I never encountered such a theory.

Again, would you you be so kind as to provide me with references and links?

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, Dalo said:

I find your explanation of how eye cells are activated really fascinating. I have read quite a lot on this subject and I never encountered such a theory.

Again, would you you be so kind as to provide me with references and links?

!

Moderator Note

No more trolling, thread closed, account review pending.