Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Golden_eyes, May 27, 2008.
cant say for sure...met him in my olevels so for the past 6 years for sure
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I have also seen these "particals" for as long as i can remember, they are easier to see on a nice day outside, but i can also see them indoors by focusing a few feet infront of myself, similar to static on a tv but way faster streaming down, i also see colour within these particles, These are nothing like "floaters", which i believe most people see,
I have always believed them to be some kind of "cosmic radiation", (not dust).
I just went outside to have a look, it is a beautiful sight most dont see or we learn to ignore.
I BELIEVE ANYONE CAN SEE THESE PARTICLES, JUST LOOK AT AN "EMPTY SPACE" AND IGNORE ANYTHING ELSE.
They are not cosmic radiation. I can guarantee that. The smallest object that can be seen on average by someone with good vision is something the size of 100 microns or 0.1 mm or 0.0001 m. Cosmic radiation in the form of (lets pick a really big one) alpha particles is about 100000000000 times smaller than a 100 micron object.
You are not seeing atoms or cosmic rays - stop being silly.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes anyone can see floaters - they are nothing of consequence.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re floating particles.
They could be internal orbs. In which case, you are possessed.
A possible solution is to have your eyed exorcised by a Juju man.
For $5 he will remove your eyes, wash them in magic herb water, and put them back.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Out! Damned Spots.
I agree. these are not floaters.
10-12 years ago i ask my optician about these particles, he also could see these particles but had no idea what they were, all he could say that it was no problem of the eyes, He believed as i do that perhaps they could be neutrinos,
Over the years i have met a few people who also see these particles, why some see, and others do not, i am unsure,
Take a sterograph some look and see a 3d image straight away, while others will never see as hard as they look, but the image is there. Same as the particles are there.
There are many that see these particles, when "people stop inferring floaters", or bad eyesight, or dust, perhaps we will begin to work out what it is we see, and why only certain people see.
Is it not time to send this thread to the cesspool as the these circular moving spots were explained first in post 61 and then more in post 65 and very completely by the link in post 88. Now we get garbage about cosmic rays, power plant radiation, neutrinos etc.
BTW, the effect of cosmic rays can be seen. Typically it is a bluish / white flash of light seen in the dark with the eyes shut. I have seen it once. It is the optical shock wave (Chrenikoff radiation - not spelled correctly) caused by a charged particle moving faster then the speed of light in some dense medium like the vitreous humor filling your eye ball. It might be possible to determine which eye the particle transversed, but I only thought of this much later when it was no longer possible. I.e. assuming you were very well dark adapted, the flash may be bright enough to destroy the dark adaption in that eye. Then that eye will not see much in a very dimly lite room, but the other eye can still "see in the dim light."
Unlikely. But seeing cosmic rays is common in space, very uncommon on earth.
Cosmic ray visual phenomena, also referred to as phosphenes or "light flashes", are spontaneous flashes of light visually perceived by astronauts outside the magnetosphere of the Earth, such as during the Apollo program. Researchers believe that cosmic rays are responsible for these flashes of light, though the exact mechanism is unknown. Hypotheses include one or all of: Cherenkov radiation created as the cosmic ray particles pass through the vitreous humor of the astronauts' eyes, direct interaction with the optic nerve, or direct interaction with visual centres in the brain.
Astronauts almost always reported that the flashes were white, with one exception in which the astronaut observed "blue with a white cast, like a blue diamond." There were a few different types of flashes: "spots" and "stars" were observed 66% of the time, "streaks" were observed 25% of the time, and "clouds" were observed 8% of the time.
Once their eyes became adapted to the dark, Apollo astronauts reported seeing this phenomenon once every 2.9 minutes on average. They also reported that they observed the phenomenon more frequently during the transit to the Moon than during the return transit to Earth.
Frequency could be due to space "weather".
Your Optician is an idiot.
Your idea that what you are seeing is atomic or subatomic particles is just plain stupid and sad. Do you know that neutrinos travel at almost the speed of light. When you see neutrinos, which are impossible to see with the most powerful microscopes in the world are they also moving at ~c.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
People who are short sighted see them more often than normal sighted.
Which is as you would expect, when you are seeing something inside your own eyes.
I can see them easily by looking up into a cloudy sky without focussing.
Also, if I close my eyes and rub them, all sorts of lights and particles appear.
When your optician said they were neutrinos
perhaps she thought neutrinos were another name for little specks floating around in your eyes.
There is no particular reason why she should understand physics.
Say you were a busy optician, and you understood what Neutrinos were,
and someone said they thought that the specks floating in their eyes were Neutrinos,
would you say:
A. No they can't be Neutrinos, because................
B. Yes, Neutrinos. Mmmmh. That's probably right. Now, can you read me the bottom row of letters?
OK fine, the optician was busy and maybe said "yeah yeah sure, whatever". I have no idea what the context of the conversation was so it was wrong to say he was an idiot. So what's the deal, are you or your brother an optician or something? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The cosmic ray I experienced one night while a high elevation (LASL - a summer job as a graduate student) was not the primary particle, probably not even one of the first or second generation daughters but they are all called cosmic rays too as in "cosmic ray shower." I have only seen it once while laying awake in bed, with eyes shut in a dark room, thinking about something else.
I am very interested in visual effects. I have twice see a very bright very small point of light that dimmed in a few seconds. I did have the presence of mind to with eyes still closed, to direct my direction of gaze (if my eyes were open) to different directions and noted the dying spot moved around. - I. e. I think a single retinal nerve in one eye, had some sort of "activity spasm." I spoke with a doctor or two at JHU's Wilmer Eye Institute as then I had many interactions with JHU doctors. They did not know what it was but agreed my understanding of it was probably correct. Also interesting was the perception was of a dimming bright spot on the ceiling of my bed room even with eyes still shut! All vision, is IMHO, a creation of the brain, not the image on the retina seen. The retina is just the major, but not the only, data base used for "seeing." Dreams with eyes shut prove this as do many experiments.
I am also quite familiar with phosphenes or "light flashes", but never have experienced any. I had modest contact with an NIH doctor, (Dr. Hambrick, if I recall his name correctly) who was doing some experiments with congenitally blind who wanted to help him (and perhaps themselves). I. e. small electrodes were placed on their visual cortex (V1) and when stimulated they reported phosphenes or "light flashes." Unfortunately these flashes continued for many seconds even after the electrical stimulation was turned off. Also if two near by electrodes were excited the spots "bloomed" into a region of phosphenes or "illuminated region" that could last for even a minute after the stimulation was turned off.
As it so happened, I was at the time stimulating the cerebellar area of a few Rhesus monkeys, which I am now sad to admit I and a neuro-surgeon of JHU had made have epilepsy with some brain damage in a prior operation. (A Doctor Copper in Boston was stimulating the cerebellar brain of humans and claiming he could prevent epilepsy and some other brain disorders – with every little animal experimental support for his theories) Thus, I knew there was a form of epilepsy, called Jacksonian epilepsy that starts out as very local excitation but spreads and then eventually dies out – I believe due to metabolic exhaustion of the active cells. It too can last for many seconds or even more than a minute. I suggested to Dr. Hambrick that he was triggering Jacksonian epilepsy and it would be impossible to give the blind even low resolution vision with his approach. Interestingly it is possible to give the blind low resolution vision by an array of many electrodes placed on their back or stomach. For proof read about Bach Rita's work of 20 years ago. (I exchanged a few Emails with him, but never met him in person. If that spelling is not correct, I will try to find his name and edit to spell it correctly for you.)
The standard cognitive science “theory” of perception, including visual perceptions for which the most experimental data is available, is that perception “emerges” after many stages of neural transformations (Neural processing or calculations based on sensory input data) That is only “hand waving” - not enough of a neural mechanistic theory to even call it nonsense!
After many years of reading the literature on visual experiments, and a year of sabbatical leave from JHUAPL spent in the Cognitive Science department of JHU, nearly a dozen “hands on” experiments with humans and monkeys, I developed a theory of perception based on known properties of neurons which I call the RTS theory of perception.
(I had the great advantage of never having been taught how vision and perception are achieved.)
For vision, the first thing to explain (after simple sharp image formation on the retina and the electro-chemical processes convert photons into pulse in the optical nerve, is how is the continuous light field stimulating the retina neurons is parsed into discrete objects with boundaries in the field of continuous illumination. I suggested an explanation for that based on then known way near by “line detector neurons” in V1 mutually stimulate or inhibit each other. Then went on to suggest how these discrete objects are identified, etc. Explaining several of the Gestalt laws in neurological terms, not hand waving. I published all this in an obscure journal of APL (The APL Technical Digest) very few in the field of cognitive science would read in 1991. I was requested to contribute an article on my RTS for an issue focused on various aspects of different simulations.
My Real Time Simulation theory is consistent with dozens of observation that contradict the cognitive science accepted “emergent” from input data POV and explains many known but seldom mentioned neurological facts, such as that more neural signals come to V1 (the “visual cortex”) from the parietal lobes than from the eyes, via the LNG. The RTS not only explains that, it RQUIRES that to be the case. The accepted theory of visual experience is shown to be false every time you have a visual dream. (Eyes shut – no input to transform into the visual experience.)
For more on the RTS please read:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?2868-About-determinism&p=882356&viewfull=1#post882356 but be warned it is long but most who do read think their time was well spent. It both explains and defends the RTS, especially how that POV makes genuine free will no longer conflict with the known DETERMINISTIC laws of what makes our nerves discharge.
No, I was thinking similarly myself, but then I realised there could be another explanation.
I wonder which you are more likely to see?
A neutrino from the sun, or a cosmic ray from deep space?
The neutrinos from the sun are less reactive, but there are billions of them passing through us every second.
Added later. It seems unlikely that we could detect a neutrino at all.
They transfer very little energy to the matter they pass through,
and not enough to fire a retina cell.
Neutrinos traveling through matter, in general, undergo a process analogous to light traveling through a transparent material. This process is not directly observable because it doesn't produce ionizing radiation, but gives rise to the MSW effect. Only a small fraction of the neutrino's energy is transferred to the material.
yes i do realise, do you realise everything we "see" comes to us at the speed of light?
I can only say what i see,
What i believe that there are billions of these neutrinos passing through us every second, so in any point of space there will always be a neutrinos, which would seem then to cancel out the speed of light as when one neutrino passes another takes its place, which to the eye would seem to be the same neutrino.
The chances of a neutrino interacting with the mass of your eyeball is as likely as Motor Daddy understanding general relativity - effectively zero.
It doesn't work like that sunshaker.
If the neutrino comes into contact with an atom, the atom will absorb the neutrino and try to use its energy to boost an electron into a higher orbit.
If there isn't enough energy, a quantum amount, it re-emits it exactly as it was before.
To a neutrino, the whole earth is like a thin pane of glass to a light beam.
Apples and oranges. We do not see anything moving at the speed of light. The photons strike the back of your eye and they are converted to an electrical impulse that our brains convert into an image.
Well as I said that is just sad. Do a little research on size and speed and you would see how astoundingly silly your proposition is. Can you see a bullet? They are pretty big and moving only at the speed of sound. Do you think you could see a bullet moving almost 1,000,000 times faster. You could not see a bowling ball moving at the 90% the speed of light.
Note post 97 has become longer - If interested in how you perceive things, genuine free will, etc. please look at what has been added.
The following is an account of how many cosmic rays strike the ground.
How many cosmic rays strike the ground each second?
The rate of cosmic rays reaching us falls off rapidly as the cosmic ray energy increases. For 1 GeV particles, the rate is about 10,000 per square meter per second. At 1000 GeV (or 10 to power 12 eV), the rate is only 1 particle per square meter per second. The rate starts to decrease even more rapidly around 1016 eV, where there are only a few particles per square meter per year. The highest energy particles, above 1019 eV, arrive only at a rate of about one particle per square kilometer per year.
Detecting a cosmic ray depends on it being powerful enough to fire a series of retinal cells.
It would need to produce a shower of at least a thousand photons, and also hit the eyeball at the right angle, to be seen as a streak.
Separate names with a comma.