The Double Slit Experiment With A Laser Pointer
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Push\Pull
Next: Einstein could bench press 739 pounds and leap tall buildings in a single bound
From: Y.Porat on 20 Jan 2010 02:21 On Jan 20, 8:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 20, 8:11 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 19, 10:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 19, 1:37 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 19, 6:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 19, 10:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 6:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 2:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 18, 7:47 pm, Shubee <e.shu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 1:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 14, 8:02 pm, Shubee <e.shu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 13, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 13, 10:39 am, Shubee <e.shu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is alleged in a few forum threads that visible interference > > > > > > > > > > > > > patterns can be produced with an inexpensive laser pointer. Is this > > > > > > > > > > > > > true? How do you easily create a suitable 3-line diffraction grid with > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ideal spacing? Has anyone here actually tried the famous double > > > > > > > > > > > > > slit experiment with a low cost laser pointer? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's pretty easy. > > > > > > > > > > > > The easiest way to obtain a diffraction grating is to order one. > > > > > > > > > > > > They're cheap. > > > > > > > > > > > > The only diffraction gratings I see in the science education catalogs > > > > > > > > > > > that I know about, Nasco, Fisher Scientific, Carolina Science and > > > > > > > > > > > Math, have 100's of lines per mm. What company sells a diffraction > > > > > > > > > > > grating for a standard double slit experiment? > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can also make one with a trio of single-edge razor blades taped > > > > > > > > > > > > together, scratching parallel lines on a microscope slide painted > > > > > > > > > > > > black. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's too much trouble. > > > > > > > > > > > Really? It takes an hour and is cheap. > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to buy an optimized double slit for > > > > > > > > > > > the typical red laser light pen. Where can I get it? > > > > > > > > > > > The ones with hundreds of lines per mm ARE optimized for the typical > > > > > > > > > > red laser pen. Buy those. > > > > > > > > > > Seriously, here's how you tell. > > > > > > > > > > Red light has a wavelength of 650 nm, which is about half a thousandth > > > > > > > > > > of a mm. > > > > > > > > > > The angle in radians between the central and first side spots is > > > > > > > > > > roughly the ratio of the wavelength to the line spacing.. > > > > > > > > > > So if you have a line spacing of a half a hundredth of a mm, then you > > > > > > > > > > will have an angle of about a tenth of a radian or five degrees. > > > > > > > > > > > You haven't checked Edmund Scientific, Wards, or any of a number of > > > > > > > > > > scientific *toy* catalogs that school teachers use. The good news is > > > > > > > > > > that this is used in 4th grade classes sometimes, so you'll find > > > > > > > > > > plenty if you stop looking in professional grade catalogs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a great video on the double slit experiment using pencil leads, > > > > > > > > > > > but I suspect that the presenter, Jack Maxwell, is using a powerful > > > > > > > > > > > laser and who knows how long he had to play with it in front of the > > > > > > > > > > > camera to get it right. Time is valuable to me. I certainly don't want > > > > > > > > > > > to waste time fiddling around during a physics lecture.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UANVMIajqlA > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Paul but there is still a mystery that I don't understand. > > > > > > > > > > If the double slit experiment is the central mystery of physics, why > > > > > > > > > is it that no one manufactures a precisely crafted single double slit > > > > > > > > > that is optimized for the very popular low-power red laser light pen? > > > > > > > > > > As you know, Richard P. Feynman said: > > > > > > > > > > We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely > > > > > > > > > impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the > > > > > > > > > heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only > > > > > > > > > mystery. > > > > > > > > > > As I see it, creating a diffraction pattern with a diffraction grading > > > > > > > > > that has hundreds of lines per mm doesn't seem so mysterious. > > > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > the mystry is only becuase of ignorance!! > > > > > > > > QM peoole pose as if they know andunderstand > > > > > > > > everything by their crippled supermarket theory > > > > > > > > AND IN MANY CASES WRONG INTERPRETATIONS !! > > > > > > > > > it starts with the illusion that we know really > > > > > > > > what is a photon > > > > > > > > and worse of that > > > > > > > > WhaT IS REALLY * A SINGLE PHOTON* > > > > > > > > > i claim that : > > > > > > > > > A a single photon is not represented by > > > > > > > > hf > > > > > > > > (nature does not know what is a second!!... > > > > > > > > a second is a human arbitrary definition of time !!.) > > > > > > > > > hf represents MANY SINGLE PHOTONS !!!!! > > > > > > > > Ever seen a photomultiplier tube? > > > > > > > > > ATB > > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > > > ------------- > > > > > > > no > > > > > > so what about it ?? > > > > > > anyway > > > > > > i am sure that the real **single photon is so tiny > > > > > > that it has no chance to make ant mark] > > > > > > Then you certainly haven't seen a photomultiplier tube. > > > > > Single photons are easily detected. > > > > > > > on a screen > > > > > > y.porat > > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > just tell me how do you know > > > > waht is a single photon > > > > > why on earth it is defined > > > > BY NATURE by the energy that is emitted in one second > > > > It ISN'T. > > > > I can't help if if you don't have the foggiest idea what a photon is, > > > or what a photomultiplier tube is, or how we can tell when there is > > > just one of something as opposed to several. > > > > > what does nature know about your > > > > second > > > > The photon IS NOT the energy delivered in one second. > > > > Good heavens, Porat. If I drop something from a plane and it > > > experiences an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s, does this mean that it takes > > > one second for it to fall to the ground? If I drive to work at 40 > > > miles/hour, does this mean that it takes me an hour to drive to work? > > > Are you really this dense? > > > > > why not nanosecond why not billion times smaller than a > > > > nanosecond ??? > > > > Y.Porat > > > > --------------------- > > > ok > > if you insist on not giving me some idea > > in a few lines > > i will look for your > > ' photomultiplier tube' > > and we will see why understands the basics of physics better ...... > > > as it was proven many times in past ... > > > Y.P > > ---------------------------- > > ok i looked at the Viki > for 10 seconds > and it told me that you are a parrot !! > > here is a quote: > ": > The photomultiplier provides extremely high sensitivity and ultra-fast > response. Photomultiplier tubes (PMT) have high bandwidth and noise- > free gain on the order of a million. This makes them ideal for the > detection of extremely low light or short pulses of light. > Photomultipliers can be used to detect photons from 115nm to 1700nm. A > typical Photomultiplier consists of a photoemissive cathode > (photocathode) followed by an electron multiplier and an electron > collector (anode). > end of quote > ------------------ > see above > it is locating (detecting) photons from > > 115 to 1700 nm !! > > who on earth told you that it is a ***single photon > defined by NATURE ???*** > ie the smallest possible photon !! > > 2 > i will now go on learning more about it > > Y.Porat > ------------------------ and in addition to the above THE PAWRROT PD AND .CO STILL DIDNT UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR ABILITY TO FIND EXPERIMENTALLY THE SMALLEST REAL SINGLE PHOTON IS LIMITED (AND BLOCKED!) BY THE ABILITY OF CURENT TOOLS TO BE SENSITIVE ENOUGH IN ORDER TO DETECT THE REAL SMALLEST SINGLE PHOTON !! the cureent definition of E=hf is a humjen definition that works on big energetic photons we can even define a photon with just one cycle per second !!! BUT STILL THERE IS NO ON EARTH A HUMEN DEVICE THAT CAN INVESTIGATE ALL ITS PROPERTIES !! or even follow it all along its movement in space for instance the mass of a photon with one cycle per second is h/c^2 times 1/second !! it is about 3. exp -34 kilograms !!! no existing tool on earth is good enough to examine it to scratch . so most of the rest is -- NOTHING BUT SPECULATIONS 2 certainly such a photon WILL NEVER (as for now)SHOW** THE SLIGHTEST MARK* ON A SCREEN OF REFRACTION!!! ATB Y.Porat -----------------------
From: Inertial on 20 Jan 2010 07:52 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:750747ea-4f83-44d5-b867-c995f2b47128(a)m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 19, 10:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 19, 1:37 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jan 19, 6:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jan 19, 10:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > On Jan 19, 6:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Jan 19, 2:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > On Jan 18, 7:47 pm, Shubee <e.shu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > On Jan 15, 1:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > On Jan 14, 8:02 pm, Shubee <e.shu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > On Jan 13, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 13, 10:39 am, Shubee <e.shu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > > It is alleged in a few forum threads that visible >> > > > > > > > > > > interference >> > > > > > > > > > > patterns can be produced with an inexpensive laser >> > > > > > > > > > > pointer. Is this >> > > > > > > > > > > true? How do you easily create a suitable 3-line >> > > > > > > > > > > diffraction grid with >> > > > > > > > > > > the ideal spacing? Has anyone here actually tried the >> > > > > > > > > > > famous double >> > > > > > > > > > > slit experiment with a low cost laser pointer? >> >> > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's pretty easy. >> > > > > > > > > > The easiest way to obtain a diffraction grating is to >> > > > > > > > > > order one. >> > > > > > > > > > They're cheap. >> >> > > > > > > > > The only diffraction gratings I see in the science >> > > > > > > > > education catalogs >> > > > > > > > > that I know about, Nasco, Fisher Scientific, Carolina >> > > > > > > > > Science and >> > > > > > > > > Math, have 100's of lines per mm. What company sells a >> > > > > > > > > diffraction >> > > > > > > > > grating for a standard double slit experiment? >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can also make one with a trio of single-edge razor >> > > > > > > > > > blades taped >> > > > > > > > > > together, scratching parallel lines on a microscope >> > > > > > > > > > slide painted >> > > > > > > > > > black. >> >> > > > > > > > > That's too much trouble. >> >> > > > > > > > Really? It takes an hour and is cheap. >> >> > > > > > > > > I want to buy an optimized double slit for >> > > > > > > > > the typical red laser light pen. Where can I get it? >> >> > > > > > > > The ones with hundreds of lines per mm ARE optimized for >> > > > > > > > the typical >> > > > > > > > red laser pen. Buy those. >> > > > > > > > Seriously, here's how you tell. >> > > > > > > > Red light has a wavelength of 650 nm, which is about half a >> > > > > > > > thousandth >> > > > > > > > of a mm. >> > > > > > > > The angle in radians between the central and first side >> > > > > > > > spots is >> > > > > > > > roughly the ratio of the wavelength to the line spacing. >> > > > > > > > So if you have a line spacing of a half a hundredth of a >> > > > > > > > mm, then you >> > > > > > > > will have an angle of about a tenth of a radian or five >> > > > > > > > degrees. >> >> > > > > > > > You haven't checked Edmund Scientific, Wards, or any of a >> > > > > > > > number of >> > > > > > > > scientific *toy* catalogs that school teachers use. The >> > > > > > > > good news is >> > > > > > > > that this is used in 4th grade classes sometimes, so you'll >> > > > > > > > find >> > > > > > > > plenty if you stop looking in professional grade catalogs. >> >> > > > > > > > > Here's a great video on the double slit experiment using >> > > > > > > > > pencil leads, >> > > > > > > > > but I suspect that the presenter, Jack Maxwell, is using >> > > > > > > > > a powerful >> > > > > > > > > laser and who knows how long he had to play with it in >> > > > > > > > > front of the >> > > > > > > > > camera to get it right. Time is valuable to me. I >> > > > > > > > > certainly don't want >> > > > > > > > > to waste time fiddling around during a physics >> > > > > > > > > lecture.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UANVMIajqlA >> >> > > > > > > Thank you Paul but there is still a mystery that I don't >> > > > > > > understand. >> >> > > > > > > If the double slit experiment is the central mystery of >> > > > > > > physics, why >> > > > > > > is it that no one manufactures a precisely crafted single >> > > > > > > double slit >> > > > > > > that is optimized for the very popular low-power red laser >> > > > > > > light pen? >> >> > > > > > > As you know, Richard P. Feynman said: >> >> > > > > > > �We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, >> > > > > > > absolutely >> > > > > > > impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in >> > > > > > > it the >> > > > > > > heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only >> > > > > > > mystery.� >> >> > > > > > > As I see it, creating a diffraction pattern with a >> > > > > > > diffraction grading >> > > > > > > that has hundreds of lines per mm doesn't seem so mysterious. >> >> > > > > > ------------------ >> > > > > > the mystry is only becuase of ignorance!! >> > > > > > QM peoole pose as if they know andunderstand >> > > > > > everything by their crippled supermarket theory >> > > > > > AND IN MANY CASES WRONG INTERPRETATIONS !! >> >> > > > > > it starts with the illusion that we know really >> > > > > > what is a photon >> > > > > > and worse of that >> > > > > > WhaT IS REALLY * A SINGLE PHOTON* >> >> > > > > > i claim that : >> >> > > > > > A a single photon is not represented by >> > > > > > hf >> > > > > > (nature does not know what is a second!!... >> > > > > > a second is a human arbitrary definition of time !!.) >> >> > > > > > hf represents MANY SINGLE PHOTONS !!!!! >> >> > > > > Ever seen a photomultiplier tube? >> >> > > > > > ATB >> > > > > > Y.Porat >> > > > > > ------------- >> >> > > > no >> > > > so what about it ?? >> > > > anyway >> > > > i am sure that the real **single photon is so tiny >> > > > that it has no chance to make ant mark] >> >> > > Then you certainly haven't seen a photomultiplier tube. >> > > Single photons are easily detected. >> >> > > > on a screen >> > > > y.porat >> > > > ---------------------- >> >> > just tell me how do you know >> > waht is a single photon >> >> > why on earth it is defined >> > BY NATURE by the energy that is emitted in one second >> >> It ISN'T. >> >> I can't help if if you don't have the foggiest idea what a photon is, >> or what a photomultiplier tube is, or how we can tell when there is >> just one of something as opposed to several. >> >> > what does nature know about your >> > second >> >> The photon IS NOT the energy delivered in one second. >> >> Good heavens, Porat. If I drop something from a plane and it >> experiences an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s, does this mean that it takes >> one second for it to fall to the ground? If I drive to work at 40 >> miles/hour, does this mean that it takes me an hour to drive to work? >> Are you really this dense? >> >> > why not nanosecond why not billion times smaller than a >> > nanosecond ??? >> > Y.Porat >> > --------------------- > > ok > if you insist on not giving me some idea > in a few lines > i will look for your > ' photomultiplier tube' > and we will see why understands the basics of physics better ...... > > as it was proven many times in past ... Yeup .. its been proven time and time again that people like PD and me know physics far far better than an old fool like you.
From: Inertial on 20 Jan 2010 07:54 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:56714ac2-3e03-45fd-8c9a-43f5858b7ca6(a)j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 20, 8:11 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 19, 10:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jan 19, 1:37 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jan 19, 6:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > On Jan 19, 10:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Jan 19, 6:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > On Jan 19, 2:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > On Jan 18, 7:47 pm, Shubee <e.shu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 1:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > On Jan 14, 8:02 pm, Shubee <e.shu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 13, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 13, 10:39 am, Shubee <e.shu...(a)gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > It is alleged in a few forum threads that visible >> > > > > > > > > > > > interference >> > > > > > > > > > > > patterns can be produced with an inexpensive laser >> > > > > > > > > > > > pointer. Is this >> > > > > > > > > > > > true? How do you easily create a suitable 3-line >> > > > > > > > > > > > diffraction grid with >> > > > > > > > > > > > the ideal spacing? Has anyone here actually tried >> > > > > > > > > > > > the famous double >> > > > > > > > > > > > slit experiment with a low cost laser pointer? >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's pretty easy. >> > > > > > > > > > > The easiest way to obtain a diffraction grating is to >> > > > > > > > > > > order one. >> > > > > > > > > > > They're cheap. >> >> > > > > > > > > > The only diffraction gratings I see in the science >> > > > > > > > > > education catalogs >> > > > > > > > > > that I know about, Nasco, Fisher Scientific, Carolina >> > > > > > > > > > Science and >> > > > > > > > > > Math, have 100's of lines per mm. What company sells a >> > > > > > > > > > diffraction >> > > > > > > > > > grating for a standard double slit experiment? >> >> > > > > > > > > > > You can also make one with a trio of single-edge >> > > > > > > > > > > razor blades taped >> > > > > > > > > > > together, scratching parallel lines on a microscope >> > > > > > > > > > > slide painted >> > > > > > > > > > > black. >> >> > > > > > > > > > That's too much trouble. >> >> > > > > > > > > Really? It takes an hour and is cheap. >> >> > > > > > > > > > I want to buy an optimized double slit for >> > > > > > > > > > the typical red laser light pen. Where can I get it? >> >> > > > > > > > > The ones with hundreds of lines per mm ARE optimized for >> > > > > > > > > the typical >> > > > > > > > > red laser pen. Buy those. >> > > > > > > > > Seriously, here's how you tell. >> > > > > > > > > Red light has a wavelength of 650 nm, which is about half >> > > > > > > > > a thousandth >> > > > > > > > > of a mm. >> > > > > > > > > The angle in radians between the central and first side >> > > > > > > > > spots is >> > > > > > > > > roughly the ratio of the wavelength to the line spacing. >> > > > > > > > > So if you have a line spacing of a half a hundredth of a >> > > > > > > > > mm, then you >> > > > > > > > > will have an angle of about a tenth of a radian or five >> > > > > > > > > degrees. >> >> > > > > > > > > You haven't checked Edmund Scientific, Wards, or any of a >> > > > > > > > > number of >> > > > > > > > > scientific *toy* catalogs that school teachers use. The >> > > > > > > > > good news is >> > > > > > > > > that this is used in 4th grade classes sometimes, so >> > > > > > > > > you'll find >> > > > > > > > > plenty if you stop looking in professional grade >> > > > > > > > > catalogs. >> >> > > > > > > > > > Here's a great video on the double slit experiment >> > > > > > > > > > using pencil leads, >> > > > > > > > > > but I suspect that the presenter, Jack Maxwell, is >> > > > > > > > > > using a powerful >> > > > > > > > > > laser and who knows how long he had to play with it in >> > > > > > > > > > front of the >> > > > > > > > > > camera to get it right. Time is valuable to me. I >> > > > > > > > > > certainly don't want >> > > > > > > > > > to waste time fiddling around during a physics >> > > > > > > > > > lecture.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UANVMIajqlA >> >> > > > > > > > Thank you Paul but there is still a mystery that I don't >> > > > > > > > understand. >> >> > > > > > > > If the double slit experiment is the central mystery of >> > > > > > > > physics, why >> > > > > > > > is it that no one manufactures a precisely crafted single >> > > > > > > > double slit >> > > > > > > > that is optimized for the very popular low-power red laser >> > > > > > > > light pen? >> >> > > > > > > > As you know, Richard P. Feynman said: >> >> > > > > > > > �We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, >> > > > > > > > absolutely >> > > > > > > > impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has >> > > > > > > > in it the >> > > > > > > > heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the >> > > > > > > > only >> > > > > > > > mystery.� >> >> > > > > > > > As I see it, creating a diffraction pattern with a >> > > > > > > > diffraction grading >> > > > > > > > that has hundreds of lines per mm doesn't seem so >> > > > > > > > mysterious. >> >> > > > > > > ------------------ >> > > > > > > the mystry is only becuase of ignorance!! >> > > > > > > QM peoole pose as if they know andunderstand >> > > > > > > everything by their crippled supermarket theory >> > > > > > > AND IN MANY CASES WRONG INTERPRETATIONS !! >> >> > > > > > > it starts with the illusion that we know really >> > > > > > > what is a photon >> > > > > > > and worse of that >> > > > > > > WhaT IS REALLY * A SINGLE PHOTON* >> >> > > > > > > i claim that : >> >> > > > > > > A a single photon is not represented by >> > > > > > > hf >> > > > > > > (nature does not know what is a second!!... >> > > > > > > a second is a human arbitrary definition of time !!.) >> >> > > > > > > hf represents MANY SINGLE PHOTONS !!!!! >> >> > > > > > Ever seen a photomultiplier tube? >> >> > > > > > > ATB >> > > > > > > Y.Porat >> > > > > > > ------------- >> >> > > > > no >> > > > > so what about it ?? >> > > > > anyway >> > > > > i am sure that the real **single photon is so tiny >> > > > > that it has no chance to make ant mark] >> >> > > > Then you certainly haven't seen a photomultiplier tube. >> > > > Single photons are easily detected. >> >> > > > > on a screen >> > > > > y.porat >> > > > > ---------------------- >> >> > > just tell me how do you know >> > > waht is a single photon >> >> > > why on earth it is defined >> > > BY NATURE by the energy that is emitted in one second >> >> > It ISN'T. >> >> > I can't help if if you don't have the foggiest idea what a photon is, >> > or what a photomultiplier tube is, or how we can tell when there is >> > just one of something as opposed to several. >> >> > > what does nature know about your >> > > second >> >> > The photon IS NOT the energy delivered in one second. >> >> > Good heavens, Porat. If I drop something from a plane and it >> > experiences an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s, does this mean that it takes >> > one second for it to fall to the ground? If I drive to work at 40 >> > miles/hour, does this mean that it takes me an hour to drive to work? >> > Are you really this dense? >> >> > > why not nanosecond why not billion times smaller than a >> > > nanosecond ??? >> > > Y.Porat >> > > --------------------- >> >> ok >> if you insist on not giving me some idea >> in a few lines >> i will look for your >> ' photomultiplier tube' >> and we will see why understands the basics of physics better ...... >> >> as it was proven many times in past ... >> >> Y.P >> ---------------------------- > > ok i looked at the Viki > for 10 seconds > and it told me that you are a parrot !! You mean that he understand physics. Being what you call a 'parrot' is obviously a good thing. > here is a quote: > ": > The photomultiplier provides extremely high sensitivity and ultra-fast > response. Photomultiplier tubes (PMT) have high bandwidth and noise- > free gain on the order of a million. This makes them ideal for the > detection of extremely low light or short pulses of light. > Photomultipliers can be used to detect photons from 115nm to 1700nm. A > typical Photomultiplier consists of a photoemissive cathode > (photocathode) followed by an electron multiplier and an electron > collector (anode). > end of quote > ------------------ > see above > it is locating (detecting) photons from > > 115 to 1700 nm !! Yeup . .that's the range of individual photons it can detect. > who on earth told you that it is a ***single photon > defined by NATURE ???*** It is > ie the smallest possible photon !! No such thing > 2 > i will now go on learning more about it You've not learnt anything yet about it .. you can't even understand the simple description of what it detects. BAHAHA.
From: Inertial on 20 Jan 2010 07:59 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:450ce947-5a6a-4be5-a58c-52a4cbf14c38(a)m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 20, 8:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 20, 8:11 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jan 19, 10:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jan 19, 1:37 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > On Jan 19, 6:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Jan 19, 10:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > On Jan 19, 6:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > On Jan 19, 2:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > On Jan 18, 7:47 pm, Shubee <e.shu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 1:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 14, 8:02 pm, Shubee <e.shu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 13, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 13, 10:39 am, Shubee <e.shu...(a)gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is alleged in a few forum threads that visible >> > > > > > > > > > > > > interference >> > > > > > > > > > > > > patterns can be produced with an inexpensive >> > > > > > > > > > > > > laser pointer. Is this >> > > > > > > > > > > > > true? How do you easily create a suitable 3-line >> > > > > > > > > > > > > diffraction grid with >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the ideal spacing? Has anyone here actually tried >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the famous double >> > > > > > > > > > > > > slit experiment with a low cost laser pointer? >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's pretty easy. >> > > > > > > > > > > > The easiest way to obtain a diffraction grating is >> > > > > > > > > > > > to order one. >> > > > > > > > > > > > They're cheap. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > The only diffraction gratings I see in the science >> > > > > > > > > > > education catalogs >> > > > > > > > > > > that I know about, Nasco, Fisher Scientific, Carolina >> > > > > > > > > > > Science and >> > > > > > > > > > > Math, have 100's of lines per mm. What company sells >> > > > > > > > > > > a diffraction >> > > > > > > > > > > grating for a standard double slit experiment? >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > You can also make one with a trio of single-edge >> > > > > > > > > > > > razor blades taped >> > > > > > > > > > > > together, scratching parallel lines on a microscope >> > > > > > > > > > > > slide painted >> > > > > > > > > > > > black. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That's too much trouble. >> >> > > > > > > > > > Really? It takes an hour and is cheap. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > I want to buy an optimized double slit for >> > > > > > > > > > > the typical red laser light pen. Where can I get it? >> >> > > > > > > > > > The ones with hundreds of lines per mm ARE optimized >> > > > > > > > > > for the typical >> > > > > > > > > > red laser pen. Buy those. >> > > > > > > > > > Seriously, here's how you tell. >> > > > > > > > > > Red light has a wavelength of 650 nm, which is about >> > > > > > > > > > half a thousandth >> > > > > > > > > > of a mm. >> > > > > > > > > > The angle in radians between the central and first side >> > > > > > > > > > spots is >> > > > > > > > > > roughly the ratio of the wavelength to the line >> > > > > > > > > > spacing. >> > > > > > > > > > So if you have a line spacing of a half a hundredth of >> > > > > > > > > > a mm, then you >> > > > > > > > > > will have an angle of about a tenth of a radian or five >> > > > > > > > > > degrees. >> >> > > > > > > > > > You haven't checked Edmund Scientific, Wards, or any of >> > > > > > > > > > a number of >> > > > > > > > > > scientific *toy* catalogs that school teachers use. The >> > > > > > > > > > good news is >> > > > > > > > > > that this is used in 4th grade classes sometimes, so >> > > > > > > > > > you'll find >> > > > > > > > > > plenty if you stop looking in professional grade >> > > > > > > > > > catalogs. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Here's a great video on the double slit experiment >> > > > > > > > > > > using pencil leads, >> > > > > > > > > > > but I suspect that the presenter, Jack Maxwell, is >> > > > > > > > > > > using a powerful >> > > > > > > > > > > laser and who knows how long he had to play with it >> > > > > > > > > > > in front of the >> > > > > > > > > > > camera to get it right. Time is valuable to me. I >> > > > > > > > > > > certainly don't want >> > > > > > > > > > > to waste time fiddling around during a physics >> > > > > > > > > > > lecture.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UANVMIajqlA >> >> > > > > > > > > Thank you Paul but there is still a mystery that I don't >> > > > > > > > > understand. >> >> > > > > > > > > If the double slit experiment is the central mystery of >> > > > > > > > > physics, why >> > > > > > > > > is it that no one manufactures a precisely crafted single >> > > > > > > > > double slit >> > > > > > > > > that is optimized for the very popular low-power red >> > > > > > > > > laser light pen? >> >> > > > > > > > > As you know, Richard P. Feynman said: >> >> > > > > > > > > �We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, >> > > > > > > > > absolutely >> > > > > > > > > impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which >> > > > > > > > > has in it the >> > > > > > > > > heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the >> > > > > > > > > only >> > > > > > > > > mystery.� >> >> > > > > > > > > As I see it, creating a diffraction pattern with a >> > > > > > > > > diffraction grading >> > > > > > > > > that has hundreds of lines per mm doesn't seem so >> > > > > > > > > mysterious. >> >> > > > > > > > ------------------ >> > > > > > > > the mystry is only becuase of ignorance!! >> > > > > > > > QM peoole pose as if they know andunderstand >> > > > > > > > everything by their crippled supermarket theory >> > > > > > > > AND IN MANY CASES WRONG INTERPRETATIONS !! >> >> > > > > > > > it starts with the illusion that we know really >> > > > > > > > what is a photon >> > > > > > > > and worse of that >> > > > > > > > WhaT IS REALLY * A SINGLE PHOTON* >> >> > > > > > > > i claim that : >> >> > > > > > > > A a single photon is not represented by >> > > > > > > > hf >> > > > > > > > (nature does not know what is a second!!... >> > > > > > > > a second is a human arbitrary definition of time !!.) >> >> > > > > > > > hf represents MANY SINGLE PHOTONS !!!!! >> >> > > > > > > Ever seen a photomultiplier tube? >> >> > > > > > > > ATB >> > > > > > > > Y.Porat >> > > > > > > > ------------- >> >> > > > > > no >> > > > > > so what about it ?? >> > > > > > anyway >> > > > > > i am sure that the real **single photon is so tiny >> > > > > > that it has no chance to make ant mark] >> >> > > > > Then you certainly haven't seen a photomultiplier tube. >> > > > > Single photons are easily detected. >> >> > > > > > on a screen >> > > > > > y.porat >> > > > > > ---------------------- >> >> > > > just tell me how do you know >> > > > waht is a single photon >> >> > > > why on earth it is defined >> > > > BY NATURE by the energy that is emitted in one second >> >> > > It ISN'T. >> >> > > I can't help if if you don't have the foggiest idea what a photon is, >> > > or what a photomultiplier tube is, or how we can tell when there is >> > > just one of something as opposed to several. >> >> > > > what does nature know about your >> > > > second >> >> > > The photon IS NOT the energy delivered in one second. >> >> > > Good heavens, Porat. If I drop something from a plane and it >> > > experiences an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s, does this mean that it >> > > takes >> > > one second for it to fall to the ground? If I drive to work at 40 >> > > miles/hour, does this mean that it takes me an hour to drive to work? >> > > Are you really this dense? >> >> > > > why not nanosecond why not billion times smaller than a >> > > > nanosecond ??? >> > > > Y.Porat >> > > > --------------------- >> >> > ok >> > if you insist on not giving me some idea >> > in a few lines >> > i will look for your >> > ' photomultiplier tube' >> > and we will see why understands the basics of physics better ...... >> >> > as it was proven many times in past ... >> >> > Y.P >> > ---------------------------- >> >> ok i looked at the Viki >> for 10 seconds >> and it told me that you are a parrot !! >> >> here is a quote: >> ": >> The photomultiplier provides extremely high sensitivity and ultra-fast >> response. Photomultiplier tubes (PMT) have high bandwidth and noise- >> free gain on the order of a million. This makes them ideal for the >> detection of extremely low light or short pulses of light. >> Photomultipliers can be used to detect photons from 115nm to 1700nm. A >> typical Photomultiplier consists of a photoemissive cathode >> (photocathode) followed by an electron multiplier and an electron >> collector (anode). >> end of quote >> ------------------ >> see above >> it is locating (detecting) photons from >> >> 115 to 1700 nm !! >> >> who on earth told you that it is a ***single photon >> defined by NATURE ???*** >> ie the smallest possible photon !! >> >> 2 >> i will now go on learning more about it >> >> Y.Porat >> ------------------------ > > and in addition to the above > > THE PAWRROT PD AND .CO > STILL DIDNT UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR ABILITY > TO FIND EXPERIMENTALLY THE SMALLEST > REAL SINGLE PHOTON > IS LIMITED (AND BLOCKED!) No such thing. A photon is a photon .. they don't have different sizes. Its frequency and energy are frame dependant. > BY THE ABILITY OF CURENT TOOLS > TO BE SENSITIVE ENOUGH IN ORDER TO DETECT > THE REAL SMALLEST SINGLE PHOTON !! No such thing. > the cureent definition of > E=hf is a humjen definition No .. it is a human discovery of something that happens in nature .. not a human invention > that works > on big energetic photons On *ALL* photons that have every been measured. No reason to think that that relationship is different for any others > we can even define a photon with > just one cycle per second !!! Not define it .. find one. > BUT STILL THERE IS NO ON EARTH A HUMEN DEVICE THAT CAN INVESTIGATE > ALL ITS PROPERTIES !! What properties did you have in mind? > or even follow it all along its movement in space Why do you need to? > for instance > the mass of a photon with one cycle per second > is Zero > h/c^2 times 1/second !! That is relativistic mass. In E = Mc^2, M is relativistic mass .. you know, the one you say does not exist. > it is about > 3. exp -34 kilograms !!! > no existing tool on earth is good enough > to examine it to scratch . Wrong .. we have detected that photons have zero (invariant) mass even down to much much smaller values than that (and its still zero) > so most of the rest is -- NOTHING BUT SPECULATIONS You don't know what you're talking about. > 2 > certainly such a photon > WILL NEVER (as for now)SHOW** THE SLIGHTEST MARK* > ON A SCREEN OF REFRACTION!!! Really .. you're a senile old fool .. why do you bother with physuics when you know nothing about it and are not interested in learning.
From: PD on 20 Jan 2010 12:25
On Jan 20, 12:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 20, 8:11 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 19, 10:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 19, 1:37 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 19, 6:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 19, 10:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 6:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 2:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 18, 7:47 pm, Shubee <e.shu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 1:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 14, 8:02 pm, Shubee <e.shu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 13, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 13, 10:39 am, Shubee <e.shu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is alleged in a few forum threads that visible interference > > > > > > > > > > > > > patterns can be produced with an inexpensive laser pointer. Is this > > > > > > > > > > > > > true? How do you easily create a suitable 3-line diffraction grid with > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ideal spacing? Has anyone here actually tried the famous double > > > > > > > > > > > > > slit experiment with a low cost laser pointer? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's pretty easy. > > > > > > > > > > > > The easiest way to obtain a diffraction grating is to order one. > > > > > > > > > > > > They're cheap. > > > > > > > > > > > > The only diffraction gratings I see in the science education catalogs > > > > > > > > > > > that I know about, Nasco, Fisher Scientific, Carolina Science and > > > > > > > > > > > Math, have 100's of lines per mm. What company sells a diffraction > > > > > > > > > > > grating for a standard double slit experiment? > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can also make one with a trio of single-edge razor blades taped > > > > > > > > > > > > together, scratching parallel lines on a microscope slide painted > > > > > > > > > > > > black. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's too much trouble. > > > > > > > > > > > Really? It takes an hour and is cheap. > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to buy an optimized double slit for > > > > > > > > > > > the typical red laser light pen. Where can I get it? > > > > > > > > > > > The ones with hundreds of lines per mm ARE optimized for the typical > > > > > > > > > > red laser pen. Buy those. > > > > > > > > > > Seriously, here's how you tell. > > > > > > > > > > Red light has a wavelength of 650 nm, which is about half a thousandth > > > > > > > > > > of a mm. > > > > > > > > > > The angle in radians between the central and first side spots is > > > > > > > > > > roughly the ratio of the wavelength to the line spacing.. > > > > > > > > > > So if you have a line spacing of a half a hundredth of a mm, then you > > > > > > > > > > will have an angle of about a tenth of a radian or five degrees. > > > > > > > > > > > You haven't checked Edmund Scientific, Wards, or any of a number of > > > > > > > > > > scientific *toy* catalogs that school teachers use. The good news is > > > > > > > > > > that this is used in 4th grade classes sometimes, so you'll find > > > > > > > > > > plenty if you stop looking in professional grade catalogs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a great video on the double slit experiment using pencil leads, > > > > > > > > > > > but I suspect that the presenter, Jack Maxwell, is using a powerful > > > > > > > > > > > laser and who knows how long he had to play with it in front of the > > > > > > > > > > > camera to get it right. Time is valuable to me. I certainly don't want > > > > > > > > > > > to waste time fiddling around during a physics lecture.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UANVMIajqlA > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Paul but there is still a mystery that I don't understand. > > > > > > > > > > If the double slit experiment is the central mystery of physics, why > > > > > > > > > is it that no one manufactures a precisely crafted single double slit > > > > > > > > > that is optimized for the very popular low-power red laser light pen? > > > > > > > > > > As you know, Richard P. Feynman said: > > > > > > > > > > We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely > > > > > > > > > impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the > > > > > > > > > heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only > > > > > > > > > mystery. > > > > > > > > > > As I see it, creating a diffraction pattern with a diffraction grading > > > > > > > > > that has hundreds of lines per mm doesn't seem so mysterious. > > > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > the mystry is only becuase of ignorance!! > > > > > > > > QM peoole pose as if they know andunderstand > > > > > > > > everything by their crippled supermarket theory > > > > > > > > AND IN MANY CASES WRONG INTERPRETATIONS !! > > > > > > > > > it starts with the illusion that we know really > > > > > > > > what is a photon > > > > > > > > and worse of that > > > > > > > > WhaT IS REALLY * A SINGLE PHOTON* > > > > > > > > > i claim that : > > > > > > > > > A a single photon is not represented by > > > > > > > > hf > > > > > > > > (nature does not know what is a second!!... > > > > > > > > a second is a human arbitrary definition of time !!.) > > > > > > > > > hf represents MANY SINGLE PHOTONS !!!!! > > > > > > > > Ever seen a photomultiplier tube? > > > > > > > > > ATB > > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > > > ------------- > > > > > > > no > > > > > > so what about it ?? > > > > > > anyway > > > > > > i am sure that the real **single photon is so tiny > > > > > > that it has no chance to make ant mark] > > > > > > Then you certainly haven't seen a photomultiplier tube. > > > > > Single photons are easily detected. > > > > > > > on a screen > > > > > > y.porat > > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > just tell me how do you know > > > > waht is a single photon > > > > > why on earth it is defined > > > > BY NATURE by the energy that is emitted in one second > > > > It ISN'T. > > > > I can't help if if you don't have the foggiest idea what a photon is, > > > or what a photomultiplier tube is, or how we can tell when there is > > > just one of something as opposed to several. > > > > > what does nature know about your > > > > second > > > > The photon IS NOT the energy delivered in one second. > > > > Good heavens, Porat. If I drop something from a plane and it > > > experiences an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s, does this mean that it takes > > > one second for it to fall to the ground? If I drive to work at 40 > > > miles/hour, does this mean that it takes me an hour to drive to work? > > > Are you really this dense? > > > > > why not nanosecond why not billion times smaller than a > > > > nanosecond ??? > > > > Y.Porat > > > > --------------------- > > > ok > > if you insist on not giving me some idea > > in a few lines > > i will look for your > > ' photomultiplier tube' > > and we will see why understands the basics of physics better ...... > > > as it was proven many times in past ... > > > Y.P > > ---------------------------- > > ok i looked at the Viki > for 10 seconds > and it told me that you are a parrot !! > > here is a quote: > ": > The photomultiplier provides extremely high sensitivity and ultra-fast > response. Photomultiplier tubes (PMT) have high bandwidth and noise- > free gain on the order of a million. This makes them ideal for the > detection of extremely low light or short pulses of light. > Photomultipliers can be used to detect photons from 115nm to 1700nm. A > typical Photomultiplier consists of a photoemissive cathode > (photocathode) followed by an electron multiplier and an electron > collector (anode). > end of quote > ------------------ > see above > it is locating (detecting) photons from > > 115 to 1700 nm !! > > who on earth told you that it is a ***single photon > defined by NATURE ???*** > ie the smallest possible photon !! And you drew from looking at a Wiki page from 10 seconds that a photomultiplier tube cannot distinguish between single photons and multiple photons? Because the first page you opened and read for 10 seconds did not say out loud, "Porat, photomultipliers can detect single photons"?? Good heavens, Porat, you are God-awful lazy. Can you not Google "single-photon detector photomultiplier"? > > 2 > i will now go on learning more about it > > Y.Porat > ------------------------ |