Ah your reference;
let’s take this from the summary; “...Moreover, we explicitly stress on the fact that due to existent amplification of the signal produced by each photon
“signal produced by each photon”...does that sound analog?
this ; If this molecule absorbs a photon, it undergoes photoisomerization forming straight chain version, known as all-trans-retinal. All- trans-retinal unleashes a series of conformational changes in the protein opsin fragment producing metarhodopsin II, which is the activated form of rhodopsin.
“if a molecule absorbs a photon... (something happens)” sound analog?
this; . Elaborate experiments have shown that the human is capable of consciously detecting the absorption of a single photon by a rod
this; Therefore when opened the CNG channels tend to depolarize the cell.9 If the photoreceptor cell is illuminated,
9 When the CGN channel is open, the resting membrane potential of ‐40 mV is dragged towards the reversal potential of the CGN channel, which is 0 mV. Thus the photoreceptor is depolarized.
cytoplasmic cGMP concentration decreases and disrupts the ionic current through the CNG channels, thereby hyperpolarizing the cell.
this; Thus the first essential feature of the retina is that it amplifies the photon signal and converts it into macroscopic electric currents.
amplification is not detection, no? It’s not even the signal. But even here it says “photon signal”, Singular. So an event causes an effect, sound analog?
I’m afraid that your reference is talking about something completely different, but it is useful in that it describes the process well and we are back to a photon exciting a cell.
The best way to look at this I suppose (signal modulation in the retina) is that;
all impact the picture in some way. But the picture itself is the result of photons striking the receptor. Not the ISO setting.
Diffraction and all? No, you referred to the “duality” of photons. I merely am pointing out that “duality” is an outmoded concept based on what we now know to be the structure and properties of photons
And as far as airplanes (now a long reach), you’re talking about something entirely different. Airplanes are not photons hitting photoreceptors. An airplane may land or crash, that’s binary and information however. You seem to not understand the distinction if that’s your example.
Now about your expressions. You are the one who initially went point by point, hammer and tong about what I was saying. And beginning with your last post you’ve even brought references in which you apparently think buttress your case (actually they say exactly what I said, one photon hitting one cell is sufficient information). And now you claim it’s a peeve for me...
You obviously know a great deal more about the nuts and bolts of photography than I do. That’s cool. But either you haven’t really read what I said, or you haven’t read the reference or you don’t understand what is being said.
You’ve taken on the role of a bit of a typical Bulletin Board Bully (BBB) here, which you have also taken on before. in my limited experience, every board has one or two. That’s OK, you know a lot and I typically appreciate your input when you are not jumping to conclusions about people personally, or mis-guidedly assessing motives.
Right now you’re trying for reversal (“push a pet peeve...” that is BS, It doesn’t matter. But I have learned more about you), and make it appear that it matters a great deal to me that you accept what I say. Yet you’re the one initially going off point by point. I have followed the first time since it was harmless, but now you’re getting personal, which BBB’s often do. It really doesn’t matter to me whether you accept it or not, nor does it matter if you go on insisting photons are sometimes waves. Not here to convince you, especially when your notions are frozen into place. And oh, the further we go the more we realize that Einstein was right about a great many things, but not everything. That you reject the authors’ overarching theory is fine, but it doesn’t invalidate over a century of getting to know photons within new and more accurate concepts of the Universe.
Going to break off this discussion now since you’ve taken it to the absurd and are being far too personal. But you’re right, one of us needs to better understand the subject.