Can a leaf detect the difference in blue light coming from above and green light surrounding it? Can it detect the green and brown light surrounding it? The red light reflecting off a bird sitting above it?
If it’s sensitive enough to the different wavelengths a leaf wouldn’t really be all that much different from an eye.
Its ancient dusty, pre-covid exposure memories, but I took a course as a graduate student covering the quantum physics of photosynthesis, and that’s https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-phyto-080417-045931. In the above image, the peaks on the left at around 400-500 can be thought of as blue light, and the peaks around 640-800 can be thought of as red light. Both of these wavelengths of light are involved in photosynthesis, which you can think of as in a manner, solar fusion in reverse. The plant has to take the light from the sun (the product of fusion), and get that energy reattached to a molecule. In fact, iirc, its basically the same electron orbital diagram. And it does make sense, because physically, that is what is happening.
These days I do much more boring stuff, but I always loved photosynthesis. Its probably one of my favorite chemical reactions. Nah fuck that it is my favorite chemical reaction.
So like, yeah. Plants have a TON of information about their environment. Granted, their photosensors don’t have lenses, but they are constantly gathering and reacting to information about the quantity, quality, and locations of light. Afa resolution? Thats like, actually a super interesting question. Not having a lens is a big drawback.
I call them pretty birds, unless I’m calling them a little fucker, and that’s because it’s a chickadee that won’t hold still for 2 goddamn seconds so I can get a photo
Might be plausible. I’ll have to look it up at one point, maybe there’s some research on this. I think it may be hard to guess why because we don’t have many swimming animals with shells. I don’t know if snails may offer some answers but they are maybe to different in lifestyle.
Probably too different, as snails are benthic, while ammonites where probably nektonic.
Iirc the shells being longer is something about allowing gases in the shell to compress or expand as needed to control bouyancy. I would imagine there is a sac of gas, and the ammonites would siphon water in or out as needed to compress or decompress the gas.
Edit: just looked it up on Wikipedia, it appears the heteromorph ammonites are thought to have maybe been planktonic or benthic.
Definitions for non-nerds:
Benthic means living on or near the sea floor.
Nektonic means free swimming
Planktonic means going with the current as plankton. I should note plankton aren’t all tiny, some are visibile to the naked eye. All it means is unable to propel themselves against current.
It is certainly a challenge to keep a large animal with such a thick shell afloat. However that would just explain the immense size of the shells. Their shape is just extremely weird and sometimes I’d even expect it to be detrimental to their ability to navigate the open water. If they were planktonic it would not be as problematic I guess but I still don’t see the functional advantage. Maybe mimicry? But of what?
They look a lot like the calcareous shells of some polychaetes but they have a sedentary lifestyle attached to rock or other substrates which is not what we’d expect for Ammonites.
Just be happy that you don’t get it. There are flat earthers out there who will say it unironically. Not sure if it’s only flat earthers but I think so. It really is wild
Wow, that’s awesome. I’ve been thinking a lot about the scale of the universe and how cyclical it is.
Take a scaled out view of our solar system and then compare it to a molecules composition (the atom or group of atoms surrounded by protons and neutrons) and the similarities are just uncanny.
Like this image, what’s to say that we aren’t just part of a molecule making up the chemical composition of something far larger than ourselves. An ant has no concept of the vast empty space between the United States and Europe, we know that is the case between solar systems but our actual understanding of our relationship in space is limited.
P.S. look at the patterns of discharge of electricity in wood/paper/stone and then look at the patterns of the Grand Canyon. They’re the same! And the Grand Canyon is the only formation we have that exhibits this quality, which makes it extra interesting.
Take a scaled out view of our solar system and then compare it to a molecules composition (the atom or group of atoms surrounded by protons and neutrons) and the similarities are just uncanny.
Nah, the planetary model of the atom is outdated. The quantum model doesn’t look very much like a solar system.
science_memes
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.