Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: bz on 9 Apr 2005 13:54 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1113060760.230035.302100(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: > > bz > << But only one 'detector' can jiggle for each jiggle of the emitter.>> > > Experiment 1 > Drop a 1 gram rubber duck in a bath tub. > Watch the pretty ripples spread out. > See how the waves of the 1 gram duck gently lap and > jiggle the gross revolting soap scum on the tub walls. > Note carefull the displacement of the soap scum. > ("This is you brain on drugs...sizzzzillle....") > > Experiment 2 > Drop (Qty) 13,600,000,000,000,000 (ask your ministry > of defense for a borrower's card) Nimitz class > aircraft carriers each with a displacement of 73,000 > metric tons into the same bathtub. > Strain your eyes to see if you can see a > filled bathtub about 3 continents removed > from your bathtub. Note if the gross revolting > soap scum on your neighbor's tub walls > moves about the same distance as in experiment 1. > > If it does, then you can use the distance between the > continents and total displacement of all the ships to > calculate the ratio of gravitational force to Coulomb > force. Coulomb force is what makes charges jiggle > together. giggle > (This is an experiment on steroids...sizzzzillle... ) > > << ...the gravitational attraction between two protons is > roughly a trillion trillion trillion times weaker than the > electrostatic repulsion. >> > http://musr.physics.ubc.ca/~jess/hr/skept/E_M/node2.html > > If you still believe "only one 'detector' can jiggle for > each jiggle of the emitter" then I hope you have a nice > time cleaning up that mess in the bathroom. ;-) > I tried it. Only the detector in one of our bathrooms jiggled. Now, how about you come help me clean up the mess. It was very hard getting the Nimitz out of the tub afterwards. I am afraid that my wife is going to have a hard time getting THAT ring cleaned out of the tub. :-> -- 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: Sue... on 9 Apr 2005 14:38 << When I go in my ham shack and turn my transmitter on 29.96 MHz, I generate a LOT of 10 meter photons. >> Actually... if your antenna is some kind of conductive metal, there are probably more than enough loose charges playing dosey doe between atoms, to form the appropriate radiation fields, without even a single atom emitting a *photon*. Sue...
From: Sue... on 9 Apr 2005 14:42 << I am afraid that my wife is going to have a hard time getting THAT ring cleaned out of the tub. >> She will have no trouble at all. I just sent by express post a whip for her and a dog house for you. ;-) Sue...
From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox on 9 Apr 2005 15:16 Dear bz: "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns9633824B59BF5WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net(a)nospam.com> > wrote in > news:p2S5e.6044$EX4.5168(a)fed1read01: .... >>> And that is for plane polarized. For circular >>> polarized, you would see one twist. >> >> You see a *signal* twist. You see *nothing* >> for a single photon. > > The OAM Orbital Angular Momentum people > seem to think that photons have finite length > and they think all photons have OAM. I am > not sure about all of their ideas, yet. > >>> A coherent STREAM of photons would look >>> as you describe 'signal'. >> >> Including exhibiting a variable E and/or >> B, and providing the characteristic >> self-interference pattern. > > Single photons exhibit interference in > dual slit experiments. Single photons arrive at locations indistinguishable from "random". Only when you have a population, is a pattern revealed. And this all says as much about the geometry through which the photon stream passed, as it does the photon stream. >>>> You will note that the photons pass you also at c. >>> >>> yes. >>> >>>> So the photon has no length (from left to right). >>> >>> length of each photon is c/f >> >> Experimentally determined to be zero length. >> There is no experiment than can get >> wavelength information from a single photon... >> only its energy. > > what about scattering of single photons from > a diffraction grating? Individual photons express "random". Populations express "pattern". >>>> Only the >>>> number of photons varies along the path >>>> (think intensity), not some geometry of a >>>> single photon. >>> >>> not sure exactly what you mean by this. I >>> understand intensity. If the source is >>> incoherent, size (wavelenght), orientation, >>> and position will vary as well as direction >>> of travel. >> >> Imagine that the peak E of a coherent >> laser beam is populted with a lot of >> "photons per transverse slice", and a >> quarter wavelength away, very few >> photons are located. > > So, you have a pulsed laser beam? Such exist. Down to femtosecond pulses, and terawatts. .... >>>> You can run a long wavelength signal through >>>> a spinning drum with two slits, and the signal >>>> doesn't get "spun around" as if the photons >>>> were caught in the slits... and diverted from >>>> their course. >>> >>> Can you? >> >> Yes. Several methods of determining c used such. Some >> included >> rotating mirrors, which provides even more difficulties for >> your >> imagined photon structure, since each photon would now be >> tortured into a much longer wavelength and mixed momentum. If >> photons were such long creatures as you imagine, these >> constructs >> would not work. But they did, and did it without affecting >> the >> wavelength. > > an 850 nm signal has a period of 2.8e-3 pico seconds. And on a rotating mirror, over tens of kilometers between source/detector and mirror, the effect on a finite length photon would be nothing? Consider reflection of your finite length photon. At one point during reflection, the E and B field exactly cancel each other out. A zero length particle, a quantum of an established E and B field, doesn't have this problem. >>> Have you tried it? I don't know of anyone that >>> has spun a slit anywhere near the frequency >>> of the EM radiation. >> >> 60Hz can be EM radiation. > > No one has ever detected a single photon at > 60 Hz. The wavelength is 6,000 km. The energy > is 4e-32 Joules. Much too weak to be detected > as a single photon except very close to > absolute zero because of thermal noise. So you could not reflect a 60 Hz signal from a spinning mirror, right? Don't get distracted about the photon issue... concentrate on what it would mean for a photon to have a physical length that is some function of its "wavelength". >> 1m corresponds to a wavelength. > > 1 meter has a frequency of 300 MHz > and an energy 2e-25 Joules. I doubt > that one meter single photons have > been detected. So I approach this 1m wave source with a gamma of 1000. Will I be able to detect individual photons then? Don't distract yourself with our current detection abilities. >> Don't be silly. > > I try not to be. Well, then try to be. >>> When you run a polarized beam through a >>> layer of mylar film that is under stress, the >>> plane of polarization gets rotated. When >>> the source is white light and the polarizers >>> are crossed, you see bright, colorful areas >>> showing the stress in the plastic. >> >> Which says something about: >> - the signal passed through the mylar, and >> - the variable speed of light in mylar >> *nothing* about a single photon is revealed. >> Because you can do the same test with >> gamma or even x-rays and polarization is >> unaffected. > > I fail to follow your logic. > > Why would we expect Gamma or x-rays to > be effected by polarizers that work for visible > light? Why would we expect mylar film to > effect either? If the "mechanism" of mylar affects light based on a finite photon length, why should it not have the same effect on shorter wavelengths? Since transmission is a complex phenomenon involving resonance, it makes sense that on *that* basis, re-emission of an *absorbed* photon will affect the detected polarization. It says nothing about a finite length photon. > I suspect that single photons from a white > light source, run through the polarizer mylar > polarizer would show that certain energy > photons were selectively absorbed and > others passed just as with the bulk stream > of white light. > > When I go in my ham shack and turn my > transmitter on 29.96 MHz, I generate a LOT > of 10 meter photons. By your theory, some > of these 2e-26 Joule photons start popping > out of my 5 meter long, half wave antenna, > at the very beginning of the 33 ns period of > the wave? Somehow I don't think so. Is your antenna at something other than 0K? If so, you can believe that you are radiating all sorts of photons from it. Consider what a photomultiplier tube can do with single photons from distant stars. David A. Smith
From: bz on 9 Apr 2005 15:33
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1113071930.743892.208280(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > > << When I go in my ham shack and turn my transmitter on > 29.96 MHz, I generate a LOT of 10 meter photons. >> > > Actually... if your antenna is some kind of conductive metal, > there are probably more than enough loose charges playing > dosey doe between atoms, to form the appropriate radiation > fields, without even a single atom emitting a *photon*. No single photons, a lot of married ones. 2.517E+26 per second, if my transmitter has 5 watts output. -- 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 |