4 ms·

The BS-factor is high on this one.. "An ideal single-photon source has yet to be created." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-photon_source https://en.wikipe

by Quai 10y ago

The BS-factor is high on this one.. "An ideal single-photon source has yet to be created." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-photon_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-photon_source Still, detection of single particles has been hinted to during the Apollo program; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray_visual_phenomena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray_visual_phenomena

T0T0R0 10y ago
Rationale for disbelief: - Ambient human body temperature is a constant source of noise as infrared photons. - In a dark, cold environment the human body is radiating a constant shower of photons in a limited spectrum. Interference patterns could augment paths and energies of photons in flight. - A human might simply guess at sensations and produce statistical anomalies that we want to believe in. - A guessing human might intuitively gain an understanding of implicit tells in the detection process, and notice cues from the researchers, and interpret behavioral signals to provide affirmative responses to stimuli. - How many photons can an individual simply think into existence by willful thought? Who's to say that the test subjects aren't detecting psychic brain waves from the researchers, by way of Vulcan mind melds and subsequent "remote viewing" events? ...after all, photons are tiny.
- theon144 10y ago
  > - Ambient human body temperature is a > constant source of noise as infrared > photons. Which are outside of the visible range, and wouldn't interfere with the experiment, assuming they used visible range photons (the article doesn't mention this, but why would they not). > - A human might simply guess at sensations > and produce statistical anomalies that we > want to believe in. Isn't literally any study susceptible to this? Besides: "Still, participants were able to answer correctly more frequently than would be expected if they had guessed at random — and their confidence level was higher when they were right." suggests this wasn't an one-off anomaly. (Although N=3 nonetheles...) > - A guessing human might intuitively gain > an understanding of implicit tells in the > detection process, and notice cues from > the researchers, and interpret behavioral > signals to provide affirmative responses > to stimuli. I think the researchers might have heard of the double-blind method. > - How many photons can an individual simply > think into existence by willful thought? > Who's to say that the test subjects aren't > detecting psychic brain waves from the > researchers, by way of Vulcan mind melds > and subsequent "remote viewing" events? I might be missing a joke?
  - VLM 10y ago
    OP is kidding, I can identify the first statement as the pre-quantum ultraviolet catastrophe argument where everything warmer than absolute zero should emit one single honkin big gamma ray and drop back to absolute zero, whereas in practice blackbody radiation doesn't go to infinity with short wavelengths but goes to a peak (for example "red hot steel") What I can't identify by name is the philosophical arguments in the other statements. I'm about 90% sure one is a metaphysical Copenhagen interpretation of QM (You've heard of Heisenberg's lucky cat?) but I'm not as certain as the UV catastrophe analogy. Depends how you read it, I guess.
    - T0T0R0 10y ago
      Who are you, and how did you find me??? (...and it's Schrödinger's Cat)
- dalke 10y ago
  Thing is, we've been doing experiments for about a century where eyes were used as low photon count sensors. For example, the Geiger–Marsden experiments, a.k.a the Rutherford gold foil experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experim... If what you say is true then we should have seen a signal from it long ago.
retrogradeorbit 10y ago
Did you read the whole article you cite? The devil is in the word "ideal". If you actually read that wikipedia article: "a true single-photon source was not created in isolation until 1974." and "Another single-photon source came in 1977" and in the 1980's "thus acting as a single emitter of multiple single photons as in the experiments of Diedrich and Walther" and in the 21st century "nitrogen vacancy (NV) centers in diamond have also been utilised as a source of single photons." and "quantum dots (QDs) can emit single photons and can be constructed from the same semiconductor materials as the light-confining structures." The definition of an _ideal_ source is "that it should be on-demand, efficient, robust and easy to implement." It seems fragile, inefficient and difficult to implement sources have been invented multiple times.

by Quai 10y ago

T0T0R0 10y ago

Rationale for disbelief: - Ambient human body temperature is a constant source of noise as infrared photons. - In a dark, cold environment the human body is radiating a constant shower of photons in a limited spectrum. Interference patterns could augment paths and energies of photons in flight. - A human might simply guess at sensations and produce statistical anomalies that we want to believe in. - A guessing human might intuitively gain an understanding of implicit tells in the detection process, and notice cues from the researchers, and interpret behavioral signals to provide affirmative responses to stimuli. - How many photons can an individual simply think into existence by willful thought? Who's to say that the test subjects aren't detecting psychic brain waves from the researchers, by way of Vulcan mind melds and subsequent "remote viewing" events? ...after all, photons are tiny.

theon144 10y ago
> - Ambient human body temperature is a > constant source of noise as infrared > photons. Which are outside of the visible range, and wouldn't interfere with the experiment, assuming they used visible range photons (the article doesn't mention this, but why would they not). > - A human might simply guess at sensations > and produce statistical anomalies that we > want to believe in. Isn't literally any study susceptible to this? Besides: "Still, participants were able to answer correctly more frequently than would be expected if they had guessed at random — and their confidence level was higher when they were right." suggests this wasn't an one-off anomaly. (Although N=3 nonetheles...) > - A guessing human might intuitively gain > an understanding of implicit tells in the > detection process, and notice cues from > the researchers, and interpret behavioral > signals to provide affirmative responses > to stimuli. I think the researchers might have heard of the double-blind method. > - How many photons can an individual simply > think into existence by willful thought? > Who's to say that the test subjects aren't > detecting psychic brain waves from the > researchers, by way of Vulcan mind melds > and subsequent "remote viewing" events? I might be missing a joke?
- VLM 10y ago
  OP is kidding, I can identify the first statement as the pre-quantum ultraviolet catastrophe argument where everything warmer than absolute zero should emit one single honkin big gamma ray and drop back to absolute zero, whereas in practice blackbody radiation doesn't go to infinity with short wavelengths but goes to a peak (for example "red hot steel") What I can't identify by name is the philosophical arguments in the other statements. I'm about 90% sure one is a metaphysical Copenhagen interpretation of QM (You've heard of Heisenberg's lucky cat?) but I'm not as certain as the UV catastrophe analogy. Depends how you read it, I guess.
  - T0T0R0 10y ago
    Who are you, and how did you find me??? (...and it's Schrödinger's Cat)
dalke 10y ago
Thing is, we've been doing experiments for about a century where eyes were used as low photon count sensors. For example, the Geiger–Marsden experiments, a.k.a the Rutherford gold foil experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experim... If what you say is true then we should have seen a signal from it long ago.

retrogradeorbit 10y ago

Did you read the whole article you cite? The devil is in the word "ideal". If you actually read that wikipedia article: "a true single-photon source was not created in isolation until 1974." and "Another single-photon source came in 1977" and in the 1980's "thus acting as a single emitter of multiple single photons as in the experiments of Diedrich and Walther" and in the 21st century "nitrogen vacancy (NV) centers in diamond have also been utilised as a source of single photons." and "quantum dots (QDs) can emit single photons and can be constructed from the same semiconductor materials as the light-confining structures." The definition of an _ideal_ source is "that it should be on-demand, efficient, robust and easy to implement." It seems fragile, inefficient and difficult to implement sources have been invented multiple times.