 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Probably not nearly as important as the error introduced by assuming both
> star
> and bulb emit only in the visible.
Wikipedia can tell you the "luminous efficacy" of the sun (14%), a light
bulb (2%) and LEDs (1.5-22%):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy
Whilst the % values are not exactly the amount of radiation that is visible
(it's weighted more towards green), it's a better approximation than 100%
:-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Wikipedia can tell you the "luminous efficacy" of the sun (14%), a light
> bulb (2%) and LEDs (1.5-22%):
Anybody happen to know the luminous efficacy of a glow worm?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Wikipedia can tell you the "luminous efficacy" of the sun (14%), a light
>> bulb (2%) and LEDs (1.5-22%):
>
> Anybody happen to know the luminous efficacy of a glow worm?
Man Wikipedia knows everything! We should power our lights with glow worms!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> >> Wikipedia can tell you the "luminous efficacy" of the sun (14%), a light
> >> bulb (2%) and LEDs (1.5-22%):
> >
> > Anybody happen to know the luminous efficacy of a glow worm?
>
> Man Wikipedia knows everything! We should power our lights with glow worms!
All they need is a reflective cavity and a biochemical population inversion, and
we could have them in CD players too!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Anybody happen to know the luminous efficacy of a glow worm?
>> Man Wikipedia knows everything! We should power our lights with glow worms!
>
> All they need is a reflective cavity and a biochemical population inversion, and
> we could have them in CD players too!
...so I'm guessing it's quiet efficient then? (Mother Nature has an
uncanny way of doing this, it seems.)
Given the number of genetically engineered organisms which glow, I'm
guessing scientists have a good idea of how this works. Maybe
electronically-controlled glowing algae or something isn't so
far-fetched. (I hate to think what the component lifetime would be though!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> No. The "interference" is caused not by the particle, but by the slits.
How does the photon know there was another slit nearby, and behave
differently if that was so?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > when the state of the particle is "observed" (whatever that might mean)
> Merely that you have done something to it which changes its unknown
> state, usually causing it to make contact with another particle(s), such
> as a detector.
I think the Copenhagen interpretation goes beyond that. If the decay of
the radioactive substance causes the flask to be broken, killing the cat,
it has already been "observed" (by whatever detector caused the flask to
be broken) and thus there are no superimposed states, but according to
the Copenhagen interpretation there are, until some external observer opens
the box.
That's the kind of "observation" I don't understand.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > It looks like a wave, it behaves like a wave, it produces all the effects
> > that a wave would produce, but it's not a wave.
> By the way, just so you know, this sort of statement comes across to me as
> sarcastic, as if you're ridiculing my statements. I don't know if that's
> your intention here, but that's why after a number of exchanges I sometimes
> get ruder than I need to be. I don't know if it's a communication issue or
> you getting frustrated at my inability to explain quantum mechanics in a
> 2-paragraph post ;-) but sometimes when you don't agree, your expressions of
> that lack of agreement (not necessarily disagreement, mind) sound sarcastic.
It was not sarcasm, it was puzzlement.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> No. The "interference" is caused not by the particle, but by the slits.
>
> How does the photon know there was another slit nearby, and behave
> differently if that was so?
If you could answer exactly how a photon "knows" where it can and can't go
then you'd probably become quite famous.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> No. The "interference" is caused not by the particle, but by the slits.
>
> How does the photon know there was another slit nearby, and behave
> differently if that was so?
Nobody knows.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
