Re: To AC -- on electrons

Ian H Spedding wrote:

r norman wrote:

On 10 Jun 2006 05:08:35 -0700, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


NashtOn schreef:


John Harshman wrote:

Zoe wrote:


AC, sorry about the delay. You had asked me why I think electrons
exist. Here's why:

Even though electrons are not themselves observable, they apparently
have properties that can be observed. Some of these properties are
charge, spin, velocity, energy, position, and so on. By observation
of these properties, and through experimentation, scientists find it
reasonable to extrapolate the existence of the electron, and I accept
their extrapolation based on solid experiments.

It is also just as reasonable to extrapolate the existence of the
photon. While neither the electron nor the photon can be observed,
they are evident through their interaction with matter.

I would have thought that photons would be the only things we actually
can observe. But I suppose that what we really observe are nerve
impulses, or the pictures they summon up in our heads, eh?

You don't see photons, Harshman.

Then what _do_ do see, Oh great Grandpoobah, if it isn't the photons?


NashtOn is certainly an idiot but that doesn't me he can't
accidentally have an ounce of truth in what he posts. John Harshman
got it right in saying that we claim to "see" is really the result of
nerve activity. We just as easily "see" electrical stimulation of the
retina, the optic nerve, or visual regions of the brain. And even if
you want to argue that we really do "see" light, that doesn't mean we
actually observe photons. I "feel" the keys underneath my fingers as
I type but that doesn't mean that I am detecting individual atoms on
the keyboard. The more accurate statement is Zoe's: "While neither
the electron nor the photon can be observed they are evident through
their interaction with matter.". Even "photographs" of atoms are not
direct observation. They are representations of the way that atoms
interact with highly specialized and elaborate machinery presented in
a graphical form.


The simplest evidence is that, if you go out on a dark and clear night
and shine a torch/flashlight away from you, the beam of light is not
visible. We cannot see the photons themselves. We see when photons
strike photoreceptors in the retina and the absorption of of that
energy by certain chemicals stimulates the cell to emit an electrical
signal.

I'm sorry, but that was very silly. I suppose you're reaching back to
some notion that sight is an active process of action at a distance. Of
course we can't see photons that don't hit our retinas. How would we see
them? What would "see" even mean in such circumstances? Sounds like
Daredevil's radar sense to me.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To AC -- on electrons
    ... While neither the electron nor the photon can be observed, ... But I suppose that what we really observe are nerve ... You don't see photons, Harshman. ... I type but that doesn't mean that I am detecting individual atoms on ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To AC -- on electrons
    ... While neither the electron nor the photon can be observed, ... But I suppose that what we really observe are nerve ... You don't see photons, Harshman. ... Did you have any particular schmucks in mind, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To AC -- on electrons
    ... While neither the electron nor the photon can be observed, ... they are evident through their interaction with matter. ... But I suppose that what we really observe are nerve ... You don't see photons, Harshman. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To AC -- on electrons
    ... While neither the electron nor the photon can be observed, ... But I suppose that what we really observe are nerve ... You don't see photons, Harshman. ... Did you have any particular schmucks in mind, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To AC -- on electrons
    ... NashtOn schreef: ... While neither the electron nor the photon can be observed, ... But I suppose that what we really observe are nerve ... You don't see photons, Harshman. ...
    (talk.origins)