The whole point of "in the dark" is that there are no photons.
that remains to be tested! By other quantum particles whose lack of interactions with photons and thus lack of emission of sub-quantum particles would mean lack of photons alltogether.
The whole point of "in the dark" is that there are no photons.
You guys miss the point.
Tell me how is bombarding an orange with quantum particles any different that bombarding it with light for information? It isnt. Fundamentally it is an observation being made, which alters the "normal" wave-function we call orange.
For a forum where science is defended, right or wrong, I must say QM still draws alot of apprehension from people simply because its ideas are so strange. But this is not news either, "For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it." -Niels Bohr
I think the difference there is that we know that the color of a car doesn't ordinarily change, and even if it does, no big deal. So our mind doesn't devote much "processing power" to an accurate determination of color in such a situation. On the other hand, if meat appears putrid, that's valuable information that shouldn't be ignored, so we pay attention.Interestingly there are a few examples of cases in which memory color does not work. For example, steak viewed under blue light tends to look blue (and a bit putrid), no matter how many steaks one has seen.
I guess what I am trying to say really is that: "Not all darkness is dark"
In essence there might still be a photon there. and what about other forms of radiation, UV light...infrared...?