4 ms·

Article is from 1996. Another study was done last year and they also found humans can probably see single photons, though the study is limited as its sample si

Article is from 1996. Another study was done last year and they also found humans can probably see single photons, though the study is limited as its sample size is n=3. https://www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-1.20282 https://www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-...

laretluval 9y ago
They ran each subject for 2400 trials. Was that decided in advance? This really needs a registered replication.
pharrington 9y ago
That Nature article and the OP are in complete agreement. Neither say humans can visually experience single photons.
tdaltonc 9y ago
A low subject count is a big problem in a lot of psych studies, but much less so in psychophysics. They typically do thousands of trials on each subject and the variance between subjects is usually extremely small.
ekianjo 9y ago
> can probably see single photons Photons don't exist in the first place. Science has moved on and modern models don't assume the existence of actual particles. It's only electromagnetic waves.
- guftagu 9y ago
  How do the waves have inertia then? We know for a fact that photons exert force in the surface they strike
- swiley 9y ago
  That's not quite right, They still come in descrete packets. It makes sense to call these photons and I've been told it's better to just think of them using statistics rather than to use something like waves or particals. Not that I understand quantum mechanics.
- fiatjaf 9y ago
  "Science has moved", "Photons don't exist". How do you live with that?
- colanderman 9y ago
  Ok, tell that to the Standard Model. [1] Like it or not, in modern physics, "photon" refers to a particular type of discrete lump of momentum and energy. It is a thing you can definitely have one of. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    Then its not a particle with zero mass as often defined.
mattkrause 9y ago
That's not the actual paper. This is: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12172 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12172

laretluval 9y ago

They ran each subject for 2400 trials. Was that decided in advance? This really needs a registered replication.

pharrington 9y ago

That Nature article and the OP are in complete agreement. Neither say humans can visually experience single photons.

tdaltonc 9y ago

A low subject count is a big problem in a lot of psych studies, but much less so in psychophysics. They typically do thousands of trials on each subject and the variance between subjects is usually extremely small.

ekianjo 9y ago

> can probably see single photons Photons don't exist in the first place. Science has moved on and modern models don't assume the existence of actual particles. It's only electromagnetic waves.

guftagu 9y ago
How do the waves have inertia then? We know for a fact that photons exert force in the surface they strike
swiley 9y ago
That's not quite right, They still come in descrete packets. It makes sense to call these photons and I've been told it's better to just think of them using statistics rather than to use something like waves or particals. Not that I understand quantum mechanics.
fiatjaf 9y ago
"Science has moved", "Photons don't exist". How do you live with that?
colanderman 9y ago
Ok, tell that to the Standard Model. [1] Like it or not, in modern physics, "photon" refers to a particular type of discrete lump of momentum and energy. It is a thing you can definitely have one of. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
- ekianjo 9y ago
  Then its not a particle with zero mass as often defined.

mattkrause 9y ago

That's not the actual paper. This is: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12172 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12172