I'm sure I've read somewhere that Photosynthesis is so efficient that someone has theorised that it is utilising quantum physics. I'll try to find it.
Why are plants green?
- Thread starter esbo
- Start date
- Status
I'm sure I've read somewhere that Photosynthesis is so efficient that someone has theorised that it is utilising quantum physics. I'll try to find it.
You will of course excuse me if I find claims such as this unimpressive.
For one thing, it lacks context (not to mention verifiability) - being top in a class of 5 is a less impressive feat than say being top in a class of 40.
To the other, I trained to teach highschool chemistry (I don't, I gave it up for a number of reasons, including philosophical disagreements with the course administrators).
But if you want to see who can pee further up the wall...
I graduated University with a BSc(Chem).
I completed highschool chemistry with the Highest Grade possible.
I was in the top 5 or 10% of chemistry students in Australia and New Zealand.
My Job, enforcing environmental law, uses my knowledge of chemistry and statistics to put a roof over my families head, food on our table, and pay our bills, and I make enough money doing it that my wife has been able to choose not to work after having our (two) children.
But I generally try to avoid bragging about these things, because I generally find bragging to be anathema to me. And I haven't had to brag to estabilsh my reputation with posters such as Captain K, I've gained that through my actions.
I don't recall saying that it was problematic, only suggesting that it may have been un-neccessary early on, and that plants do it sufficiently well to be successful - I mean, stop and think about it for a minute, they don't need to absorb efficiently in this part of the spectrum, there's plenty of light about.
So you keep saying, but you have yet to offer a valid, useful critique.
I'm not psychic, I'm not omniscient, I don't know what you think is wrong with my posts unless you make the effort to respond to them with more than one liners and offer an in-depth critique.
Otherwise, you just come across as a troll (and it's this that I despise, not theism).
Addendum:
Tell me, have you carried out that experiment that I outlined using paint.net (or similar) yet?
Have you understood the significance of it yet?
Let me put it to you this way. If we accept 0 and 85 as being the correct Red and Blue values, and we accept 9,90,85 as being the limit of greenness in this scenario, then we come to this conclusion. 90 is 35% of 255. If we're only interested in experimenting with absorption accross the green part of the spectrum (that seems to be what you object to), then we're talking about (effectively) moving the green slider. So the range of colours represented by moving the green slider, represents the range of colours that would have been available to plants through alternative pigments.
35% of those pigments are not green.
65% of those pigments are green.
This suggsets that plants are green, because it was the colour they were most likely to be (IE for plants, being green is easier, and more likely, than being not green).
Last edited:
Well it was the top of a class of about 20, the twenty who stayed on to do A level chemistry. That is out of a total of 180 who could have stayed on.
So top out of 180 if you like, further more I was 2 grades better than the next best, I got a 'B' next best was 'D'. I got the same grade my teacher got (I asked him).
So I think I have a better than average understanding of chemistry.
I actually wish I had pursued Chemistry at university rather than electronics.
OK I didn't get the top grade, but then had I been in a school where people did get that grade I think I would have had a better chance, and probably a better teacher.
OK I have not given my theory yet but then what would you do in my position?
I will come back to the bit about MS paint because I have forgotten what you wrote and I need to go and read it.
I am not going to uses facemoods because I have trouble installing it and it comes up as a virus.
Anyway I did the same thing with this and it did not substantiate your claim.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/mix_n_match/
Anyway I did the same thing with this and it did not substantiate your claim.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/mix_n_match/
Last edited:
Which claim? That when you take out all of the blue and most of the red it's hard to make a colour that isn't green?
Or the claim that the colour I presented was the limit of green?
very interesting biography Trippy. I am glad you told us . I wonder how homogenized the information world is? I got some unrelated questions ?
Lead paint protocal for containment ? Does your country do that ? How about radon gas mitigation ? Asbestos abatement ? Indoor air quality has that become a big concern ?
Lead paint protocal for containment ? Does your country do that ? How about radon gas mitigation ? Asbestos abatement ? Indoor air quality has that become a big concern ?
It did not substantiate any claim related to the question I only saw one claim you made and it did not work.
IF you want to restate you list of claim here I will try them again, saves me searching for them as you know what you claims are without searching.
Anyhow bottom line is it did not work.
Anyhow fiddling with the colours will not change the fact that grass is green.
Could someone explain to me what the disagreement is in this thread?
Why are plants green?
A. Because they reflect green light
Why do they reflect Green light?
A. Because they don't use that portion of the spectrum.
I have seen another question, which was quite a good one.
Why don't they use the other frequencies?
A. They use the pigment that gives the greatest efficiency.
That is the thread done and dusted in twenty posts at most.
What is going on in this thread?
What is the argument?
Why are plants green?
A. Because they reflect green light
Why do they reflect Green light?
A. Because they don't use that portion of the spectrum.
I have seen another question, which was quite a good one.
Why don't they use the other frequencies?
A. They use the pigment that gives the greatest efficiency.
That is the thread done and dusted in twenty posts at most.
What is going on in this thread?
What is the argument?
It's a Monty Python sketch.
That explains things.
That explains things.
Could someone explain to me what the disagreement is in this thread?
Why are plants green?
A. Because they reflect green light
Why do they reflect Green light?
A. Because they don't use that portion of the spectrum.
I have seen another question, which was quite a good one.
Why don't they use the other frequencies?
A. They use the pigment that gives the greatest efficiency.
That is the thread done and dusted in twenty posts at most.
What is going on in this thread?
What is the argument?
black is most effiecient
Not necessarily.
"Most energy stored as sugars for amount of energy expended making leaves = most efficient and could come at any color.
More to the point, why do you think that natural systems must always be the most efficient?
The argument is Esbo refusing to consider any explanation offered, dismissing each of them with one liners like "Your argument is weak" or "It doesn't substantiate your claims", while refusing to offer anything in the way of an in depth refutation, or explanation as to why the explanations fail to reach criteria of acceptability (Esbo claims to not have the time).Could someone explain to me what the disagreement is in this thread?
Why are plants green?
A. Because they reflect green light
Why do they reflect Green light?
A. Because they don't use that portion of the spectrum.
I have seen another question, which was quite a good one.
Why don't they use the other frequencies?
A. They use the pigment that gives the greatest efficiency.
That is the thread done and dusted in twenty posts at most.
What is going on in this thread?
What is the argument?
Are you going to make this black from a combination of pigments, or a single black pigment?
.......................Mmmh...............Dum de Dum de Dum........................
..........................He must be busy at the moment.
No problem. I can wait.
Last edited:
My... Recollection... Is that we haven't even succeeded in making a genuinely black pigment - they're all either very dark browns (like skin tone) or very dark blues.
Don't jump the gun Trippy.
You're giving him clues.
You're giving him clues.
I sowwy. :*)
I have addressed every point I have seen raised, however it is a bit more difficult to address a rambling post a with lot of chemical symbols in which is not making any clear point at all, at least not one I can seem.
Esbo is going to give his own answer very soon.................................................
I anticipate his imminent refutation with 'bated breath.
- Status