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: Igor on 12 Apr 2010 12:45 On Apr 12, 7:38 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 12:57 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 11, 10:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 11, 3:27 pm, Igor <tho And you're a common bullshitter. > > > > > > now please tell us > > > > > what t is the definition of > > > > > f from that hf ?? > > > > -------------------- > > > it seems that you have some difficulty in defining > > > f > > > so i will help you a bit > > > here is the quote from Vilkipedia: > > > > quote > > > Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit > > > time. It is also referred to as temporal frequency. The period is the > > > duration of one cycle in a repeating event, so the period is the > > > reciprocal of the frequency. > > > end of quote: > > > so f is > > > Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit > > > time. !!! > > > > so > > > as far as i know > > > the unit of time FOR ALL SYSTEMS IS A > > > SECOND ! > > > right ?? > > > ------------> It's the frequency of the wave. But hf is only the energy of a single > > > > photon. > > > > ----------------- > > > and that is exactly what we try to find out > > > BTW i could ask you right now > > > did anyone ever detected the energy of a single photon?? > > > for me it is a rhetoric question > > > so lets leave it as for now > > > i promise you that we will get to it later !! > > > ------------- > > > now you say that actually we deal with > > > a huge number of single photons > > > did i ever said some thing else ??.... > > > anyway > > > the formal definition of a single photon > > > as we saw just above is > > > E=hf rigtht ?? > > > and > > > E=hf IS **ONE SECOND DEPENDENT** > > > AND **TIME DEPENDENT AS WELL!!* > > > right ? > > > > that is accepted by you at least theoretically as well right?? > > > so let us keep you understanding of the single photon energy as > > > defined by > > > E=hf > > > and let us go to the practical world > > > ok ?? > > > you say that actually we deal with a huge number of single photons > > > i agree! > > > you say that it is **waves* ok > > > waives of EM are photons as well ...right ?? > > > now > > > did you ever hear that > > > photon energy > > > **even for a huge number (bunch ) of single photons ** is detected and > > > measured-- during MUCH LESS THAN ONE SECOND ?!!!! > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------- > > > Let's try something a little simpler for you. One plus one equals > > two. Maybe tomorrow we'll advance to one plus two. You're hopeless, > > Borat. > > ------------------------ > Bolshevik demagogue > just hand wavings is not enough > tocomvince 100 readers > that not all of them are idiots > > just bring > PHYSICS ARGUMENTS > > for instance > questions for a secondary school boy : > > is E=hf > time defined or not > 2 > is it time dependent or not > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------------ > is it time dependent ur not > and > explain your anawer !!- It's already been explained to you numerous times. You either don't get it or simply insist on being a hopeless troll. In either case, I'm outa here.
From: nuny on 12 Apr 2010 16:36 On Apr 12, 9:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 6:00 pm, Richard Dobson <richarddob...(a)blueyonder.co.uk> > wrote: > > > On 12/04/2010 13:15, Inertial wrote: > > .. > > > >> for instance > > >> questions for a secondary school boy : > > > >> is E=hf > > >> time defined or not > > > > It isn't. It is independent on any time duration. > > > >> 2 > > >> is it time dependent or not > > > > It isn't. It is independent on any time duration. > > > Joule seconds anyone? > > > Why is nobody discussing the definition (and units of) h in this thread? > > > E.G. from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant > > > "The Planck constant has dimensions of energy multiplied by time". Etc. > > > Richard Dobson > > ----------------------- > do you imagine that while i was dealing with it SOOO LONG... > i ddint do it ??....(:-) Then you noticed that the "seconds" dimension of "joule*seconds" cancels with f's sole dimension of "inverse seconds", leaving energy all by itself. > so ?? > what is your bottom line > is it time defined and dependent or not?? I say it is not, and here's why. Long ago and far away, an electron falls from one orbital to another and kicks out a photon with a specific amount of energy exactly equal to the difference between the energy levels of the orbitals. A thirty-seventh of a second later, the photon has traveled a few dozen of its own wavelengths, and it still has the same amount of energy. One second later it still has the same amount of energy. One and twenty-three thirty-sevenths seconds later, it still has the same amount of energy. Thirteen billion years later, when it gets to Earth and enters a telescope, it still has the same amount of energy. The photon's energy is not time-dependent. Mark L. Fergerson
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 16:54 "Richard Dobson" <richarddobson(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:QqHwn.264816$ti6.68038(a)newsfe24.ams2... > On 12/04/2010 13:15, Inertial wrote: > .. >> >>> for instance >>> questions for a secondary school boy : >>> >>> is E=hf >>> time defined or not >> >> It isn't. It is independent on any time duration. >> >>> 2 >>> is it time dependent or not >> >> It isn't. It is independent on any time duration. >> > > > Joule seconds anyone? > > Why is nobody discussing the definition (and units of) h in this thread? I have > E.G. from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant > > "The Planck constant has dimensions of energy multiplied by time". Etc. You think he listens? He has decided that E = hf is wrong, so multiplies it by planck time. But because the units are wrong he then removes the units from planck time (which mathematically you show by dividing plnakc time by 1 sec to get a number only) So what HE says the energy of a photon is is E = h f tP / 1sec. And he thinks *that* formula is *not* one-second-dependent.
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 17:11 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:fd1a63ae-a455-4641-a611-fba6f792b170(a)k33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 2:15 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:d76e4744-ba53-4e68-8701-aac222753464(a)s9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Apr 12, 12:57 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: >> >> On Apr 11, 10:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Apr 11, 3:27 pm, Igor <tho And you're a common bullshitter. >> >> >> > > > now please tell us >> >> > > > what t is the definition of >> >> > > > f from that hf ?? >> >> >> > -------------------- >> >> > it seems that you have some difficulty in defining >> >> > f >> >> > so i will help you a bit >> >> > here is the quote from Vilkipedia: >> >> >> > quote >> >> > Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit >> >> > time. It is also referred to as temporal frequency. The period is >> >> > the >> >> > duration of one cycle in a repeating event, so the period is the >> >> > reciprocal of the frequency. >> >> > end of quote: >> >> > so f is >> >> > Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit >> >> > time. !!! >> >> >> > so >> >> > as far as i know >> >> > the unit of time FOR ALL SYSTEMS IS A >> >> > SECOND ! >> >> > right ?? >> >> > ------------> It's the frequency of the wave. But hf is only the >> >> > energy of a single >> >> > > photon. >> >> >> > ----------------- >> >> > and that is exactly what we try to find out >> >> > BTW i could ask you right now >> >> > did anyone ever detected the energy of a single photon?? >> >> > for me it is a rhetoric question >> >> > so lets leave it as for now >> >> > i promise you that we will get to it later !! >> >> > ------------- >> >> > now you say that actually we deal with >> >> > a huge number of single photons >> >> > did i ever said some thing else ??.... >> >> > anyway >> >> > the formal definition of a single photon >> >> > as we saw just above is >> >> > E=hf rigtht ?? >> >> > and >> >> > E=hf IS **ONE SECOND DEPENDENT** >> >> > AND **TIME DEPENDENT AS WELL!!* >> >> > right ? >> >> >> > that is accepted by you at least theoretically as well right?? >> >> > so let us keep you understanding of the single photon energy as >> >> > defined by >> >> > E=hf >> >> > and let us go to the practical world >> >> > ok ?? >> >> > you say that actually we deal with a huge number of single photons >> >> > i agree! >> >> > you say that it is **waves* ok >> >> > waives of EM are photons as well ...right ?? >> >> > now >> >> > did you ever hear that >> >> > photon energy >> >> > **even for a huge number (bunch ) of single photons ** is detected >> >> > and >> >> > measured-- during MUCH LESS THAN ONE SECOND ?!!!! >> >> >> > TIA >> >> > Y.Porat >> >> > ------------------------- >> >> >> Let's try something a little simpler for you. One plus one equals >> >> two. Maybe tomorrow we'll advance to one plus two. You're hopeless, >> >> Borat. >> >> > ------------------------ >> > Bolshevik demagogue >> > just hand wavings is not enough >> > tocomvince 100 readers >> > that not all of them are idiots >> >> > just bring >> > PHYSICS ARGUMENTS >> >> Why .. you just insult all those who do >> >> > for instance >> > questions for a secondary school boy : >> >> > is E=hf >> > time defined or not >> >> It isn't. It is independent on any time duration. >> >> > 2 >> > is it time dependent or not >> >> It isn't. It is independent on any time duration. >>-------------------- > can some of the **silent readers ** > (only of the **silent readers* > because we heard more than enough > from those who already spoke ) > so > can some of those silent readers > explain to > Inertial > why he is an imbecile ?? I'm not .. so no .. noone can. Its just your delusion > (is E=hf time defined and time dependent or not Not > iow does the' f 'variable > (there is no other variable there !!) makes it time defined and > dependent ??) It doesn't The numerical value is dependent on the units of measure, but E = hf does NOT depend on nay particular duration of time for a photon, for either creation, destruction, or travel time etc. However *your* 'new' formula of E = h f tP / 1 sec is clearly 1 second dependent.
From: Y.Porat on 12 Apr 2010 20:08
On Apr 12, 10:36 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 9:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 12, 6:00 pm, Richard Dobson <richarddob...(a)blueyonder.co.uk> > > wrote: > > > > On 12/04/2010 13:15, Inertial wrote: > > > .. > > > > >> for instance > > > >> questions for a secondary school boy : > > > > >> is E=hf > > > >> time defined or not > > > > > It isn't. It is independent on any time duration. > > > > >> 2 > > > >> is it time dependent or not > > > > > It isn't. It is independent on any time duration. > > > > Joule seconds anyone? > > > > Why is nobody discussing the definition (and units of) h in this thread? > > > > E.G. from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant > > > > "The Planck constant has dimensions of energy multiplied by time". Etc. > > > > Richard Dobson > > > ----------------------- > > do you imagine that while i was dealing with it SOOO LONG... > > i ddint do it ??....(:-) > > Then you noticed that the "seconds" dimension of "joule*seconds" > cancels with f's sole dimension of "inverse seconds", leaving energy > all by itself. > > > so ?? > > what is your bottom line > > is it time defined and dependent or not?? > > I say it is not, and here's why. > -------------------------------------------------- very nice Mr NuNI but not all the way!!! (:-) BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY MY UNPRECEDENTED INNOVATION !!! (:-) you say that the time dimension of the h is canceled by th e1/time of f right?? (AND YOU IMAGINE THAT WHILE I WAS DEALING WITH IT FOR SOOOO LONG **I DIDNT NOTICE IT ??**(:-) yet there is another think that only i noticed and not anyone else above i actually mentioned it inmy other thread 'A better new definition of the real single photon' it was i think in 12 -march 2010): now listen carefully: THE f (FREQUEMCY) IS COMPOSED OF TWO COMPONENTS NOT JUST ONE !! IT IS COMPOSED OF a the time UNIT B THE TIME *SCALAR *(!!) VARIABLE !! now you are right that the time UNIT WAS CANCELED BUT THE TIME ***SCALAR VARIABLE ** **WAS *** NOT** CANCELED !!! and that is the secrete why while f becomes bigger THE hf GETS A BIGGER **SCALAR** MULTIPLIER !! (FULL STOP ) no need for further explanations !! and that is the little difference that no one noticed before and enable me to go ahead and make more revolutionary insights ! ----- and find the smallest possible photon energy (the psychopath thief Inertial never did it that way nor Ben nor anyone else and that is the little differene betwen an innovative physicist and a little Lier thief ) ) for instance to find a suggestion about the smallest possible photon energy by multiplying that h by a much smaler time multiplier (AGAIN BY MULTILYING IT ONLY BY THE SCALAR OF THE PLANK TIME andnot by all the plank time (and i indicated that remark explicitly inmyabove thread from 12 -3 2010 - just the **scalar figure **of plank time !! ------ and find the smallest possible photon energy (the psychopath thief Inertial never did it that way nor Ben nor anyone else and that is the little difference between an innovative physicist and a little Lier thief ) ) so it enabled me to go even ahead TO FIND THE SMALLEST MASS OF THE PHOTON AND TO PROVE THAT THE PHOTON HAS MASS !! (because the photon energy is linearly related to the f factor while the mass ( kilograms) there was the only factor in photon energy hf that is ***linearly*** related to the linear f **scalar *!!! etc etc iow a whole revolution in physics based on a **little discovery **that hf has composed of A TIME UNIT-- *** MULTIPLIED BY A *SCALAR FIGURE* OF THAT f *** !!! ATB Y.Porat ------------------------------- > Long ago and far away, an electron falls from one orbital to another > and kicks out a photon with a specific amount of energy exactly equal > to the difference between the energy levels of the orbitals. > > A thirty-seventh of a second later, the photon has traveled a few > dozen of its own wavelengths, and it still has the same amount of > energy. > > One second later it still has the same amount of energy. > > One and twenty-three thirty-sevenths seconds later, it still has the > same amount of energy. > > Thirteen billion years later, when it gets to Earth and enters a > telescope, it still has the same amount of energy. > > The photon's energy is not time-dependent. > > Mark L. Fergerson |