And another refuting experiment for the formula E=hf as the definition of a' single photon' energy
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Discovery of a very cool brown dwarf amongst the ten nearest stars to the Solar System
Next: deriving speed of light out of just pure mathematics; 2nd attempt #582 Correcting Math
From: Carlo Vitali on 10 Apr 2010 03:42 On Apr 10, 12:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > lets take a light torch that emits only monochromatic light with > frequency f1 > > take it on an airplane that will fly say 20 km above earth in a day > of very **dusty air **!! > 2 > send a beam from that torch towards earth > and detect its frequency > ***to remain f1 ***!! > > the TOTAL energy that was sent from the airplane * was* > E1 > so E1 =hf1 > ----- > > since it was through dusty air > > it is obvious that the TOTAL amount of energy that > was*** received on earth** > from the airplane > is E2 < E1 > > BUT THE ITS FREQUENCY REMAINS f1 !! > so what did we got here ?? (:-) > > E2 = hf1 > E1 =hf1 > > E2 =E1 =hf ????!!! > or may be > E2 > E1 ??? > > in short > > hf CANNOT BE THE DEFINITION OF A **SINGLE PHOTON *** ENERGY !!! > > please note the term ** A SINGLE PHOTON !!!** > > E=hf as the definition of a single photon energy - > IS REFUTED by experimental data !!! > > btw > that is not ***the only** refutation > by experimental data > of E=hf > as the definition of *a single photon energy * > it is just one example of it !! > > TIA > Y.Porat > copyright > 10 - 4-2010 > ------------------------------------ The "One Single Photon" experiment won't work. That One Photon would either be absorbed by a particle of the dusty atmosphere or travel back with its original energy! Try another experiment but don't cheat in its mental process, Carlo
From: Inertial on 10 Apr 2010 04:03 "Carlo Vitali" <carlo.vitali(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a496a8c6-6615-4ad7-96ee-4336a2f2a334(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 10, 12:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> lets take a light torch that emits only monochromatic light with >> frequency f1 >> >> take it on an airplane that will fly say 20 km above earth in a day >> of very **dusty air **!! >> 2 >> send a beam from that torch towards earth >> and detect its frequency >> ***to remain f1 ***!! >> >> the TOTAL energy that was sent from the airplane * was* >> E1 >> so E1 =hf1 >> ----- >> >> since it was through dusty air >> >> it is obvious that the TOTAL amount of energy that >> was*** received on earth** >> from the airplane >> is E2 < E1 >> >> BUT THE ITS FREQUENCY REMAINS f1 !! >> so what did we got here ?? (:-) >> >> E2 = hf1 >> E1 =hf1 >> >> E2 =E1 =hf ????!!! >> or may be >> E2 > E1 ??? >> >> in short >> >> hf CANNOT BE THE DEFINITION OF A **SINGLE PHOTON *** ENERGY !!! >> >> please note the term ** A SINGLE PHOTON !!!** >> >> E=hf as the definition of a single photon energy - >> IS REFUTED by experimental data !!! >> >> btw >> that is not ***the only** refutation >> by experimental data >> of E=hf >> as the definition of *a single photon energy * >> it is just one example of it !! >> >> TIA >> Y.Porat >> copyright >> 10 - 4-2010 >> ------------------------------------ > > The "One Single Photon" experiment won't work. He didn't suggest such an experiment. Porat is very confused about beams and photons. he thinks if you shine a torch on a detector for one second, then that is a one-second-long photon, and so if you can shine a torch for less than one second, that proves photons are not one second long (which he mistakenly thinks E = hf means). > That One Photon would > either be absorbed by a particle of the dusty atmosphere or travel > back with its original energy! Try another experiment but don't cheat > in its mental process, Carlo I'm sure he will.
From: carbon14 on 10 Apr 2010 06:15 On Apr 10, 10:03 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Carlo Vitali" <carlo.vit...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:a496a8c6-6615-4ad7-96ee-4336a2f2a334(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 10, 12:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> lets take a light torch that emits only monochromatic light with > >> frequency f1 > > >> take it on an airplane that will fly say 20 km above earth in a day > >> of very **dusty air **!! > >> 2 > >> send a beam from that torch towards earth > >> and detect its frequency > >> ***to remain f1 ***!! > > >> the TOTAL energy that was sent from the airplane * was* > >> E1 > >> so E1 =hf1 > >> ----- > > >> since it was through dusty air > > >> it is obvious that the TOTAL amount of energy that > >> was*** received on earth** > >> from the airplane > >> is E2 < E1 > > >> BUT THE ITS FREQUENCY REMAINS f1 !! > >> so what did we got here ?? (:-) > > >> E2 = hf1 > >> E1 =hf1 > > >> E2 =E1 =hf ????!!! > >> or may be > >> E2 > E1 ??? > > >> in short > > >> hf CANNOT BE THE DEFINITION OF A **SINGLE PHOTON *** ENERGY !!! > > >> please note the term ** A SINGLE PHOTON !!!** > > >> E=hf as the definition of a single photon energy - > >> IS REFUTED by experimental data !!! > > >> btw > >> that is not ***the only** refutation > >> by experimental data > >> of E=hf > >> as the definition of *a single photon energy * > >> it is just one example of it !! > > >> TIA > >> Y.Porat > >> copyright > >> 10 - 4-2010 > >> ------------------------------------ > > > The "One Single Photon" experiment won't work. > > He didn't suggest such an experiment. Porat is very confused about beams > and photons. he thinks if you shine a torch on a detector for one second, > then that is a one-second-long photon, and so if you can shine a torch for > less than one second, that proves photons are not one second long (which he > mistakenly thinks E = hf means). then how long seconds do you say a photon is? [ ... mercifully]
From: Y.Porat on 10 Apr 2010 06:25 On Apr 10, 12:15 pm, carbon14 <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > On Apr 10, 10:03 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Carlo Vitali" <carlo.vit...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:a496a8c6-6615-4ad7-96ee-4336a2f2a334(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On Apr 10, 12:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> lets take a light torch that emits only monochromatic light with > > >> frequency f1 > > > >> take it on an airplane that will fly say 20 km above earth in a day > > >> of very **dusty air **!! > > >> 2 > > >> send a beam from that torch towards earth > > >> and detect its frequency > > >> ***to remain f1 ***!! > > > >> the TOTAL energy that was sent from the airplane * was* > > >> E1 > > >> so E1 =hf1 > > >> ----- > > > >> since it was through dusty air > > > >> it is obvious that the TOTAL amount of energy that > > >> was*** received on earth** > > >> from the airplane > > >> is E2 < E1 > > > >> BUT THE ITS FREQUENCY REMAINS f1 !! > > >> so what did we got here ?? (:-) > > > >> E2 = hf1 > > >> E1 =hf1 > > > >> E2 =E1 =hf ????!!! > > >> or may be > > >> E2 > E1 ??? > > > >> in short > > > >> hf CANNOT BE THE DEFINITION OF A **SINGLE PHOTON *** ENERGY !!! > > > >> please note the term ** A SINGLE PHOTON !!!** > > > >> E=hf as the definition of a single photon energy - > > >> IS REFUTED by experimental data !!! > > > >> btw > > >> that is not ***the only** refutation > > >> by experimental data > > >> of E=hf > > >> as the definition of *a single photon energy * > > >> it is just one example of it !! > > > >> TIA > > >> Y.Porat > > >> copyright > > >> 10 - 4-2010 > > >> ------------------------------------ > > > > The "One Single Photon" experiment won't work. > > > He didn't suggest such an experiment. Porat is very confused about beams > > and photons. he thinks if you shine a torch on a detector for one second, > > then that is a one-second-long photon, and so if you can shine a torch for > > less than one second, that proves photons are not one second long (which he > > mistakenly thinks E = hf means). > > then how long seconds do you say a photon is? > > [ ... mercifully] -------------- yes indeed you got the problem!! but you have to phrase it scientifically :: ---------------------------- how long do we need to make measurements to detect the detect the single photon ENERGY !?? ----------------- i ddint look back but if i ddint Fraze it properly i apologize - but am sure anyone could understand my meaning so hereby i did it again ***and that is no reason not to answer it !!!! (ps just take it in account that i was agree (:-) ATB Y.Porat ----------------------
From: Inertial on 10 Apr 2010 06:35
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1452cfc5-5799-4f9f-a024-09b466452213(a)r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 10, 12:15 pm, carbon14 <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 10, 10:03 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "Carlo Vitali" <carlo.vit...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:a496a8c6-6615-4ad7-96ee-4336a2f2a334(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > On Apr 10, 12:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> lets take a light torch that emits only monochromatic light with >> > >> frequency f1 >> >> > >> take it on an airplane that will fly say 20 km above earth in a >> > >> day >> > >> of very **dusty air **!! >> > >> 2 >> > >> send a beam from that torch towards earth >> > >> and detect its frequency >> > >> ***to remain f1 ***!! >> >> > >> the TOTAL energy that was sent from the airplane * was* >> > >> E1 >> > >> so E1 =hf1 >> > >> ----- >> >> > >> since it was through dusty air >> >> > >> it is obvious that the TOTAL amount of energy that >> > >> was*** received on earth** >> > >> from the airplane >> > >> is E2 < E1 >> >> > >> BUT THE ITS FREQUENCY REMAINS f1 !! >> > >> so what did we got here ?? (:-) >> >> > >> E2 = hf1 >> > >> E1 =hf1 >> >> > >> E2 =E1 =hf ????!!! >> > >> or may be >> > >> E2 > E1 ??? >> >> > >> in short >> >> > >> hf CANNOT BE THE DEFINITION OF A **SINGLE PHOTON *** ENERGY !!! >> >> > >> please note the term ** A SINGLE PHOTON !!!** >> >> > >> E=hf as the definition of a single photon energy - >> > >> IS REFUTED by experimental data !!! >> >> > >> btw >> > >> that is not ***the only** refutation >> > >> by experimental data >> > >> of E=hf >> > >> as the definition of *a single photon energy * >> > >> it is just one example of it !! >> >> > >> TIA >> > >> Y.Porat >> > >> copyright >> > >> 10 - 4-2010 >> > >> ------------------------------------ >> >> > > The "One Single Photon" experiment won't work. >> >> > He didn't suggest such an experiment. Porat is very confused about >> > beams >> > and photons. he thinks if you shine a torch on a detector for one >> > second, >> > then that is a one-second-long photon, and so if you can shine a torch >> > for >> > less than one second, that proves photons are not one second long >> > (which he >> > mistakenly thinks E = hf means). >> >> then how long seconds do you say a photon is? >> >> [ ... mercifully] > > -------------- > yes indeed you got the problem!! > but you have to phrase it scientifically > :: > ---------------------------- > how long do we need to make measurements > to detect the detect the > single photon ENERGY !?? > ----------------- As long as it take for one to arrive at a detector. And for as long as it take the measuring equipment to 'register' the energy received. As I've said many times before, photons are created and destroyed in an instant (which means within a single quantum of time, if time is quantized). But it takes time for the processes in a detector to use that energy and work out how much energy there was. How long that takes depends on the equipment involved. And we'd keep taking measurements over and over for lots of individual single photons to get as much data as we can, and to help minimize experimental error. > i ddint look back > but if i ddint Fraze it properly > i apologize - but am sure > anyone could understand my meaning > so > hereby i did it again > ***and that is no reason > not to answer it !!!! > (ps > just take it in account that i was agree (:-) > ATB > Y.Porat > ---------------------- |