From: email@example.com (William J. Beaty)
Subject: Re: Make infrared goggles inexpensively (like $10!!!)
Date: 17 Sep 2002 01:41:17 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Sep 2002 08:41:17 GMT
Jonathan Kirwan wrote in message news:...
> He reason it is NOT a valid analogy is simply because light stimulus
> is based on QED while sound stimulus is based on subtle time
> variations in material density (mechanical vibration.)
Well, sound is actually based on coherent phonons, but I get
what you mean.
> There is a
> quantum effect in the light involved in sight, none such in hearing.
> Any analogy between them doesn't hold well.
You seem to be arguing that an optical sensor's frequency
response curve cannot be treated the same as an audio sensor's
curve. Since when? Unless it comes down to triggered fluorescence
effects or rare phenomona such as "squeezed light" noise effects,
a frequency response curve is still a frequency response curve.
Quantum mechanics doesn't force us to handle an optical frequency
response in a different way. (In other words, in the limit of
large numbers of interactions, QM becomes classical physics, and
optical lowpass filters behave like RF lowpass filters.)
Yes, there ARE some exotic situations where QM makes a difference.
But filter response and sensor response curves are not an example.
> But I'm talking about scotoptic and photoptic vision, not molecular
> heating interactions. In any case, sensitivity curves of human eyes
> have been well tested this century.
Yep. If the curve rolls off at 20dB per 25nM or so, then
in order to see another 50nM farther out into the IR band, we
just have to turn up the light 10,000x brighter. Or instead
we could REMOVE the broadband light that overloads our sensor,
and just leave behind the .01% at the frequency of interest.
(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci