The early perception of light ?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter chewan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light Perception
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the perception of light, specifically the nature of light as both a particle and a wave, and how this duality is understood in the context of quantum mechanics. Participants explore the implications of this duality on human perception and the biological processes involved in vision.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that light can be perceived only as a particle due to the nature of photons and their interaction with biological systems, such as rhodopsin in the retina.
  • Others argue that quantum mechanics does not require a switch between wave and particle descriptions, suggesting a unified theory that encompasses both aspects of light.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the concepts of wave-particle duality and seeks clarification on how light behaves in different contexts.
  • One participant proposes that light travels as a wave until it reaches an observer, at which point it is perceived as a photon, and discusses the implications of Planck's constant on visibility.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit varying levels of understanding and agreement regarding the nature of light and its perception. There is no consensus on the interpretation of wave-particle duality or its implications for human perception.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference the need for clearer communication in the discussion, indicating potential misunderstandings in quoting and responding to previous posts. There are also indications of varying levels of familiarity with quantum mechanics among participants.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals studying physics, particularly those exploring quantum mechanics and the philosophical implications of wave-particle duality, as well as those interested in the biological aspects of vision.

chewan
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
here's one for the physics buffs...

at the first stage of the perception of light, a photon(s) bleaches/is absorbed by rhodopsin in the retina, breaks apart and an intercellular cascade occurs. a photon is an individual particle, right? so when we perceive light, can we only perceive it as a particle and not as a wave, despite the fact that it exists as both?
 
Science news on Phys.org
chewan said:
here's one for the physics buffs...

at the first stage of the perception of light, a photon(s) bleaches/is absorbed by rhodopsin in the retina, breaks apart and an intercellular cascade occurs. a photon is an individual particle, right? so when we perceive light, can we only perceive it as a particle and not as a wave, despite the fact that it exists as both?

Not in quantum mechanics it doesn't. When you invoke light as "photons", then all the QM description applies, and QM doesn't change gears to describe ALL phenomena associated with light.

You may want to read the FAQ first.

Zz.
 
You may also want to re-read our PF guildelines, especially the one on MULTIPLE POSTS!

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
You may also want to re-read our PF guildelines, especially the one on MULTIPLE POSTS!

Zz.

sorry...
it's my first day
es mi dío primero
quack quack quack

but as per your reply, I'm a biochem major and what you said makes absolutely no sense to me. i'll read the FAQs though...
 
awesome... third question in,
but I'm still somewhat confused...

Unlike classical physics, quantum mechanics does not need to switch gears to describe the wave-like and particle-like observations. This is all accomplished by one consistent theory.

keeping in mind, my extent of knowledge of quantum mechanics extends no further than the book "entanglement" by amir aczel, can someone make me look stupid...?
 
chewan said:
awesome... third question in,
but I'm still somewhat confused...

Unlike classical physics, quantum mechanics does not need to switch gears to describe the wave-like and particle-like observations. This is all accomplished by one consistent theory.

keeping in mind, my extent of knowledge of quantum mechanics extends no further than the book "entanglement" by amir aczel, can someone make me look stupid...?

A friendly tip: your posting is confusing because there's nothing to indicate that ZapperZ wrote the second paragraph and that you're quoting him. Instead of using the "Quick Reply" box at the bottom of the thread, click the QUOTE button at the end of the particular posting that you want to reply to. This gives you a text-edit box with the previous message already pasted into it, and enclosed in QUOTE tags.

When you do this, please edit the quoted material so that you actually quote only the part that you are directly responding to! There's no need to quote the entire posting because it's right up there above yours for everybody to read anyway. :smile:

(I deliberately quoted all of your posting because I'm commenting on its entire structure.)

Note that you can insert your own QUOTE tags if you want to quote different parts of the other posting, with your comments in between.
Or if you want to quote from something else.
 
Mk said:
Do you know about wave-particle duality? I'm sure it was outlined in the book; you should check back. Also, look at...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality

ok, so what i got from that, and please correct me if I'm wrong. light travels as a wave until it serendipitously reaches it's ultimate destination (for reasons not well understood), at which point, it is now a photon particle? while the wave exists, we do not perceive them in our everyday lives because Plank's constant states that the wavelength of an object is inverse to it's size. when we look at our desk, or read a book, the waves of these objects are way to small to see, despite the fact that they are present while light is traveling towards our eyes...? on the right track?
 
yes? no? anyone?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
6K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
927
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K