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: Y.Porat on 10 Apr 2010 07:38 On Apr 10, 1:19 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 10, 12:35 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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 > > > ---------------------- > > it seems that my answer was diverted > sohere it is again > ================= > On Apr 10, 12:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:5907989e-118b-457f-80ae-959381387a0c(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Apr 10, 8:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:915556e1-76ea-4bed-bad7-0c4066665657(a)e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com.... > > > >> > On Apr 10, 8:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >>news:e031793c-dc75-450c-b26a-d46d50fcc1f8(a)b23g2000yqn.googlegroups..com... > > > >> >> > On Apr 10, 7:19 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> On Apr 10, 6:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >> >> >news:76991615-4e90-4cd6-a92f-61105ee03dd5(a)g30g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >> >> > > On Apr 10, 6:09 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 > > >> >> >> > >> ------------------------------------ > > > >> >> >> > > in a second though > > >> >> >> > > in order to prevent 'picky remarks > > >> >> >> > > let us do that experiment > > >> >> >> > > not from a moving airplane > > >> >> >> > > but > > >> >> >> > > from a stand still satellite > > >> >> >> > > so i will re Fraze it again for a satellite: > > > >> >> >> > I assumed that we were ignoring SR and GR effects already. > > > >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------ > > >> >> >> > > ============================== > > >> >> >> > > lets take a light torch that emits only monochromatic light > > >> >> >> > > with > > >> >> >> > > frequency f1> > > > >> >> >> > OK > > > >> >> >> > > take it on ** a satellite** that will fly say 100 km above > > >> >> >> > > earth in a day > > >> >> >> > > of very **dusty air **!! > > > >> >> >> > Are you claiming it is in geostationary orbit? If so, you've got > > >> >> >> > the > > >> >> >> > height > > >> >> >> > wrong. > > > >> >> >> > And you will still get GR effects. You've made your thought > > >> >> >> > experiment > > >> >> >> > worse instead of better. > > > >> >> >> > Maybe you should just have a torch and receiver in a long > > >> >> >> > straight > > >> >> >> > tube > > >> >> >> > filled with dusty air.. that would make it so much impler. > > > >> >> >> > > 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 > > >> >> >> > > ----- > > > >> >> >> > No. That is incorrect. You are not using the correct formula > > > >> >> >> > > 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 > > > >> >> >> > That is correct, though you fo > --------------------------- > nasty pig!! > we are not on the Josef Goebbels > fish market!! > we are dealing with exact figures!! > not abstract hand waving > > 'HOW LONG IT TAKES IT TO BE DETECTED' > ?? !!! > THAT ANSWER IS NOT AN ANSWER OF AN HONEST PERSON !! > ------------ and i addition to the above the nasty pig CROOK OBFUSCATOR is diverting the issue to how long i takes to CREATE a SINGLE photon i ddint ask how long it takes to create a SINGLE photon energy I WAS ASKING HOW LONG IT **TAKES TO **DETECT A SINGLE PHOTON THAT WAS ALREADY EMITTED *** !!!AND MEASURE IT !! (because without detecting and measuring it is ball boggling !!) > > so just give us an exact figure !! > (the single photon energy is something very single > and specific an should be accurate !! > defined by exact figures > and have to be verifies by measurements > > yet measurements of energy are defined by time > and have the HUP limits as well ....!! > so what is that time needed for it ?? > if you dont know > just for a change be honest and say 'i dont know' !! THAT SHOULD BE AS WELL A LEGITIMATE ANSWER !! but if so no one ever detected properly the single photon energy !! btw my suggestion was a month ago E min =hf times 5.38 exp-44 (while 5.38 exp -44 is **just a figure** **without the time unit** !!!) it is obviously un measurable !! TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------- BECAUSE NO ONE EVER defined it properly and ddint MEASURE IT !!! (as a *real *single photon energy !!! > TIA > Y.Porat > --------------------------
From: Inertial on 10 Apr 2010 07:48 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:49f6342c-04fd-4fc6-8a4a-5b93dca69bcf(a)u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 10, 1:19 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 10, 12:35 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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 >> > > ---------------------- >> >> it seems that my answer was diverted >> sohere it is again >> ================= >> On Apr 10, 12:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:5907989e-118b-457f-80ae-959381387a0c(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > On Apr 10, 8:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > >>news:915556e1-76ea-4bed-bad7-0c4066665657(a)e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... >> >> > >> > On Apr 10, 8:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > >> >>news:e031793c-dc75-450c-b26a-d46d50fcc1f8(a)b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> >> > >> >> > On Apr 10, 7:19 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> >> On Apr 10, 6:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > >> >> >> >news:76991615-4e90-4cd6-a92f-61105ee03dd5(a)g30g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> > >> >> >> > > On Apr 10, 6:09 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 >> > >> >> >> > >> ------------------------------------ >> >> > >> >> >> > > in a second though >> > >> >> >> > > in order to prevent 'picky remarks >> > >> >> >> > > let us do that experiment >> > >> >> >> > > not from a moving airplane >> > >> >> >> > > but >> > >> >> >> > > from a stand still satellite >> > >> >> >> > > so i will re Fraze it again for a satellite: >> >> > >> >> >> > I assumed that we were ignoring SR and GR effects already. >> >> > >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------ >> > >> >> >> > > ============================== >> > >> >> >> > > lets take a light torch that emits only monochromatic >> > >> >> >> > > light >> > >> >> >> > > with >> > >> >> >> > > frequency f1> >> >> > >> >> >> > OK >> >> > >> >> >> > > take it on ** a satellite** that will fly say 100 km >> > >> >> >> > > above >> > >> >> >> > > earth in a day >> > >> >> >> > > of very **dusty air **!! >> >> > >> >> >> > Are you claiming it is in geostationary orbit? If so, >> > >> >> >> > you've got >> > >> >> >> > the >> > >> >> >> > height >> > >> >> >> > wrong. >> >> > >> >> >> > And you will still get GR effects. You've made your thought >> > >> >> >> > experiment >> > >> >> >> > worse instead of better. >> >> > >> >> >> > Maybe you should just have a torch and receiver in a long >> > >> >> >> > straight >> > >> >> >> > tube >> > >> >> >> > filled with dusty air.. that would make it so much impler. >> >> > >> >> >> > > 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 >> > >> >> >> > > ----- >> >> > >> >> >> > No. That is incorrect. You are not using the correct >> > >> >> >> > formula >> >> > >> >> >> > > 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 >> >> > >> >> >> > That is correct, though you fo >> --------------------------- >> nasty pig!! >> we are not on the Josef Goebbels >> fish market!! >> we are dealing with exact figures!! >> not abstract hand waving >> >> 'HOW LONG IT TAKES IT TO BE DETECTED' >> ?? !!! >> THAT ANSWER IS NOT AN ANSWER OF AN HONEST PERSON !! >> ------------ > and i addition to the above > the nasty pig CROOK OBFUSCATOR That's you again > is diverting the issue Nope .. I'm addressing it > to how long i takes to CREATE a > SINGLE photon And destroy. That is important to know. Though seeing it is created in an instant and destroyed in an instant (or within a single quantum of time if time is quantized), it doesn't play much part in how long it take to detect one. > i ddint ask how long it takes to create a SINGLE photon energy > > I WAS ASKING HOW LONG IT **TAKES TO **DETECT A SINGLE PHOTON THAT > WAS ALREADY > EMITTED *** !!!AND MEASURE IT !! Which I answered > (because without detecting and measuring > it is ball boggling !!) >> >> so just give us an exact figure !! >> (the single photon energy is something very single >> and specific an should be accurate !! >> defined by exact figures >> and have to be verifies by measurements >> >> yet measurements of energy are defined by time >> and have the HUP limits as well ....!! >> so what is that time needed for it ?? >> if you dont know >> just for a change be honest and say > > 'i dont know' !! > > THAT SHOULD BE AS WELL A LEGITIMATE ANSWER !! I gave a legitimate answer .. that you question has no exact answer .. it all depends on the equipment used and the experimental setup. > but if so > no one ever detected properly the > single photon energy !! Planck did. And many since him. Its not that hard to do. And the energy is always E = hf. > btw > my suggestion was a month ago > > E min =hf times 5.38 exp-44 Which is wrong. We (meaning mankind's scientists) have found experimentally that it is E = hf. You insisting that reality is different to what it is is pointless. > (while 5.38 exp -44 is **just a figure** > **without the time unit** !!!) > it is obviously un measurable !! > > TIA > Y.Porat
From: Y.Porat on 10 Apr 2010 10:36 On Apr 10, 1:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ. >> > >> >> >> > That is correct, though you fo > >> --------------------------- > >> nasty pig!! > >> we are not on the Josef Goebbels > >> fish market!! > >> we are dealing with exact figures!! > >> not abstract hand waving > > >> 'HOW LONG IT TAKES IT TO BE DETECTED' > >> ?? !!! > >> THAT ANSWER IS NOT AN ANSWER OF AN HONEST PERSON !! > >> ------------ > > and i addition to the above > > the nasty pig CROOK OBFUSCATOR > > That's you again > > > is diverting the issue > > Nope .. I'm addressing it > > > to how long i takes to CREATE a > > SINGLE photon > > And destroy. That is important to know. Though seeing it is created in an > instant and destroyed in an instant (or within a single quantum of time if > time is quantized), it doesn't play much part in how long it take to detect ---------------------- Nazi pig didi you forgot your definition of a single photon energy as hf ?? Y.P -------------------------------
From: Igor on 10 Apr 2010 12:31 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 > ------------------------------------ Maybe you need to stop confusing total wave energy with photon energy. The total wave energy received at the surface would be less than emitted, but that's only because photons are absorbed along the way. For a monochromatic beam, all photons would still carry the same amount of energy. Hang it up, Borat. You'll never get it.
From: Y.Porat on 10 Apr 2010 22:58
On Apr 10, 6:31 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > 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 > > ------------------------------------ > > Maybe you need to stop confusing total wave energy with photon > energy. The total wave energy received at the surface would be less > than emitted, but that's only because photons are absorbed along the > way. For a monochromatic beam, all photons would still carry the same > amount of energy. Hang it up, Borat. You'll never get it. --------------- we will see who will never get it Igor as i understand your definition of a single photon energy is E=hf ok i dont blame you you are a common parrot now please tell us what t is the definition of f from that hf ?? --------------------------------- ( inertial let me discuss with Igor lets see if you can sit a side and listen quietly without jumping in ) ----------------------------------- TIA Y.Porat --------------------------------- |