Can two people see the same photon?2019 Community Moderator Election Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30 pm US/Eastern) 2019 Moderator Election Q&A - QuestionnaireHow many atoms does it take for us to perceive colour?Can you split a photon?Two-photon scattering: coloursIs a photon technically a set of two particles?Can one photon emit two electrons?Can an absorbed photon be emitted as two photons?What is the difference between upconversion and two-photon absorption?Same photon or different photon?Can two nuclei with the same number of protons and neutrons be different?Does photon bunching mean two photons fall on the same detector in both effects?Can people create single photon in the laboratory?
Is there a way to fake a method response using Mock or Stubs?
The 'gros' functor from schemes into (strictly) locally ringed topoi
What do you call an IPA symbol that lacks a name (e.g. ɲ)?
Why would the Overseers waste their stock of slaves on the Game?
Did war bonds have better investment alternatives during WWII?
In search of the origins of term censor, I hit a dead end stuck with the greek term, to censor, λογοκρίνω
What to do with someone that cheated their way though university and a PhD program?
SQL Server placement of master database files vs resource database files
Are there existing rules/lore for MTG planeswalkers?
What was Apollo 13's "Little Jolt" after MECO?
Feather, the Redeemed and Dire Fleet Daredevil
How would it unbalance gameplay to rule that Weapon Master allows for picking a fighting style?
What is ls Largest Number Formed by only moving two sticks in 508?
Why is arima in R one time step off?
Why aren't road bicycle wheels tiny?
What's called a person who work as someone who puts products on shelves in stores?
France's Public Holidays' Puzzle
Is Bran literally the world's memory?
How can I wire a 9-position switch so that each position turns on one more LED than the one before?
Why does Java have support for time zone offsets with seconds precision?
Are these square matrices always diagonalisable?
When speaking, how do you change your mind mid-sentence?
What's parked in Mil Moscow helicopter plant?
Coin Game with infinite paradox
Can two people see the same photon?
2019 Community Moderator Election
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30 pm US/Eastern)
2019 Moderator Election Q&A - QuestionnaireHow many atoms does it take for us to perceive colour?Can you split a photon?Two-photon scattering: coloursIs a photon technically a set of two particles?Can one photon emit two electrons?Can an absorbed photon be emitted as two photons?What is the difference between upconversion and two-photon absorption?Same photon or different photon?Can two nuclei with the same number of protons and neutrons be different?Does photon bunching mean two photons fall on the same detector in both effects?Can people create single photon in the laboratory?
$begingroup$
In a dark room there are two people and a very faint candle. Then the candle emits one photon. Is it true that only one person can see the photon? Why? And are there any experiments?
Edit 2019/4/23:
Thanks a lot. I was originally asking about quantum mechanical things. Because I believe such an experiment will turn the two people into Schrodinger's Cat. That's weird because it is not likely for a macroscope object get correlated so easily. Now thanks to the answers I realized that the efficiency and noise is as bad as in cases of other quantum mechanical processes.
photons elementary-particles
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In a dark room there are two people and a very faint candle. Then the candle emits one photon. Is it true that only one person can see the photon? Why? And are there any experiments?
Edit 2019/4/23:
Thanks a lot. I was originally asking about quantum mechanical things. Because I believe such an experiment will turn the two people into Schrodinger's Cat. That's weird because it is not likely for a macroscope object get correlated so easily. Now thanks to the answers I realized that the efficiency and noise is as bad as in cases of other quantum mechanical processes.
photons elementary-particles
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You should specify your question: are you asking from a purely physical point of view e.g. are you interested to know whether a single photon (forget about a candle and only a single photon!) can be detected by two different "sensors", which eyes in principle are, or rather on the full world realistic question including the energy needed to trigger something in our brain?
$endgroup$
– Mayou36
Apr 20 at 19:04
5
$begingroup$
Photons are interchangeable. There is no such thing as "the same photon". There are just photons.
$endgroup$
– Stian Yttervik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Related post here. Although a rod in the retina can respond to a single photon, such a photon must strike it in the right way, with the right frequency, after having made it past the air molecules, dust particles, eyelashes, tears, cornea, aqueous humour, lens, vitreous humour, retina membrane, blood vessels, nerve cells, other cells in the retina, and part of the rod cell itself as well.
$endgroup$
– user21820
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
Given the wavelength of any photon that can be seen, I figure they would have to stand very closely together to see the same photon.
$endgroup$
– EvilSnack
2 days ago
$begingroup$
google.com/search?q=eye+reflection&tbm=isch
$endgroup$
– Cœur
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In a dark room there are two people and a very faint candle. Then the candle emits one photon. Is it true that only one person can see the photon? Why? And are there any experiments?
Edit 2019/4/23:
Thanks a lot. I was originally asking about quantum mechanical things. Because I believe such an experiment will turn the two people into Schrodinger's Cat. That's weird because it is not likely for a macroscope object get correlated so easily. Now thanks to the answers I realized that the efficiency and noise is as bad as in cases of other quantum mechanical processes.
photons elementary-particles
$endgroup$
In a dark room there are two people and a very faint candle. Then the candle emits one photon. Is it true that only one person can see the photon? Why? And are there any experiments?
Edit 2019/4/23:
Thanks a lot. I was originally asking about quantum mechanical things. Because I believe such an experiment will turn the two people into Schrodinger's Cat. That's weird because it is not likely for a macroscope object get correlated so easily. Now thanks to the answers I realized that the efficiency and noise is as bad as in cases of other quantum mechanical processes.
photons elementary-particles
photons elementary-particles
edited 17 hours ago
fangzhang mnm
asked Apr 20 at 10:08
fangzhang mnmfangzhang mnm
9615
9615
$begingroup$
You should specify your question: are you asking from a purely physical point of view e.g. are you interested to know whether a single photon (forget about a candle and only a single photon!) can be detected by two different "sensors", which eyes in principle are, or rather on the full world realistic question including the energy needed to trigger something in our brain?
$endgroup$
– Mayou36
Apr 20 at 19:04
5
$begingroup$
Photons are interchangeable. There is no such thing as "the same photon". There are just photons.
$endgroup$
– Stian Yttervik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Related post here. Although a rod in the retina can respond to a single photon, such a photon must strike it in the right way, with the right frequency, after having made it past the air molecules, dust particles, eyelashes, tears, cornea, aqueous humour, lens, vitreous humour, retina membrane, blood vessels, nerve cells, other cells in the retina, and part of the rod cell itself as well.
$endgroup$
– user21820
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
Given the wavelength of any photon that can be seen, I figure they would have to stand very closely together to see the same photon.
$endgroup$
– EvilSnack
2 days ago
$begingroup$
google.com/search?q=eye+reflection&tbm=isch
$endgroup$
– Cœur
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You should specify your question: are you asking from a purely physical point of view e.g. are you interested to know whether a single photon (forget about a candle and only a single photon!) can be detected by two different "sensors", which eyes in principle are, or rather on the full world realistic question including the energy needed to trigger something in our brain?
$endgroup$
– Mayou36
Apr 20 at 19:04
5
$begingroup$
Photons are interchangeable. There is no such thing as "the same photon". There are just photons.
$endgroup$
– Stian Yttervik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Related post here. Although a rod in the retina can respond to a single photon, such a photon must strike it in the right way, with the right frequency, after having made it past the air molecules, dust particles, eyelashes, tears, cornea, aqueous humour, lens, vitreous humour, retina membrane, blood vessels, nerve cells, other cells in the retina, and part of the rod cell itself as well.
$endgroup$
– user21820
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
Given the wavelength of any photon that can be seen, I figure they would have to stand very closely together to see the same photon.
$endgroup$
– EvilSnack
2 days ago
$begingroup$
google.com/search?q=eye+reflection&tbm=isch
$endgroup$
– Cœur
yesterday
$begingroup$
You should specify your question: are you asking from a purely physical point of view e.g. are you interested to know whether a single photon (forget about a candle and only a single photon!) can be detected by two different "sensors", which eyes in principle are, or rather on the full world realistic question including the energy needed to trigger something in our brain?
$endgroup$
– Mayou36
Apr 20 at 19:04
$begingroup$
You should specify your question: are you asking from a purely physical point of view e.g. are you interested to know whether a single photon (forget about a candle and only a single photon!) can be detected by two different "sensors", which eyes in principle are, or rather on the full world realistic question including the energy needed to trigger something in our brain?
$endgroup$
– Mayou36
Apr 20 at 19:04
5
5
$begingroup$
Photons are interchangeable. There is no such thing as "the same photon". There are just photons.
$endgroup$
– Stian Yttervik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Photons are interchangeable. There is no such thing as "the same photon". There are just photons.
$endgroup$
– Stian Yttervik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Related post here. Although a rod in the retina can respond to a single photon, such a photon must strike it in the right way, with the right frequency, after having made it past the air molecules, dust particles, eyelashes, tears, cornea, aqueous humour, lens, vitreous humour, retina membrane, blood vessels, nerve cells, other cells in the retina, and part of the rod cell itself as well.
$endgroup$
– user21820
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Related post here. Although a rod in the retina can respond to a single photon, such a photon must strike it in the right way, with the right frequency, after having made it past the air molecules, dust particles, eyelashes, tears, cornea, aqueous humour, lens, vitreous humour, retina membrane, blood vessels, nerve cells, other cells in the retina, and part of the rod cell itself as well.
$endgroup$
– user21820
2 days ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Given the wavelength of any photon that can be seen, I figure they would have to stand very closely together to see the same photon.
$endgroup$
– EvilSnack
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Given the wavelength of any photon that can be seen, I figure they would have to stand very closely together to see the same photon.
$endgroup$
– EvilSnack
2 days ago
$begingroup$
google.com/search?q=eye+reflection&tbm=isch
$endgroup$
– Cœur
yesterday
$begingroup$
google.com/search?q=eye+reflection&tbm=isch
$endgroup$
– Cœur
yesterday
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Seeing = detecting photons that happen to interact with your retina.
You can't see photons when they are just travelling nearby. Take lasers for example. When someone is using laser pointer, the only reason you see the beam is that photons collide with dust and air particles and therefore their direction is changed. For example into your eye. Otherwise you wouldn't see anything.
It isn't possible for two people to see the same photon.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't think this tells the whole story. There's nothing to stop a photon (ie an excitation in the EM field) from spreading out in all directions before it's detected. Or, imagine a photon in a beam passing through a 50/50 beam splitter. It could have equal probability to collapse in two different locations, and only then would the path be determined.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@Jay but you still can't distinguish "exists elsewhere" from "doesn't exist" by measurement. And if you measure it at your location, it automatically isn't anywhere else.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
True. I agree with the conclusion but find the analogy to be a bit misleading.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In theory, in the most perversely contrieved case, and if you are willing to cheat a bit, it would be possible. In any half-reasonable, realistic setting, the answer is a clear, definite "No". Indeed, people cannot even see single photons at all (contrary to urban myths).
How does seeing a photon work? The photon has to hit your eye, specifically one of the billion rhodopsin molecules in one of the several-million retinal cells, then something-something, and then a nerve impulse maybe, if some conditions hold goes through the roughly-one-million ganglion network in the retina, and maybe makes it to the brain. Maybe. And maybe the visual cortex makes something of it.
The "maybe" part and the fact that a single cell has billions of G-proteins going active and inactive every second, and that there's a continuous flow of cGMP up and down is the reason why you cannot really see a single photon. That just isn't reasonably possible, if anything it's placebo effect or mere suggestion.
So what's that something-something mentioned previously? The photon flips the cis-bond at position 11 in retinal to trans. Which, well, takes energy, and absorbs the photon.
This triggers a typical G-protein cascade, with alpha subunit going off and blah blah, resulting in production of cGMP at the end. If the cGMP concentration goes above some threshold, and if the cell isn't currently refractive, then the cell fires an AP. That's a big "maybe". Then comes something-something ganglion cells, which is the other big "maybe" part above.
The photon is "gone" after that. No second person could possibly see it.
Now of course, no absorption is perfect, there's an absorption maximum for each type of rhodopsin, and even at that it isn't 100%. Outside the maximum, the absorption is far from 100%. Which means that the photon is emitted again, and it could, in theory, in the most improbable case, hit another person's eye, why not. But of course we have to cheat a bit here because it strictly isn't the same photon.
Unless we are willing to cheat, the answer must therefore be "not possible".
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Re "the photon is emitted again", is the emitted photon in any sense the SAME photon? I don't think so: the original photon is gone, and a new one is created.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
Apr 20 at 16:55
1
$begingroup$
The photon is absorbed or not, so these absorption maxima are irrelevant here - even at 100% absorption you still have re-emission. @jamesqf Assuming same energy, I would consider it to be the same. Is the original photon also gone after its polarization changes? Or after it gets reflected/refracted? Or even after it travels in free space?
$endgroup$
– Zizy Archer
Apr 20 at 21:59
$begingroup$
I doubt that you can get a photon emission (other than reflection of an undetected photon) from a human retina. Do you have a source for that claim?
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
"Indeed, people cannot even see single photons at all (contrary to urban myths)." - According to this 2016 Nature-published paper, we can, sortof. Although the conclusion is criticized, I think casually dismissing it as an "urban myth" is oversimplifying.
$endgroup$
– marcelm
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Candles do not give off single photons. Preparing light sources that can emit single photons is tricky.
The photon contains "one photon" (some small quantity of electronvolts) of energy. The energy in a photon is directly propotional to its frequency, so two photons of the same "color" have the same energy. The process of absorbing a photon transduces "one photon" of energy from the electromagnetic field to the detector. Consequently, if either human detects the photon, there is no energy left to be detected by the other human.
In "Direct detection of a single photon by humans", J.N. Tinsley et al. directly measure the event of conscious detection of single photons. Subjects in that experiment
- did (barely) better than chance (51.6% (p=0.0545)) correctly identifying photon present and photon absent events) when observer confidence in event was excluded and
- did better than chance (60.0% (p=0.001)) when confidence was included.
Interestingly, "the probability of correctly reporting a single photon is highly enhanced by the presence of an earlier photon within ∼5 s time interval. Averaging across all trials that had a preceding detection within a 10-s time window, the probability of correct response was found to be 0.56±0.03 (P=0.02)."
Of course, not every photon that strikes the retina is transduced. "Based on the efficiency of the signal arm and the visual system, we estimate that in ∼6% of all post-selected events an actual light-induced signal was generated ..." So we expect to see improvements over random chance in the neighborhood of 6%, and all numbers reported above are in that neighborhood.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Surely candles give off lots of single photons, and at a sufficient distance they are spread out in space, and time, that they become singletons (unless you go with the 'always in pairs' view). The retina can be very sensitive - it's just a chemical version of the photo-electric effect (doen't mean the signal gets all the way to mk 1 brain..).
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@PhilipOakley : Why does a luminous flame emit localized (in space) photons? And I'm confused by your second point -- I have cited that single photon detection is observed in humans.
$endgroup$
– Eric Towers
yesterday
$begingroup$
It is a matter of scale, both in time and space. The initial suggestion implied they come in massive bunches (seeing the beach rather than the gains of sand). I was simply pointing out that if we spread them all out (either space or time, or both) to a separation we can see them they are single photons. The single photon generation problem is one of perspective because of the 'random' emission nature. One cannot generate a single photon on demand (exact space/time), and cause real mental conflict for test engineers and metrologists who expect that one can ways create a reference!
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Philip What is the 'always in pairs' view?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eric We can produce IR emission at T=300K+/-0.01C with its mega-millions/cm^2/s (+/- a few) but to generate exactly 1.0 photon +/- 0.01 photon is a non-sense. You don't get fractional photons, rather sometimes you don't get a photon, and sometimes you get two (or maybe even three). we need to switch the probability measure from quantity to occurrence.
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
Somehow the exchange of energy between all objects must take place. It was found that this process takes place through the emission and absorption of photons (initially called energy quanta).
Photons are indivisible particles, they do not loose or gain inner energy during their life. The detection of a photon is possible only through the absorption of this photon.
Theoretically, it is possible to obtain information about an absorbed photon by observing secondary emitted photons with lower energy (and longer wavelength).
If you think of a laser beam that you have seen from the side, dust particles in the air are responsible. They reflect the laser light and you can see the beam. Of course, the photons reflected from the dust into the eyes do not arrive at the laser target.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Candles emit huge numbers of photons per second, and humans can't reliably detect single photons, so let's simplify your experiment to the bare essentials.
In the middle, we have an atom that we can excite (by firing a photon at it). Shortly after we excite this atom, it emits a single photon with a spherically symmetric radiation pattern, that is, there's an equal probability of detecting the photon in any direction. This is a standard example of an atom scattering a photon.
Now we place several identical photon detectors around our emitter atom, in various directions. After the photon is emitted, one of our detectors may detect it. Or the photon may miss all of our detectors and collide with something else.
We can model this as a spherical bubble centred on the emitter atom, expanding at the speed of light. When the bubble reaches a detector atom, that atom may detect the photon. When that happens, the bubble disappears, like a pin bursting a soap bubble. No other detector can detect the same photon (not even another detector at the exact same distance), all of the photon's energy was absorbed by the detector that was activated.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
"When the bubble reaches a detector ... the bubble disappears, like a pin bursting a soap bubble" - a nice visualisation.
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks, @Philip It's not perfect (what happens to the soap), but I'm fond of it. :)
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Two people cannot see the same photon. Only one person can see a specific photon.
To see a photon, it must be absorbed by a molecule in the retina [1]. The photon then no longer exists, so it is not available to be seen by another person.
[1] Mammalia retinas can respond to single photons
New contributor
Andrew Morton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f473932%2fcan-two-people-see-the-same-photon%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Seeing = detecting photons that happen to interact with your retina.
You can't see photons when they are just travelling nearby. Take lasers for example. When someone is using laser pointer, the only reason you see the beam is that photons collide with dust and air particles and therefore their direction is changed. For example into your eye. Otherwise you wouldn't see anything.
It isn't possible for two people to see the same photon.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't think this tells the whole story. There's nothing to stop a photon (ie an excitation in the EM field) from spreading out in all directions before it's detected. Or, imagine a photon in a beam passing through a 50/50 beam splitter. It could have equal probability to collapse in two different locations, and only then would the path be determined.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@Jay but you still can't distinguish "exists elsewhere" from "doesn't exist" by measurement. And if you measure it at your location, it automatically isn't anywhere else.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
True. I agree with the conclusion but find the analogy to be a bit misleading.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Seeing = detecting photons that happen to interact with your retina.
You can't see photons when they are just travelling nearby. Take lasers for example. When someone is using laser pointer, the only reason you see the beam is that photons collide with dust and air particles and therefore their direction is changed. For example into your eye. Otherwise you wouldn't see anything.
It isn't possible for two people to see the same photon.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't think this tells the whole story. There's nothing to stop a photon (ie an excitation in the EM field) from spreading out in all directions before it's detected. Or, imagine a photon in a beam passing through a 50/50 beam splitter. It could have equal probability to collapse in two different locations, and only then would the path be determined.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@Jay but you still can't distinguish "exists elsewhere" from "doesn't exist" by measurement. And if you measure it at your location, it automatically isn't anywhere else.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
True. I agree with the conclusion but find the analogy to be a bit misleading.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Seeing = detecting photons that happen to interact with your retina.
You can't see photons when they are just travelling nearby. Take lasers for example. When someone is using laser pointer, the only reason you see the beam is that photons collide with dust and air particles and therefore their direction is changed. For example into your eye. Otherwise you wouldn't see anything.
It isn't possible for two people to see the same photon.
$endgroup$
Seeing = detecting photons that happen to interact with your retina.
You can't see photons when they are just travelling nearby. Take lasers for example. When someone is using laser pointer, the only reason you see the beam is that photons collide with dust and air particles and therefore their direction is changed. For example into your eye. Otherwise you wouldn't see anything.
It isn't possible for two people to see the same photon.
edited Apr 20 at 15:01
answered Apr 20 at 13:11
AndrejAndrej
49018
49018
$begingroup$
I don't think this tells the whole story. There's nothing to stop a photon (ie an excitation in the EM field) from spreading out in all directions before it's detected. Or, imagine a photon in a beam passing through a 50/50 beam splitter. It could have equal probability to collapse in two different locations, and only then would the path be determined.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@Jay but you still can't distinguish "exists elsewhere" from "doesn't exist" by measurement. And if you measure it at your location, it automatically isn't anywhere else.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
True. I agree with the conclusion but find the analogy to be a bit misleading.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't think this tells the whole story. There's nothing to stop a photon (ie an excitation in the EM field) from spreading out in all directions before it's detected. Or, imagine a photon in a beam passing through a 50/50 beam splitter. It could have equal probability to collapse in two different locations, and only then would the path be determined.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@Jay but you still can't distinguish "exists elsewhere" from "doesn't exist" by measurement. And if you measure it at your location, it automatically isn't anywhere else.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
True. I agree with the conclusion but find the analogy to be a bit misleading.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I don't think this tells the whole story. There's nothing to stop a photon (ie an excitation in the EM field) from spreading out in all directions before it's detected. Or, imagine a photon in a beam passing through a 50/50 beam splitter. It could have equal probability to collapse in two different locations, and only then would the path be determined.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I don't think this tells the whole story. There's nothing to stop a photon (ie an excitation in the EM field) from spreading out in all directions before it's detected. Or, imagine a photon in a beam passing through a 50/50 beam splitter. It could have equal probability to collapse in two different locations, and only then would the path be determined.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
4
4
$begingroup$
@Jay but you still can't distinguish "exists elsewhere" from "doesn't exist" by measurement. And if you measure it at your location, it automatically isn't anywhere else.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@Jay but you still can't distinguish "exists elsewhere" from "doesn't exist" by measurement. And if you measure it at your location, it automatically isn't anywhere else.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
2 days ago
2
2
$begingroup$
True. I agree with the conclusion but find the analogy to be a bit misleading.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
$begingroup$
True. I agree with the conclusion but find the analogy to be a bit misleading.
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In theory, in the most perversely contrieved case, and if you are willing to cheat a bit, it would be possible. In any half-reasonable, realistic setting, the answer is a clear, definite "No". Indeed, people cannot even see single photons at all (contrary to urban myths).
How does seeing a photon work? The photon has to hit your eye, specifically one of the billion rhodopsin molecules in one of the several-million retinal cells, then something-something, and then a nerve impulse maybe, if some conditions hold goes through the roughly-one-million ganglion network in the retina, and maybe makes it to the brain. Maybe. And maybe the visual cortex makes something of it.
The "maybe" part and the fact that a single cell has billions of G-proteins going active and inactive every second, and that there's a continuous flow of cGMP up and down is the reason why you cannot really see a single photon. That just isn't reasonably possible, if anything it's placebo effect or mere suggestion.
So what's that something-something mentioned previously? The photon flips the cis-bond at position 11 in retinal to trans. Which, well, takes energy, and absorbs the photon.
This triggers a typical G-protein cascade, with alpha subunit going off and blah blah, resulting in production of cGMP at the end. If the cGMP concentration goes above some threshold, and if the cell isn't currently refractive, then the cell fires an AP. That's a big "maybe". Then comes something-something ganglion cells, which is the other big "maybe" part above.
The photon is "gone" after that. No second person could possibly see it.
Now of course, no absorption is perfect, there's an absorption maximum for each type of rhodopsin, and even at that it isn't 100%. Outside the maximum, the absorption is far from 100%. Which means that the photon is emitted again, and it could, in theory, in the most improbable case, hit another person's eye, why not. But of course we have to cheat a bit here because it strictly isn't the same photon.
Unless we are willing to cheat, the answer must therefore be "not possible".
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Re "the photon is emitted again", is the emitted photon in any sense the SAME photon? I don't think so: the original photon is gone, and a new one is created.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
Apr 20 at 16:55
1
$begingroup$
The photon is absorbed or not, so these absorption maxima are irrelevant here - even at 100% absorption you still have re-emission. @jamesqf Assuming same energy, I would consider it to be the same. Is the original photon also gone after its polarization changes? Or after it gets reflected/refracted? Or even after it travels in free space?
$endgroup$
– Zizy Archer
Apr 20 at 21:59
$begingroup$
I doubt that you can get a photon emission (other than reflection of an undetected photon) from a human retina. Do you have a source for that claim?
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
"Indeed, people cannot even see single photons at all (contrary to urban myths)." - According to this 2016 Nature-published paper, we can, sortof. Although the conclusion is criticized, I think casually dismissing it as an "urban myth" is oversimplifying.
$endgroup$
– marcelm
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In theory, in the most perversely contrieved case, and if you are willing to cheat a bit, it would be possible. In any half-reasonable, realistic setting, the answer is a clear, definite "No". Indeed, people cannot even see single photons at all (contrary to urban myths).
How does seeing a photon work? The photon has to hit your eye, specifically one of the billion rhodopsin molecules in one of the several-million retinal cells, then something-something, and then a nerve impulse maybe, if some conditions hold goes through the roughly-one-million ganglion network in the retina, and maybe makes it to the brain. Maybe. And maybe the visual cortex makes something of it.
The "maybe" part and the fact that a single cell has billions of G-proteins going active and inactive every second, and that there's a continuous flow of cGMP up and down is the reason why you cannot really see a single photon. That just isn't reasonably possible, if anything it's placebo effect or mere suggestion.
So what's that something-something mentioned previously? The photon flips the cis-bond at position 11 in retinal to trans. Which, well, takes energy, and absorbs the photon.
This triggers a typical G-protein cascade, with alpha subunit going off and blah blah, resulting in production of cGMP at the end. If the cGMP concentration goes above some threshold, and if the cell isn't currently refractive, then the cell fires an AP. That's a big "maybe". Then comes something-something ganglion cells, which is the other big "maybe" part above.
The photon is "gone" after that. No second person could possibly see it.
Now of course, no absorption is perfect, there's an absorption maximum for each type of rhodopsin, and even at that it isn't 100%. Outside the maximum, the absorption is far from 100%. Which means that the photon is emitted again, and it could, in theory, in the most improbable case, hit another person's eye, why not. But of course we have to cheat a bit here because it strictly isn't the same photon.
Unless we are willing to cheat, the answer must therefore be "not possible".
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Re "the photon is emitted again", is the emitted photon in any sense the SAME photon? I don't think so: the original photon is gone, and a new one is created.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
Apr 20 at 16:55
1
$begingroup$
The photon is absorbed or not, so these absorption maxima are irrelevant here - even at 100% absorption you still have re-emission. @jamesqf Assuming same energy, I would consider it to be the same. Is the original photon also gone after its polarization changes? Or after it gets reflected/refracted? Or even after it travels in free space?
$endgroup$
– Zizy Archer
Apr 20 at 21:59
$begingroup$
I doubt that you can get a photon emission (other than reflection of an undetected photon) from a human retina. Do you have a source for that claim?
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
"Indeed, people cannot even see single photons at all (contrary to urban myths)." - According to this 2016 Nature-published paper, we can, sortof. Although the conclusion is criticized, I think casually dismissing it as an "urban myth" is oversimplifying.
$endgroup$
– marcelm
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In theory, in the most perversely contrieved case, and if you are willing to cheat a bit, it would be possible. In any half-reasonable, realistic setting, the answer is a clear, definite "No". Indeed, people cannot even see single photons at all (contrary to urban myths).
How does seeing a photon work? The photon has to hit your eye, specifically one of the billion rhodopsin molecules in one of the several-million retinal cells, then something-something, and then a nerve impulse maybe, if some conditions hold goes through the roughly-one-million ganglion network in the retina, and maybe makes it to the brain. Maybe. And maybe the visual cortex makes something of it.
The "maybe" part and the fact that a single cell has billions of G-proteins going active and inactive every second, and that there's a continuous flow of cGMP up and down is the reason why you cannot really see a single photon. That just isn't reasonably possible, if anything it's placebo effect or mere suggestion.
So what's that something-something mentioned previously? The photon flips the cis-bond at position 11 in retinal to trans. Which, well, takes energy, and absorbs the photon.
This triggers a typical G-protein cascade, with alpha subunit going off and blah blah, resulting in production of cGMP at the end. If the cGMP concentration goes above some threshold, and if the cell isn't currently refractive, then the cell fires an AP. That's a big "maybe". Then comes something-something ganglion cells, which is the other big "maybe" part above.
The photon is "gone" after that. No second person could possibly see it.
Now of course, no absorption is perfect, there's an absorption maximum for each type of rhodopsin, and even at that it isn't 100%. Outside the maximum, the absorption is far from 100%. Which means that the photon is emitted again, and it could, in theory, in the most improbable case, hit another person's eye, why not. But of course we have to cheat a bit here because it strictly isn't the same photon.
Unless we are willing to cheat, the answer must therefore be "not possible".
$endgroup$
In theory, in the most perversely contrieved case, and if you are willing to cheat a bit, it would be possible. In any half-reasonable, realistic setting, the answer is a clear, definite "No". Indeed, people cannot even see single photons at all (contrary to urban myths).
How does seeing a photon work? The photon has to hit your eye, specifically one of the billion rhodopsin molecules in one of the several-million retinal cells, then something-something, and then a nerve impulse maybe, if some conditions hold goes through the roughly-one-million ganglion network in the retina, and maybe makes it to the brain. Maybe. And maybe the visual cortex makes something of it.
The "maybe" part and the fact that a single cell has billions of G-proteins going active and inactive every second, and that there's a continuous flow of cGMP up and down is the reason why you cannot really see a single photon. That just isn't reasonably possible, if anything it's placebo effect or mere suggestion.
So what's that something-something mentioned previously? The photon flips the cis-bond at position 11 in retinal to trans. Which, well, takes energy, and absorbs the photon.
This triggers a typical G-protein cascade, with alpha subunit going off and blah blah, resulting in production of cGMP at the end. If the cGMP concentration goes above some threshold, and if the cell isn't currently refractive, then the cell fires an AP. That's a big "maybe". Then comes something-something ganglion cells, which is the other big "maybe" part above.
The photon is "gone" after that. No second person could possibly see it.
Now of course, no absorption is perfect, there's an absorption maximum for each type of rhodopsin, and even at that it isn't 100%. Outside the maximum, the absorption is far from 100%. Which means that the photon is emitted again, and it could, in theory, in the most improbable case, hit another person's eye, why not. But of course we have to cheat a bit here because it strictly isn't the same photon.
Unless we are willing to cheat, the answer must therefore be "not possible".
answered Apr 20 at 14:49
DamonDamon
32316
32316
5
$begingroup$
Re "the photon is emitted again", is the emitted photon in any sense the SAME photon? I don't think so: the original photon is gone, and a new one is created.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
Apr 20 at 16:55
1
$begingroup$
The photon is absorbed or not, so these absorption maxima are irrelevant here - even at 100% absorption you still have re-emission. @jamesqf Assuming same energy, I would consider it to be the same. Is the original photon also gone after its polarization changes? Or after it gets reflected/refracted? Or even after it travels in free space?
$endgroup$
– Zizy Archer
Apr 20 at 21:59
$begingroup$
I doubt that you can get a photon emission (other than reflection of an undetected photon) from a human retina. Do you have a source for that claim?
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
"Indeed, people cannot even see single photons at all (contrary to urban myths)." - According to this 2016 Nature-published paper, we can, sortof. Although the conclusion is criticized, I think casually dismissing it as an "urban myth" is oversimplifying.
$endgroup$
– marcelm
2 days ago
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
Re "the photon is emitted again", is the emitted photon in any sense the SAME photon? I don't think so: the original photon is gone, and a new one is created.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
Apr 20 at 16:55
1
$begingroup$
The photon is absorbed or not, so these absorption maxima are irrelevant here - even at 100% absorption you still have re-emission. @jamesqf Assuming same energy, I would consider it to be the same. Is the original photon also gone after its polarization changes? Or after it gets reflected/refracted? Or even after it travels in free space?
$endgroup$
– Zizy Archer
Apr 20 at 21:59
$begingroup$
I doubt that you can get a photon emission (other than reflection of an undetected photon) from a human retina. Do you have a source for that claim?
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
"Indeed, people cannot even see single photons at all (contrary to urban myths)." - According to this 2016 Nature-published paper, we can, sortof. Although the conclusion is criticized, I think casually dismissing it as an "urban myth" is oversimplifying.
$endgroup$
– marcelm
2 days ago
5
5
$begingroup$
Re "the photon is emitted again", is the emitted photon in any sense the SAME photon? I don't think so: the original photon is gone, and a new one is created.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
Apr 20 at 16:55
$begingroup$
Re "the photon is emitted again", is the emitted photon in any sense the SAME photon? I don't think so: the original photon is gone, and a new one is created.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
Apr 20 at 16:55
1
1
$begingroup$
The photon is absorbed or not, so these absorption maxima are irrelevant here - even at 100% absorption you still have re-emission. @jamesqf Assuming same energy, I would consider it to be the same. Is the original photon also gone after its polarization changes? Or after it gets reflected/refracted? Or even after it travels in free space?
$endgroup$
– Zizy Archer
Apr 20 at 21:59
$begingroup$
The photon is absorbed or not, so these absorption maxima are irrelevant here - even at 100% absorption you still have re-emission. @jamesqf Assuming same energy, I would consider it to be the same. Is the original photon also gone after its polarization changes? Or after it gets reflected/refracted? Or even after it travels in free space?
$endgroup$
– Zizy Archer
Apr 20 at 21:59
$begingroup$
I doubt that you can get a photon emission (other than reflection of an undetected photon) from a human retina. Do you have a source for that claim?
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I doubt that you can get a photon emission (other than reflection of an undetected photon) from a human retina. Do you have a source for that claim?
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
2 days ago
4
4
$begingroup$
"Indeed, people cannot even see single photons at all (contrary to urban myths)." - According to this 2016 Nature-published paper, we can, sortof. Although the conclusion is criticized, I think casually dismissing it as an "urban myth" is oversimplifying.
$endgroup$
– marcelm
2 days ago
$begingroup$
"Indeed, people cannot even see single photons at all (contrary to urban myths)." - According to this 2016 Nature-published paper, we can, sortof. Although the conclusion is criticized, I think casually dismissing it as an "urban myth" is oversimplifying.
$endgroup$
– marcelm
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Candles do not give off single photons. Preparing light sources that can emit single photons is tricky.
The photon contains "one photon" (some small quantity of electronvolts) of energy. The energy in a photon is directly propotional to its frequency, so two photons of the same "color" have the same energy. The process of absorbing a photon transduces "one photon" of energy from the electromagnetic field to the detector. Consequently, if either human detects the photon, there is no energy left to be detected by the other human.
In "Direct detection of a single photon by humans", J.N. Tinsley et al. directly measure the event of conscious detection of single photons. Subjects in that experiment
- did (barely) better than chance (51.6% (p=0.0545)) correctly identifying photon present and photon absent events) when observer confidence in event was excluded and
- did better than chance (60.0% (p=0.001)) when confidence was included.
Interestingly, "the probability of correctly reporting a single photon is highly enhanced by the presence of an earlier photon within ∼5 s time interval. Averaging across all trials that had a preceding detection within a 10-s time window, the probability of correct response was found to be 0.56±0.03 (P=0.02)."
Of course, not every photon that strikes the retina is transduced. "Based on the efficiency of the signal arm and the visual system, we estimate that in ∼6% of all post-selected events an actual light-induced signal was generated ..." So we expect to see improvements over random chance in the neighborhood of 6%, and all numbers reported above are in that neighborhood.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Surely candles give off lots of single photons, and at a sufficient distance they are spread out in space, and time, that they become singletons (unless you go with the 'always in pairs' view). The retina can be very sensitive - it's just a chemical version of the photo-electric effect (doen't mean the signal gets all the way to mk 1 brain..).
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@PhilipOakley : Why does a luminous flame emit localized (in space) photons? And I'm confused by your second point -- I have cited that single photon detection is observed in humans.
$endgroup$
– Eric Towers
yesterday
$begingroup$
It is a matter of scale, both in time and space. The initial suggestion implied they come in massive bunches (seeing the beach rather than the gains of sand). I was simply pointing out that if we spread them all out (either space or time, or both) to a separation we can see them they are single photons. The single photon generation problem is one of perspective because of the 'random' emission nature. One cannot generate a single photon on demand (exact space/time), and cause real mental conflict for test engineers and metrologists who expect that one can ways create a reference!
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Philip What is the 'always in pairs' view?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eric We can produce IR emission at T=300K+/-0.01C with its mega-millions/cm^2/s (+/- a few) but to generate exactly 1.0 photon +/- 0.01 photon is a non-sense. You don't get fractional photons, rather sometimes you don't get a photon, and sometimes you get two (or maybe even three). we need to switch the probability measure from quantity to occurrence.
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
Candles do not give off single photons. Preparing light sources that can emit single photons is tricky.
The photon contains "one photon" (some small quantity of electronvolts) of energy. The energy in a photon is directly propotional to its frequency, so two photons of the same "color" have the same energy. The process of absorbing a photon transduces "one photon" of energy from the electromagnetic field to the detector. Consequently, if either human detects the photon, there is no energy left to be detected by the other human.
In "Direct detection of a single photon by humans", J.N. Tinsley et al. directly measure the event of conscious detection of single photons. Subjects in that experiment
- did (barely) better than chance (51.6% (p=0.0545)) correctly identifying photon present and photon absent events) when observer confidence in event was excluded and
- did better than chance (60.0% (p=0.001)) when confidence was included.
Interestingly, "the probability of correctly reporting a single photon is highly enhanced by the presence of an earlier photon within ∼5 s time interval. Averaging across all trials that had a preceding detection within a 10-s time window, the probability of correct response was found to be 0.56±0.03 (P=0.02)."
Of course, not every photon that strikes the retina is transduced. "Based on the efficiency of the signal arm and the visual system, we estimate that in ∼6% of all post-selected events an actual light-induced signal was generated ..." So we expect to see improvements over random chance in the neighborhood of 6%, and all numbers reported above are in that neighborhood.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Surely candles give off lots of single photons, and at a sufficient distance they are spread out in space, and time, that they become singletons (unless you go with the 'always in pairs' view). The retina can be very sensitive - it's just a chemical version of the photo-electric effect (doen't mean the signal gets all the way to mk 1 brain..).
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@PhilipOakley : Why does a luminous flame emit localized (in space) photons? And I'm confused by your second point -- I have cited that single photon detection is observed in humans.
$endgroup$
– Eric Towers
yesterday
$begingroup$
It is a matter of scale, both in time and space. The initial suggestion implied they come in massive bunches (seeing the beach rather than the gains of sand). I was simply pointing out that if we spread them all out (either space or time, or both) to a separation we can see them they are single photons. The single photon generation problem is one of perspective because of the 'random' emission nature. One cannot generate a single photon on demand (exact space/time), and cause real mental conflict for test engineers and metrologists who expect that one can ways create a reference!
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Philip What is the 'always in pairs' view?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eric We can produce IR emission at T=300K+/-0.01C with its mega-millions/cm^2/s (+/- a few) but to generate exactly 1.0 photon +/- 0.01 photon is a non-sense. You don't get fractional photons, rather sometimes you don't get a photon, and sometimes you get two (or maybe even three). we need to switch the probability measure from quantity to occurrence.
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
Candles do not give off single photons. Preparing light sources that can emit single photons is tricky.
The photon contains "one photon" (some small quantity of electronvolts) of energy. The energy in a photon is directly propotional to its frequency, so two photons of the same "color" have the same energy. The process of absorbing a photon transduces "one photon" of energy from the electromagnetic field to the detector. Consequently, if either human detects the photon, there is no energy left to be detected by the other human.
In "Direct detection of a single photon by humans", J.N. Tinsley et al. directly measure the event of conscious detection of single photons. Subjects in that experiment
- did (barely) better than chance (51.6% (p=0.0545)) correctly identifying photon present and photon absent events) when observer confidence in event was excluded and
- did better than chance (60.0% (p=0.001)) when confidence was included.
Interestingly, "the probability of correctly reporting a single photon is highly enhanced by the presence of an earlier photon within ∼5 s time interval. Averaging across all trials that had a preceding detection within a 10-s time window, the probability of correct response was found to be 0.56±0.03 (P=0.02)."
Of course, not every photon that strikes the retina is transduced. "Based on the efficiency of the signal arm and the visual system, we estimate that in ∼6% of all post-selected events an actual light-induced signal was generated ..." So we expect to see improvements over random chance in the neighborhood of 6%, and all numbers reported above are in that neighborhood.
$endgroup$
Candles do not give off single photons. Preparing light sources that can emit single photons is tricky.
The photon contains "one photon" (some small quantity of electronvolts) of energy. The energy in a photon is directly propotional to its frequency, so two photons of the same "color" have the same energy. The process of absorbing a photon transduces "one photon" of energy from the electromagnetic field to the detector. Consequently, if either human detects the photon, there is no energy left to be detected by the other human.
In "Direct detection of a single photon by humans", J.N. Tinsley et al. directly measure the event of conscious detection of single photons. Subjects in that experiment
- did (barely) better than chance (51.6% (p=0.0545)) correctly identifying photon present and photon absent events) when observer confidence in event was excluded and
- did better than chance (60.0% (p=0.001)) when confidence was included.
Interestingly, "the probability of correctly reporting a single photon is highly enhanced by the presence of an earlier photon within ∼5 s time interval. Averaging across all trials that had a preceding detection within a 10-s time window, the probability of correct response was found to be 0.56±0.03 (P=0.02)."
Of course, not every photon that strikes the retina is transduced. "Based on the efficiency of the signal arm and the visual system, we estimate that in ∼6% of all post-selected events an actual light-induced signal was generated ..." So we expect to see improvements over random chance in the neighborhood of 6%, and all numbers reported above are in that neighborhood.
answered Apr 20 at 14:33
Eric TowersEric Towers
1,18958
1,18958
$begingroup$
Surely candles give off lots of single photons, and at a sufficient distance they are spread out in space, and time, that they become singletons (unless you go with the 'always in pairs' view). The retina can be very sensitive - it's just a chemical version of the photo-electric effect (doen't mean the signal gets all the way to mk 1 brain..).
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@PhilipOakley : Why does a luminous flame emit localized (in space) photons? And I'm confused by your second point -- I have cited that single photon detection is observed in humans.
$endgroup$
– Eric Towers
yesterday
$begingroup$
It is a matter of scale, both in time and space. The initial suggestion implied they come in massive bunches (seeing the beach rather than the gains of sand). I was simply pointing out that if we spread them all out (either space or time, or both) to a separation we can see them they are single photons. The single photon generation problem is one of perspective because of the 'random' emission nature. One cannot generate a single photon on demand (exact space/time), and cause real mental conflict for test engineers and metrologists who expect that one can ways create a reference!
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Philip What is the 'always in pairs' view?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eric We can produce IR emission at T=300K+/-0.01C with its mega-millions/cm^2/s (+/- a few) but to generate exactly 1.0 photon +/- 0.01 photon is a non-sense. You don't get fractional photons, rather sometimes you don't get a photon, and sometimes you get two (or maybe even three). we need to switch the probability measure from quantity to occurrence.
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
Surely candles give off lots of single photons, and at a sufficient distance they are spread out in space, and time, that they become singletons (unless you go with the 'always in pairs' view). The retina can be very sensitive - it's just a chemical version of the photo-electric effect (doen't mean the signal gets all the way to mk 1 brain..).
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@PhilipOakley : Why does a luminous flame emit localized (in space) photons? And I'm confused by your second point -- I have cited that single photon detection is observed in humans.
$endgroup$
– Eric Towers
yesterday
$begingroup$
It is a matter of scale, both in time and space. The initial suggestion implied they come in massive bunches (seeing the beach rather than the gains of sand). I was simply pointing out that if we spread them all out (either space or time, or both) to a separation we can see them they are single photons. The single photon generation problem is one of perspective because of the 'random' emission nature. One cannot generate a single photon on demand (exact space/time), and cause real mental conflict for test engineers and metrologists who expect that one can ways create a reference!
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Philip What is the 'always in pairs' view?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eric We can produce IR emission at T=300K+/-0.01C with its mega-millions/cm^2/s (+/- a few) but to generate exactly 1.0 photon +/- 0.01 photon is a non-sense. You don't get fractional photons, rather sometimes you don't get a photon, and sometimes you get two (or maybe even three). we need to switch the probability measure from quantity to occurrence.
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
$begingroup$
Surely candles give off lots of single photons, and at a sufficient distance they are spread out in space, and time, that they become singletons (unless you go with the 'always in pairs' view). The retina can be very sensitive - it's just a chemical version of the photo-electric effect (doen't mean the signal gets all the way to mk 1 brain..).
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
$begingroup$
Surely candles give off lots of single photons, and at a sufficient distance they are spread out in space, and time, that they become singletons (unless you go with the 'always in pairs' view). The retina can be very sensitive - it's just a chemical version of the photo-electric effect (doen't mean the signal gets all the way to mk 1 brain..).
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
@PhilipOakley : Why does a luminous flame emit localized (in space) photons? And I'm confused by your second point -- I have cited that single photon detection is observed in humans.
$endgroup$
– Eric Towers
yesterday
$begingroup$
@PhilipOakley : Why does a luminous flame emit localized (in space) photons? And I'm confused by your second point -- I have cited that single photon detection is observed in humans.
$endgroup$
– Eric Towers
yesterday
$begingroup$
It is a matter of scale, both in time and space. The initial suggestion implied they come in massive bunches (seeing the beach rather than the gains of sand). I was simply pointing out that if we spread them all out (either space or time, or both) to a separation we can see them they are single photons. The single photon generation problem is one of perspective because of the 'random' emission nature. One cannot generate a single photon on demand (exact space/time), and cause real mental conflict for test engineers and metrologists who expect that one can ways create a reference!
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
$begingroup$
It is a matter of scale, both in time and space. The initial suggestion implied they come in massive bunches (seeing the beach rather than the gains of sand). I was simply pointing out that if we spread them all out (either space or time, or both) to a separation we can see them they are single photons. The single photon generation problem is one of perspective because of the 'random' emission nature. One cannot generate a single photon on demand (exact space/time), and cause real mental conflict for test engineers and metrologists who expect that one can ways create a reference!
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Philip What is the 'always in pairs' view?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Philip What is the 'always in pairs' view?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eric We can produce IR emission at T=300K+/-0.01C with its mega-millions/cm^2/s (+/- a few) but to generate exactly 1.0 photon +/- 0.01 photon is a non-sense. You don't get fractional photons, rather sometimes you don't get a photon, and sometimes you get two (or maybe even three). we need to switch the probability measure from quantity to occurrence.
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eric We can produce IR emission at T=300K+/-0.01C with its mega-millions/cm^2/s (+/- a few) but to generate exactly 1.0 photon +/- 0.01 photon is a non-sense. You don't get fractional photons, rather sometimes you don't get a photon, and sometimes you get two (or maybe even three). we need to switch the probability measure from quantity to occurrence.
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
Somehow the exchange of energy between all objects must take place. It was found that this process takes place through the emission and absorption of photons (initially called energy quanta).
Photons are indivisible particles, they do not loose or gain inner energy during their life. The detection of a photon is possible only through the absorption of this photon.
Theoretically, it is possible to obtain information about an absorbed photon by observing secondary emitted photons with lower energy (and longer wavelength).
If you think of a laser beam that you have seen from the side, dust particles in the air are responsible. They reflect the laser light and you can see the beam. Of course, the photons reflected from the dust into the eyes do not arrive at the laser target.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Somehow the exchange of energy between all objects must take place. It was found that this process takes place through the emission and absorption of photons (initially called energy quanta).
Photons are indivisible particles, they do not loose or gain inner energy during their life. The detection of a photon is possible only through the absorption of this photon.
Theoretically, it is possible to obtain information about an absorbed photon by observing secondary emitted photons with lower energy (and longer wavelength).
If you think of a laser beam that you have seen from the side, dust particles in the air are responsible. They reflect the laser light and you can see the beam. Of course, the photons reflected from the dust into the eyes do not arrive at the laser target.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Somehow the exchange of energy between all objects must take place. It was found that this process takes place through the emission and absorption of photons (initially called energy quanta).
Photons are indivisible particles, they do not loose or gain inner energy during their life. The detection of a photon is possible only through the absorption of this photon.
Theoretically, it is possible to obtain information about an absorbed photon by observing secondary emitted photons with lower energy (and longer wavelength).
If you think of a laser beam that you have seen from the side, dust particles in the air are responsible. They reflect the laser light and you can see the beam. Of course, the photons reflected from the dust into the eyes do not arrive at the laser target.
$endgroup$
Somehow the exchange of energy between all objects must take place. It was found that this process takes place through the emission and absorption of photons (initially called energy quanta).
Photons are indivisible particles, they do not loose or gain inner energy during their life. The detection of a photon is possible only through the absorption of this photon.
Theoretically, it is possible to obtain information about an absorbed photon by observing secondary emitted photons with lower energy (and longer wavelength).
If you think of a laser beam that you have seen from the side, dust particles in the air are responsible. They reflect the laser light and you can see the beam. Of course, the photons reflected from the dust into the eyes do not arrive at the laser target.
answered Apr 20 at 13:26
HolgerFiedlerHolgerFiedler
4,45531239
4,45531239
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Candles emit huge numbers of photons per second, and humans can't reliably detect single photons, so let's simplify your experiment to the bare essentials.
In the middle, we have an atom that we can excite (by firing a photon at it). Shortly after we excite this atom, it emits a single photon with a spherically symmetric radiation pattern, that is, there's an equal probability of detecting the photon in any direction. This is a standard example of an atom scattering a photon.
Now we place several identical photon detectors around our emitter atom, in various directions. After the photon is emitted, one of our detectors may detect it. Or the photon may miss all of our detectors and collide with something else.
We can model this as a spherical bubble centred on the emitter atom, expanding at the speed of light. When the bubble reaches a detector atom, that atom may detect the photon. When that happens, the bubble disappears, like a pin bursting a soap bubble. No other detector can detect the same photon (not even another detector at the exact same distance), all of the photon's energy was absorbed by the detector that was activated.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
"When the bubble reaches a detector ... the bubble disappears, like a pin bursting a soap bubble" - a nice visualisation.
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks, @Philip It's not perfect (what happens to the soap), but I'm fond of it. :)
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Candles emit huge numbers of photons per second, and humans can't reliably detect single photons, so let's simplify your experiment to the bare essentials.
In the middle, we have an atom that we can excite (by firing a photon at it). Shortly after we excite this atom, it emits a single photon with a spherically symmetric radiation pattern, that is, there's an equal probability of detecting the photon in any direction. This is a standard example of an atom scattering a photon.
Now we place several identical photon detectors around our emitter atom, in various directions. After the photon is emitted, one of our detectors may detect it. Or the photon may miss all of our detectors and collide with something else.
We can model this as a spherical bubble centred on the emitter atom, expanding at the speed of light. When the bubble reaches a detector atom, that atom may detect the photon. When that happens, the bubble disappears, like a pin bursting a soap bubble. No other detector can detect the same photon (not even another detector at the exact same distance), all of the photon's energy was absorbed by the detector that was activated.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
"When the bubble reaches a detector ... the bubble disappears, like a pin bursting a soap bubble" - a nice visualisation.
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks, @Philip It's not perfect (what happens to the soap), but I'm fond of it. :)
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Candles emit huge numbers of photons per second, and humans can't reliably detect single photons, so let's simplify your experiment to the bare essentials.
In the middle, we have an atom that we can excite (by firing a photon at it). Shortly after we excite this atom, it emits a single photon with a spherically symmetric radiation pattern, that is, there's an equal probability of detecting the photon in any direction. This is a standard example of an atom scattering a photon.
Now we place several identical photon detectors around our emitter atom, in various directions. After the photon is emitted, one of our detectors may detect it. Or the photon may miss all of our detectors and collide with something else.
We can model this as a spherical bubble centred on the emitter atom, expanding at the speed of light. When the bubble reaches a detector atom, that atom may detect the photon. When that happens, the bubble disappears, like a pin bursting a soap bubble. No other detector can detect the same photon (not even another detector at the exact same distance), all of the photon's energy was absorbed by the detector that was activated.
$endgroup$
Candles emit huge numbers of photons per second, and humans can't reliably detect single photons, so let's simplify your experiment to the bare essentials.
In the middle, we have an atom that we can excite (by firing a photon at it). Shortly after we excite this atom, it emits a single photon with a spherically symmetric radiation pattern, that is, there's an equal probability of detecting the photon in any direction. This is a standard example of an atom scattering a photon.
Now we place several identical photon detectors around our emitter atom, in various directions. After the photon is emitted, one of our detectors may detect it. Or the photon may miss all of our detectors and collide with something else.
We can model this as a spherical bubble centred on the emitter atom, expanding at the speed of light. When the bubble reaches a detector atom, that atom may detect the photon. When that happens, the bubble disappears, like a pin bursting a soap bubble. No other detector can detect the same photon (not even another detector at the exact same distance), all of the photon's energy was absorbed by the detector that was activated.
edited Apr 20 at 22:30
answered Apr 20 at 14:06
PM 2RingPM 2Ring
3,70021124
3,70021124
1
$begingroup$
"When the bubble reaches a detector ... the bubble disappears, like a pin bursting a soap bubble" - a nice visualisation.
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks, @Philip It's not perfect (what happens to the soap), but I'm fond of it. :)
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
"When the bubble reaches a detector ... the bubble disappears, like a pin bursting a soap bubble" - a nice visualisation.
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks, @Philip It's not perfect (what happens to the soap), but I'm fond of it. :)
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
"When the bubble reaches a detector ... the bubble disappears, like a pin bursting a soap bubble" - a nice visualisation.
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
$begingroup$
"When the bubble reaches a detector ... the bubble disappears, like a pin bursting a soap bubble" - a nice visualisation.
$endgroup$
– Philip Oakley
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks, @Philip It's not perfect (what happens to the soap), but I'm fond of it. :)
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks, @Philip It's not perfect (what happens to the soap), but I'm fond of it. :)
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Two people cannot see the same photon. Only one person can see a specific photon.
To see a photon, it must be absorbed by a molecule in the retina [1]. The photon then no longer exists, so it is not available to be seen by another person.
[1] Mammalia retinas can respond to single photons
New contributor
Andrew Morton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Two people cannot see the same photon. Only one person can see a specific photon.
To see a photon, it must be absorbed by a molecule in the retina [1]. The photon then no longer exists, so it is not available to be seen by another person.
[1] Mammalia retinas can respond to single photons
New contributor
Andrew Morton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Two people cannot see the same photon. Only one person can see a specific photon.
To see a photon, it must be absorbed by a molecule in the retina [1]. The photon then no longer exists, so it is not available to be seen by another person.
[1] Mammalia retinas can respond to single photons
New contributor
Andrew Morton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Two people cannot see the same photon. Only one person can see a specific photon.
To see a photon, it must be absorbed by a molecule in the retina [1]. The photon then no longer exists, so it is not available to be seen by another person.
[1] Mammalia retinas can respond to single photons
New contributor
Andrew Morton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 days ago
New contributor
Andrew Morton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Apr 20 at 22:42
Andrew MortonAndrew Morton
1257
1257
New contributor
Andrew Morton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Andrew Morton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Andrew Morton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f473932%2fcan-two-people-see-the-same-photon%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
You should specify your question: are you asking from a purely physical point of view e.g. are you interested to know whether a single photon (forget about a candle and only a single photon!) can be detected by two different "sensors", which eyes in principle are, or rather on the full world realistic question including the energy needed to trigger something in our brain?
$endgroup$
– Mayou36
Apr 20 at 19:04
5
$begingroup$
Photons are interchangeable. There is no such thing as "the same photon". There are just photons.
$endgroup$
– Stian Yttervik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Related post here. Although a rod in the retina can respond to a single photon, such a photon must strike it in the right way, with the right frequency, after having made it past the air molecules, dust particles, eyelashes, tears, cornea, aqueous humour, lens, vitreous humour, retina membrane, blood vessels, nerve cells, other cells in the retina, and part of the rod cell itself as well.
$endgroup$
– user21820
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
Given the wavelength of any photon that can be seen, I figure they would have to stand very closely together to see the same photon.
$endgroup$
– EvilSnack
2 days ago
$begingroup$
google.com/search?q=eye+reflection&tbm=isch
$endgroup$
– Cœur
yesterday