« on: December 14, 2014, 06:44:58 PM »
Whatever, I find this constant bickering over non-existent issues tiresome.The remark was made that no one understands the physics. Here one person who knows enough: Roger Clark. Read his review of the 7D II and follow the links in it:Roger Clark seems to be a very bright fellow. But the resolution issue ultimately comes down to the problem that light does not behave entirely like a particle nor entirely like a wave. It's both at once. But not really. And if you look at light too closely, it responds by changing what it is.
Not even the worlds best physicists have managed a complete solution to explain this phenomenon. So, no one really does understand the Physics. Obviously, lots of people understand it better than I do. Roger Clark certainly seems to be one of them.
What are the problems with the wave-particle duality of light and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and quantum effects at a level that is going to affect the observed resolution of a lens and sensor that we can detect in our images? The wave nature of light is sufficient that we can calculate the diffraction patterns at different wavelengths and work out the how they depend on f number, the particle nature means that we can apply Poissonian statistics to photon noise, and regarding the uncertainty and effects; are they large enough to affect us in any practical way?
Even though we don't fully understand the laws of physics, we can design a car without using Einstein's theory of relativity, just based on Newtonian mechanics, and land a space vehicle on a comet. We are dealing with practicalities, not metaphysics. You don't need a "theory of everything" for most practical aspects of engineering.
In which case, stop bickering. You raised the non-existent issue of the inadequacy of physics.