Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: ben6993 on 25 Mar 2010 07:26 On Mar 25, 9:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 10:04 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 5:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > <snip for brevity> > > > > MR Ben > > > we see in my torch light and photoelectric experiment > > > that > > > if for instance we take a torch that is emitting > > > (th e same intensity of led light) > > > say > > > > in (case 1 ) 0.1 second 1 electrons > > > and > > > in (case 2) 0.9 seconds 9 electrons > > > > will you say that it was done : > > > > in case 1 by a 'small photon' > > > > and in case 2 ' 9 times bigger' photon > > > or may be > > > case 2 9 times more photons ?? > > > > (that' spited their 'big quantum' > > > to 9 smaller quantum s for each electron"""(:-) > > > we all agree that the photon energy is > > > **QUANTUM** CHARACTER D > > > quantum charactered is n not big quantum and small quantum > > > isn't that so ??) > > > > (i hope you know the difference between > > > Quantum and Quanta !!) > > > > and if so > > > the ** number* of photons EMITTED > > > by the torch (in our experiment - and their energy carrries by them > > > and transferred to those electrons !!!!) > > > is > > > TIME DEPENDENT > > > **and not just by one second > > > but even during > > > much less than a second !!! > > > OK, let's consider a single photon. > > In special relativity, > > -------------- > firs of all thank you for your interesting analysis > yet > > if a train were travelling at a speed near c ,> it would shrink in length > > ddi you ever think that the gamma factor of relativity > DOES NOT AT ALL APPLY TO THE PHOTON CASE ??!! > because of a simpekl thing: > waht is Gamma for the velocity of the photon c !!!??? > it is a rhetoric question !!.... > in short forget abouit any contaction of photon wave lenght > it can be less wave legths compaired to a moving target > (it the target will run away from the > photon in the velocity c > no wave lenght will hit it !!! > but the wave lenght in its orriginal fram > does not change > AND WE DEAL WITH A PHOTON > IN ITS ORRIGINAL FRAME > no need to complicate things that are > already complicated > we have to doth eopposite > to fry tosimplify things as much as possible > AND THAT ID WHY I SUGGESTED TO YOU > NOT TO DEAL AS FOR NOW > WITHTHE QUESTION ABOUT THE HOW PHOOTN > AS IT IS BORN OR DIE > BUT WITH ENERGY ***EMISION > DURING TIME!! > it makes it much simpler and less speculative !!! > ------------ > - > > (maybe only in the direction of travel) to> nearly Planck length. That is something special about speed c. A > > photon travels at speed c and is also, and necessarily, of size not > > more than one Planck length (maybe only in the direction of travel > > using this reasoning). > > > A photon is created at the same instant that an electron moves in the > > atom [but surely not every time an electron moves by a Planck length], > > and an electron is a point particle ('point' not implying to me > > absolute zero size but meaning not more than of Planck length). So > > that condition could imply that a photon is less than a Planck length > > in size in all directions. > > ----------- > > again we dont deal now about a photon > relations with the electron or Atom > though it is an interesting issue for itself !! > ------------ > > > Whereas all electrons are identical, not all photons are identical. > > Even though a photon is contained within a Planck cube size, and is > > created in an instant, it can have large or small energy. > > how by being a big or small photon !!! > in thatr casse you get the above mensioned problem of the need > tosplitting that big photon to smaller photons > des it make sense to you ??? > -------------------- > Using> special relativity, you could also imagine shrinking a car or train or > > planet to near quantum size in the direction of travel. Travellling > > at near speed c shrinks lengths of anything no matter how much energy > > it contains. Likewise a single photon, travelling st speed c, can be > > of any amount of energy, depending on the conditions in the atom at > > the time of its emission (though I don't know much about those > > conditions). > > ------------ > > see above my remark about > photons and the Gamma factor !! > ------------> Are you thinking of all quanta being identical, like all electrons are > > identical? > > ---------------- > Bingo !! > you start to understand me !!! > after all that is all about the QUANTUM PHILOSOPHY !!! > ----------------------- > > That could explain why you think you need more quanta to> build up to a particular observed energy in a beam of light? > > ------------------ > Bingo !!! > ------------------- > Whereas> a single photon can be as energetic as you like. > > -------------- > > a photon with the same **wave length > can be with many energies ! > > and that is the source of that so vast mistaken paradigm !!!and > conftion !! > between a photon with a constant wave length > and a so called **SINGLE PHOTON !!! > the one with a huge mumber of photons of the same f is not a single > photon > it ios many many photons with the same f > **lasting one second ** > not the real smallest single photon > > but i am looking for the one > WITH ONLY ONE AMOUNT OF ENERGY!! > that is all the dispute here !!! > ------------------------> I am still thinking about whether quanta are truly indivisible > > ------------------------ > by definition the idea of **quantum ** > is **not divisible** > or if you like divisible but to smaller ***indivisible units **!!! > that is btw the old Greek Atom idea !! > > the 'quanta' * is **by definition divisible !!! > ----------------- > after > > > absorption in the atom as it seems rather pre-darwinian by analogy. > > Ie for all quanta to be created long ago and be immutable seems too > > constrained? A photon is indivisible during transmission as any > > attempt to divide it would destroy the photon. But can a photon be a > > collection of different energies, which are an indivisible aggregate > > even if not a collection of differnt photons > a photon that is lasting a long time > that will say collide with a mass will be splited 1 > if for instance it will collide with a prism > it will split to many phootns > but we assume in our discussion that > we deal with a monochromatic photon > and even a long monochromatic photon > that is colliding with something > will be splitted > ----------------> only for so long as it is in the form of a photon. > > > A photon is emitted instantaneously, > > let me disagree with you because > according to me > nothing can be done instantly!! > to do something an zero time donot go hand in hand > but > let us forget about it right now > because both of us can live with that difference without disturbing > us to go > ahead > iow > it is not relevant to my photon energy emission during a tangible > definite time ! > ------------- > > but the electron (speed < c) must> take time to find its new place in the atom. As energy is quantised, > > how can the electron always and unerringly find a new niche in the > > atom at just the correct energy level. It is too late to undo the > > emission, if scrabbling to find a niche, as the photon is long gone. > > It is a transaction and calculation done at the moment of emission? > > Or is it not so difficult for an electron to find a niche of any > > required energy level? > >------------- > > lets frget now about phton and Atoms > ------------------> Also, the motion of the electron cannot cause the photon to be emitted > > as the electron must move many Planck lengths to find its new niche in > > the atom, but only one photon is emitted. > > ----------------- > > let s forgot now even the photon and electron issue > ---------------- > now at last a have a question to you > AS FAR AS YOU KNOW > and no mater if it is right or wrong !! > > who was (is) the first one to suggest the Planck time > as the emission time for the smallest possible > PHOTON ENERGY !! > ----------------------------- > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: ben6993 on 25 Mar 2010 07:30 <Re-posted message after further snipping for brevity!> On Mar 25, 9:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: <snip for brevity> > ddi you ever think that the gamma factor of relativity > DOES NOT AT ALL APPLY TO THE PHOTON CASE ??!! > because of a simpekl thing: > waht is Gamma for the velocity of the photon c !!!??? > it is a rhetoric question !!.... Yes, I agree that we cannot use the contraction formula itself on a photon. But my point was that I do not know what a photon looks like in its own framwork. In my framework it must appear as small as possible as it is travelling at speed c, but that is only reasoning by analogy with the contraction of a fast moving object. > ------------ > > > Whereas all electrons are identical, not all photons are identical. > > Even though a photon is contained within a Planck cube size, and is > > created in an instant, it can have large or small energy. > how by being a big or small photon !!! > in thatr casse you get the above mensioned problem of the need > tosplitting that big photon to smaller photons > des it make sense to you ??? I see it differently. Different quanta can have different energies. > but i am looking for the one > WITH ONLY ONE AMOUNT OF ENERGY!! > that is all the dispute here !!! Yes, I agree that this is the cause of the differences in viewpoints. You are looking for a basic smallest-energy photon, whereas all photons are indivisible but yet are not all identical. And there is no smallest-energy photon. > let s forgot now even the photon and electron issue > ---------------- > now at last a have a question to you > AS FAR AS YOU KNOW > and no mater if it is right or wrong !! > > who was (is) the first one to suggest the Planck time > as the emission time for the smallest possible > PHOTON ENERGY !! On Feb 21, 10:10 pm, Artful wrote: "Here is a logical proof for you that an indivisible object MUST be created instantly." Etc etc. ... That is the earliest time, I think, at which I met the idea of instantaneous emission in these threads.
From: Androcles on 25 Mar 2010 08:36 "ben6993" <ben6993(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:706d2342-1dfd-48b6-918f-fa914d187038(a)n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > <Re-posted message after further snipping for brevity!> > > > On Mar 25, 9:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip for brevity> > >> ddi you ever think that the gamma factor of relativity >> DOES NOT AT ALL APPLY TO THE PHOTON CASE ??!! >> because of a simpekl thing: >> waht is Gamma for the velocity of the photon c !!!??? >> it is a rhetoric question !!.... > > Yes, I agree that we cannot use the contraction formula itself on a > photon. You can't use it for anything at all since it is an expansion formula. sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is less than unity, anything divided by something less than 1 becomes greater, e.g. 2 = 1/(0.5). How many idiots make five?
From: PD on 25 Mar 2010 09:01 On Mar 24, 9:30 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 24, 11:36 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 24, 8:38 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > <snip for brevity> > > > > ------------------- > > > ok > > > i beleive you > > > Acknowledged. > > > > yet i cant understand how blocked you are on paradigms > > > after all those long discussions explaantions experimental data etc > > > let me tray a gain with you : > > > do you understand that > > > the *amount* of photon energy is > > > time dependent ?? > > > No, I don't see it like that. > > > A photon is emitted with a certain amount of energy. It keeps that > > energy during its lifetime. It yields up that exact amount of energy > > when it is absorbed. I knew that before these threads started. > > > What I have realised during the threads, thanks to Inertial, is that > > the indivisibility of the energy goes beyond the one-off emission--> > > transmission --> absorption. An atom can only emit a photon of a > > certain energy if it already held that exact amount of indivisible > > energy inside the atom. From this viewpoint the energy in a photon is > > indestructable and who knows how many times a particular chunk of > > indivisible energy is re-emitted over and over again. That chunk of > > energy can never be a part of a less energetic photon. It can never > > be a part of a more energetic photon. It must always be emitted as a > > photon of exactly that amount of energy. I am still letting that sink > > in myself as it is quite amazing, really. > > > > i dont mind(at this point ) how it is created > > > how a photon is born how it is dying > > > i mind the bottom line experimental data > > > do you understand that the amount of energy it carries > > > is time dependent ?? > > > See above. The energy of that particular individual photon is a fixed > > constant for all time, not just in the current emission. > > > > 2 > > > do you understand that the amount of photon energy > > > that are active less then a a second > > > **is less** than that that is active during *one second ??* > > > > even if it was done b many (actually a huge number of single photons > > > that no one of them was active > > > one second but less than one second ?? > > > You may be surprised that I actually find it hard to follow what you > > mean by the above as what you are writing seems so different from the > > way I see it. From my point of view the energy in a photon is an > > indivisible constant. (But different photons can have different > > energies, of course.) It does not really matter how long it is > > "active" (if you mean by active ... "how long it is in > > transmission"). If you mean by "active" ... "how long it is in > > emission" then that is from one instant to the next i.e. emitted > > within a Planck time interval. > > > I just can't see how time affects the energy in a photon. It is a > > constant in emission and re-emission who knows how many times that > > energy in a particular photon can be re-emitted. > > > > 3 > > > do you understand that if so > > > E=hf that is one second defined > > > because f is one second defined !!!-!!!!--- > > > > ----> is not the definition niether of one single *real* photon > > > nor of many of them acting less then a second ???of > > > iow > > > ***there are real single photons** > > > (no matter how many of them but all of them > > > were active **less** than a second ) > > I paused after para 2. above and skipped para 3. as enough differences > > had already occurred. Save para 3. for another day as there is enough > > in 1. and 2, I believe. > > > Ben > > ---------------------- > if it is so hard for you > let us discus the **photoelectric** effect: > > the photoelectic effect shows us two things > NOT JUST ONE THING > > 1 > THAT THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY > THAT PHOTONS CARRY IS > TIME DEPENDENT! > (because it is delivering its energy to the electrons!!) > AND ELECTRONS IN THAT EFFECT FLOW > IN A CONSTANT STREAM THAT IS LINEARLY > PROPORTIONAL TO ELAPSE OF TIME > it can be measured by an Ampermeter > while an ampere meter measures the number of electrons passing as > a function of time! > right ?? > > 2 > that above flow of electrons in the photoelectric effect > can be done > (under the same exact start conditions > as in case 1 !!) ----> > IN LESS THAN A SECOND as well !! > (ie the same electron intensity flow > during less then a second as well )!!! > right?? > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------- Porat, I cannot believe you are having difficulty with this, so I'm going to give you a simple example so you can see. Consider raindrops. Raindrops come in different sizes, some large, some small. The amount of water in a raindrop is related to its diameter. But once a raindrop is created, the amount of water in it is the same. Now, you can look at a pail of water in a rainstorm, and you can ask, "Is the amount of water in the bucket time dependent?" The answer is obviously yes. If you wait for two hours, the amount of water in the bucket will be twice as much as the amount of water in one hour. But if you then conclude from this statement that the amount of water in a raindrop is time-dependent, and that a raindrop that takes two hours to arrive is twice as large as a raindrop that takes one hour to arrive, then you've obviously made a big mistake. The reason there is twice as much water in the bucket after two hours is not because the raindrops took longer to get there and not because the raindrops are twice as big, but because twice as MANY raindrops that have landed in the bucket. And again, if you ask, is the size of the raindrop related to how long the raindrop took to get there, the answer is obviously NO. The amount of water in the raindrop is related to the diameter of the raindrop, not how long it took to get there. And so there is no "smallest raindrop" that has anything to do with time. Now, if you take all of these sentences above and substitute "energy" for "water", and "photon" for "raindrop", then you should be able to make some sense of photons. PD
From: ben6993 on 25 Mar 2010 09:49
On Mar 25, 12:36 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote: > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:706d2342-1dfd-48b6-918f-fa914d187038(a)n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > <Re-posted message after further snipping for brevity!> > > > On Mar 25, 9:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > <snip for brevity> > > >> ddi you ever think that the gamma factor of relativity > >> DOES NOT AT ALL APPLY TO THE PHOTON CASE ??!! > >> because of a simpekl thing: > >> waht is Gamma for the velocity of the photon c !!!??? > >> it is a rhetoric question !!.... > > > Yes, I agree that we cannot use the contraction formula itself on a > > photon. > > You can't use it for anything at all since it is an expansion formula. > sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is less than unity, anything divided by something less > than 1 becomes greater, e.g. 2 = 1/(0.5). > How many idiots make five? Androcles, I haven't ignored your view. I do see what you mean. However, everyone else commenting seems to think you are wrong, and your view dates back to at least 2002? But I am working on it, and also reading up on it, and I won't rest too easily until I too can see why you are wrong. As you know, the formulae you previously quoted, in 1905 paper para 3, are for transforming coordinates rather than lengths, so the length contraction still needs to be drawn out of the formulae. I always need to tread very slowly with SR as, just when I think I know something, the logic disappears again. |