http://www.ghuth.com/2007/10/26/on-standing-waves-in-retinal-receptors-and-the-frequency-of-light/ A New Explanation for Light Interaction with the Retina of the Eye and the Vision Process Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:56:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 http://www.ghuth.com/2007/10/26/on-standing-waves-in-retinal-receptors-and-the-frequency-of-light/#comment-7889 John Bisbocci Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:41:50 +0000 http://www.ghuth.com/2007/10/26/on-standing-waves-in-retinal-receptors-and-the-frequency-of-light/#comment-7889 As one who tries his best to explain scientific topics and ideas to young people ages 8-24, I need your help. Please correct me if I am wrong in thinking: 1. Light can be considered to be an invisible form of electromagnetic waves traveling in straight lines at the constant speed (velocity)of light. 2. Light can be considered to be a flow of "particles" called photons which are invisibe "packets" of energy moving in straight lines at the constant velocity of light. 3. In both models the operative word is invisible. Thus there is no such thing as visible light. One cannot see light of any wavelength or energy. Visible light is a misnomer. It's not light we can see but rather light that can be "perceived" by our eyes. 4. This can be demonstrated using a penlight laser. The light cannot be seen as it travels across the room. Its pathway can be detected using smoke or powder that interacts with the light. 5. We can "see" material things (sense the presence of things) when light interacts with the thing in its path. Too, we can see material things when they themselves emit light. We can "see" the transmitter and/or the receiver but not the light. I hope this is enough for you to grasp the confusion with the word visible with young people. How would you respond? Thanks for your response. John As one who tries his best to explain scientific topics and ideas to young people ages 8-24, I need your help. Please correct me if I am wrong in thinking:
1. Light can be considered to be an invisible form of electromagnetic waves traveling in straight lines at the constant speed (velocity)of light.
2. Light can be considered to be a flow of “particles” called photons which are invisibe “packets” of energy moving in straight lines at the constant velocity of light.
3. In both models the operative word is invisible. Thus there is no such thing as visible light. One cannot see light of any wavelength or energy. Visible light is a misnomer. It’s not light we can see but rather light that can be “perceived” by our eyes.
4. This can be demonstrated using a penlight laser. The light cannot be seen as it travels across the room. Its pathway can be detected using smoke or powder that interacts with the light.
5. We can “see” material things (sense the presence of things) when light interacts with the thing in its path. Too, we can see material things when they themselves emit light. We can “see” the transmitter and/or the receiver but not the light.
I hope this is enough for you to grasp the confusion with the word visible with young people. How would you respond?
Thanks for your response.
John

]]>