Re: To AC -- on electrons

Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
Ian H Spedding schreef:

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.

Nobody said anything about seeing fotons flying through space as little
balls or something, but what causes us to see is light, fotons.

In English, they're photons, not fotons.

- SRNissen
FABRICATE DIEM, PVNC

We can
have a semantic battle about what "seeing" is until the cows come home,
but , ultimately, the question is not how we see, and why we see only
particular fotons (which is a quite definate "Good Thing (tm)", IMHO),
but what we see. Excluding hallucinations, for the sake of sanity, what
we see, ultimately, are photons. Just as waves of compressed air is
perceived as sound and *what* we hear, is sound. If there are no more
photons around you can detect, you don't seen anyting but (maybe)
splashes of color.

No sane physics student measure anything but a current with an
Ampere-meter, although actually, he may be balancing torque against
magnetic forces caused by a coil through which a portion of the current
flows he intends to measure and is _actually_ measuring the angular
displacement relative to equilibrium when no current is flowing through
the coil. Nor will he be surprised to learn that if he does not
actually connect his meter to a circuit, he will measure nothing more
insteresting than a little noise (peaking in the 50-60 Hz, band
probably, depending on location).


.

Relevant Pages

  • 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
    ... 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)
  • 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: are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
    ... However, in the case of atoms, we can say we've observed individual ... observed (with tunneling electron microscopy IIRC). ... we observe deflection events or cloud ... deflection of a charged particle when the results of these experiments ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: OT: Quantum Enigma, part 1
    ... plainly observe from the rear the impact and position of photons as ...  The second camera, a motion-picture camera, will photograph the ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)