Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: George Dishman on 22 Jul 2005 13:07 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns969A5F2ED396EWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "george(a)briar.demon.co.uk" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in > news:1121948586.224680.50540(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: <snip> >> It would be >> possible to measure the bandwidth of a laser >> diode with coherence length in the cm range >> going through a shutter which was open for say >> 1 microsecond at a repetition rate of 10 kHz >> with a photon rate of a few hundred per second. > > That would tell us nothing about the length of the photons. > We can already get single photons by attenuating the beam intensity. > > Besides, spectrum analysis is done, every day, on fiber optical lasers. > We know that for switching speeds used for gigabit data rates, the > bandwidths needed are consistent with information theory. Indeed, I was outlining the control experiment. > We need to push the envelope, so to speak, and see what happens with VERY > narrow pulses, so narrow that they can only contain a single cycle. Single cycle might be beyond the technology but chopping within the coherence length is achievable. >> The chances of getting two photons during an >> opening would be low but the shutter would be >> open for a time much longer than the "duration" >> of a single photon. >> >> Then change to a shutter open time around 10ps >> and see if the bandwidth increases. The photon >> "length" should be 30ps per cm of coherence so >> selecting only part of the photon should increase >> the bandwidth if I am right. > > Selecting only part of the photon should either (1) produce no output > or (2) produce a photon with less energy, since part of its energy has > been absorbed. > > (1) is consistent with Einstein. (2) would blow all kinds of holes in > quantum electro dynamics unless it could be shown to be consistent with > the compton effect. (1) A gate of 10ps at 10kHz should allow through 100 photons per billion so the intensity would be reduced by that factor. The laser intensity could be increased to partly compensate as long as the probability of two photons per gate remains negligible. (2) My expectation is that the mean photon energy would not change but the spread would increase. A coherence length of say 3cm is 100ps or a bandwidth of 20 GHz (both sidebands). Chopping it at 10ps would widen that to 200GHz creating photons with energies farther from the mean if I am right. > [aside: when the new superconductor magnet for our new 700 MHz NMR was > being brought up to field, they had a quench incident that boiled off 2000 > litres of liquid helium in a few seconds. The fog in the air set off the > fire alarms and cleared the building.] You guys sure have some fun :-) George
From: bz on 22 Jul 2005 14:32 "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dbr8pg$miv$1 @news.freedom2surf.net: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns969A5F2ED396EWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> "george(a)briar.demon.co.uk" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in >> news:1121948586.224680.50540(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > <snip> >>> It would be >>> possible to measure the bandwidth of a laser >>> diode with coherence length in the cm range >>> going through a shutter which was open for say >>> 1 microsecond at a repetition rate of 10 kHz >>> with a photon rate of a few hundred per second. >> >> That would tell us nothing about the length of the photons. >> We can already get single photons by attenuating the beam intensity. >> >> Besides, spectrum analysis is done, every day, on fiber optical lasers. >> We know that for switching speeds used for gigabit data rates, the >> bandwidths needed are consistent with information theory. > > Indeed, I was outlining the control experiment. > >> We need to push the envelope, so to speak, and see what happens with VERY >> narrow pulses, so narrow that they can only contain a single cycle. > > Single cycle might be beyond the technology > but chopping within the coherence length is > achievable. Single cycle is certainly not beyond the technology at lower frequencies. >>> The chances of getting two photons during an >>> opening would be low but the shutter would be >>> open for a time much longer than the "duration" >>> of a single photon. >>> >>> Then change to a shutter open time around 10ps >>> and see if the bandwidth increases. The photon >>> "length" should be 30ps per cm of coherence so >>> selecting only part of the photon should increase >>> the bandwidth if I am right. >> >> Selecting only part of the photon should either (1) produce no output >> or (2) produce a photon with less energy, since part of its energy has >> been absorbed. >> >> (1) is consistent with Einstein. (2) would blow all kinds of holes in >> quantum electro dynamics unless it could be shown to be consistent with >> the compton effect. Looks like people are, or think they are, making single photons. http://ipeqwww.epfl.ch/qd/html/singleqddevices.htm http://www.quiprocone.org/report034.pdf http://www.mqc2.it/MQC204/Stevenson.pdf http://cua.mit.edu/8.422/PHYSICS-vuckovic-fattal-santori-solomon-yamamoto- enhanced-single-photon-emission-from-a-quantum-dot-in-a-micropost- microcavity-apl-v82-p3596-2003-single_photons_APL_May03-1.pdf http://www.iota.u-psud.fr/~S4P/pdf%20files/APL02865.pdf > > (1) A gate of 10ps at 10kHz should allow through > 100 photons per billion so the intensity would > be reduced by that factor. The laser intensity > could be increased to partly compensate as long > as the probability of two photons per gate > remains negligible. > > (2) My expectation is that the mean photon energy > would not change but the spread would increase. > A coherence length of say 3cm is 100ps or a > bandwidth of 20 GHz (both sidebands). Chopping > it at 10ps would widen that to 200GHz creating > photons with energies farther from the mean if > I am right. > >> [aside: when the new superconductor magnet for our new 700 MHz NMR was >> being brought up to field, they had a quench incident that boiled off 2000 >> litres of liquid helium in a few seconds. The fog in the air set off the >> fire alarms and cleared the building.] > > You guys sure have some fun :-) > > George > > > -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: George Dishman on 22 Jul 2005 15:49 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns969B89EC5D5A9WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dbr8pg$miv$1 > @news.freedom2surf.net: > >> >> "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message >> news:Xns969A5F2ED396EWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >>> "george(a)briar.demon.co.uk" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in >>> news:1121948586.224680.50540(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> <snip> >>> We need to push the envelope, so to speak, and see what happens with >>> VERY >>> narrow pulses, so narrow that they can only contain a single cycle. >> >> Single cycle might be beyond the technology >> but chopping within the coherence length is >> achievable. > > Single cycle is certainly not beyond the technology at lower frequencies. No but I think measuring single photons becomes harder. > Looks like people are, or think they are, making single photons. > > http://ipeqwww.epfl.ch/qd/html/singleqddevices.htm > http://www.quiprocone.org/report034.pdf > http://www.mqc2.it/MQC204/Stevenson.pdf > http://cua.mit.edu/8.422/PHYSICS-vuckovic-fattal-santori-solomon-yamamoto- > enhanced-single-photon-emission-from-a-quantum-dot-in-a-micropost- > microcavity-apl-v82-p3596-2003-single_photons_APL_May03-1.pdf > http://www.iota.u-psud.fr/~S4P/pdf%20files/APL02865.pdf We are certainly on the verge of moving to verge of handling single photons routinely. Thanks again for the links. George
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 22 Jul 2005 15:50 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns969B89EC5D5A9WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... | "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dbr8pg$miv$1 | @news.freedom2surf.net: Watch our for bz. He'll calculate 76.6c for the speed of an electron in an accelerator and blame YOU for it. Androcles.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 22 Jul 2005 17:21
Aristotle wrote: >>>>The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by >>>>SR. >>>>How COULD it be wrong? >>> >>>See? :-) >>> >>>Henri Wilson won't tell us what the result was >>>the one time he tested his program with measured data >>>of a known binary. >> >>All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave. > > > And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician? > You sure duck questions like one. Henri Wilson has tested his program only once with real measured data of a binary, namely HD80715. His program predicted that HD80715 should be a variable. It isn't. Henri Wilson has falsified the ballistic theory. He don't like to be reminded, as you can see. :-) Paul |