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 14:34 On Jan 20, 7:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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"? >---------------------------- there is a single photon whos mass is 3. exp -34 DOES YOUR TOOL CAN DETECT IT ??? you forgot the issue of lack of ability to define undoubtedly the mass of such a small photon mass such a small mass withits energy **has no way to make any mark on any existing screen if you dont undertant that you are detached from experimental physics and you cant prove that such photons donot acompany bigger photons 2 it i stold in that detiled article that a photon by passing next or though a mass IS CHANGING THE REGULAR ORDER OF THAT MASS!! soit a photon passes through a small slit in a mass you cansay that waht you get behind the screen is a net result of the orriginal phootn and not anything emmited from the slit mass !!! espcially by slit mass that were crested by the slit mass especially if those photons are very small energy photons 3 if you say that you now understand* to scratch* anything involved by the double slit experiment than YOU ARE A SHAMELESS DELUDING LIER and cause damage to the** advance** of science !! 4 BTW please tell the psychopath Inertial that electrons of the Atom has no 'relativistic mass' (and anyone who say that cannot prove it !!! especially while we know that electrons do not orbit !! ) Y.Porat --------------------- > > > > 2 > > i will now go on learning more about it > > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------
From: PD on 20 Jan 2010 16:18 On Jan 20, 1:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 20, 7:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> 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"? > >---------------------------- > > there is a single photon > whos mass is > > 3. exp -34 > > DOES YOUR TOOL CAN DETECT IT ??? It detects photons with no mass required at all. The detector does not rely on the photon having mass to detect it. Perhaps if you understood how a photon detector worked, you'd see that how much mass it has doesn't have anything to do with its detection. > > you forgot the issue of lack of ability to define > undoubtedly > the mass of such a small photon mass > such a small mass > withits energy > **has no way to make any mark on any existing screen > if you dont undertant that you are detached from > experimental physics > and you cant prove that such photons > donot acompany bigger photons > 2 > it i stold in that detiled article > that a photon by passing next or though a mass > IS CHANGING THE REGULAR ORDER OF THAT MASS!! > soit a photon passes > through a small slit in a mass > you cansay that waht you get behind the screen > is a net result of the orriginal phootn > and not anything emmited from the slit mass !!! > espcially by slit mass that were crested by the > slit mass > especially if those photons are very small energy photons > 3 > if you say that you now understand* to scratch* > anything involved by the double slit > experiment > than YOU ARE A SHAMELESS DELUDING LIER > and cause damage to the** advance** of science !! > 4 > BTW > please tell the psychopath Inertial > that electrons of the Atom has no 'relativistic mass' > (and anyone who say that cannot prove it !!! > especially while we know that electrons do not orbit !! ) > > Y.Porat > --------------------- > > > > 2 > > > i will now go on learning more about it > > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 21 Jan 2010 00:51 On Jan 20, 11:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 20, 1:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 20, 7:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> 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: > > > > > 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"? > > >---------------------------- > > > there is a single photon > > whos mass is > > > 3. exp -34 > > > DOES YOUR TOOL CAN DETECT IT ??? > > It detects photons with no mass required at all. > The detector does not rely on the photon having mass to detect it. > Perhaps if you understood how a photon detector worked, you'd see that > how much mass it has doesn't have anything to do with its detection. ------------------------------ ok you dont whant to deal with mass so letes talk about energy: there is a photon with one cycle per second does that tool can detect a photon with one cycle per second ??? if not what is the lower limit photon energy that this tool can detect ??? 2 you ddint answer my question:about: do you claime that you understand anything about what and how the strange duble slit experimental phenomenon is happening ??? Y.Porat ------------------------------ > > > you forgot the issue of lack of ability to define > > undoubtedly > > the mass of such a small photon mass > > such a small mass > > withits energy > > **has no way to make any mark on any existing screen > > if you dont undertant that you are detached from > > experimental physics > > and you cant prove that such photons > > donot acompany bigger photons > > 2 > > it i stold in that detiled article > > that a photon by passing next or though a mass > > IS CHANGING THE REGULAR ORDER OF THAT MASS!! > > soit a photon passes > > through a small slit in a mass > > you cansay that waht you get behind the screen > > is a net result of the orriginal phootn > > and not anything emmited from the slit mass !!! > > espcially by slit mass that were crested by the > > slit mass > > especially if those photons are very small energy photons > > 3 > > if you say that you now understand* to scratch* > > anything involved by the double slit > > experiment > > than YOU ARE A SHAMELESS DELUDING LIER > > and cause damage to the** advance** of science !! > > 4 > > BTW > > please tell the psychopath Inertial > > that electrons of the Atom has no 'relativistic mass' > > (and anyone who say that cannot prove it !!! > > especially while we know that electrons do not orbit !! ) > > > Y.Porat > > ---------------------
From: PD on 21 Jan 2010 09:30 On Jan 20, 11:51 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 20, 11:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 20, 1:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 20, 7:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> 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: > > > > > 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"? > > > >---------------------------- > > > > there is a single photon > > > whos mass is > > > > 3. exp -34 > > > > DOES YOUR TOOL CAN DETECT IT ??? > > > It detects photons with no mass required at all. > > The detector does not rely on the photon having mass to detect it. > > Perhaps if you understood how a photon detector worked, you'd see that > > how much mass it has doesn't have anything to do with its detection. > > ------------------------------ > ok > you dont whant to deal with mass > so letes talk about energy: > > there is a photon with one cycle per second > does that tool can detect a photon with one cycle per second ??? Not a photomultiplier tube, but there are lots of different kinds of single-photon counters. You can google them. I only told you about one, to make it easier for you to look it up. What makes you think the smallest photon energy is associated with 1 cycle per second? What about 0.5 cycles per second? What about 0.00001 cycles/second. You do know there are waves at the beach that are 0.005 cycles/second, right? > > if not what is the lower limit photon energy that this tool > can detect ??? > 2 > you ddint answer my question:about: > > do you claime that you understand anything about > what and how > the strange duble slit experimental phenomenon is happening ??? > > Y.Porat > ------------------------------ > > > > > > you forgot the issue of lack of ability to define > > > undoubtedly > > > the mass of such a small photon mass > > > such a small mass > > > withits energy > > > **has no way to make any mark on any existing screen > > > if you dont undertant that you are detached from > > > experimental physics > > > and you cant prove that such photons > > > donot acompany bigger photons > > > 2 > > > it i stold in that detiled article > > > that a photon by passing next or though a mass > > > IS CHANGING THE REGULAR ORDER OF THAT MASS!! > > > soit a photon passes > > > through a small slit in a mass > > > you cansay that waht you get behind the screen > > > is a net result of the orriginal phootn > > > and not anything emmited from the slit mass !!! > > > espcially by slit mass that were crested by the > > > slit mass > > > especially if those photons are very small energy photons > > > 3 > > > if you say that you now understand* to scratch* > > > anything involved by the double slit > > > experiment > > > than YOU ARE A SHAMELESS DELUDING LIER > > > and cause damage to the** advance** of science !! > > > 4 > > > BTW > > > please tell the psychopath Inertial > > > that electrons of the Atom has no 'relativistic mass' > > > (and anyone who say that cannot prove it !!! > > > especially while we know that electrons do not orbit !! ) > > > > Y.Porat > > > ---------------------
From: Y.Porat on 21 Jan 2010 11:42
On Jan 21, 4:30 pm, PD <thed > > how much mass it has doesn't have anything to do with its detection. > > > ------------------------------ > > ok > > you dont whant to deal with mass > > so letes talk about energy: > > > there is a photon with one cycle per second > > does that tool can detect a photon with one cycle per second ??? > > Not a photomultiplier tube, but there are lots of different kinds of > single-photon counters. You can google them. I only told you about > one, to make it easier for you to look it up. > ------------------------- you can have anotherr thousand tools with the same aim but you still ddint get waht is myclaim my claim is THAT NO CURRENT TOOK IS SENSITIVE ENOUGH TO DETECT VERY SMALL PHOTON ENERGIES itdoes not matter waht is the cureent acuracy but you have to agree with me that there is still no tool thatits ability is limitless in its abiloity to dptetect tiny or the tiniest photon enegies jsut to remind you while we had that dispute that you mensioned jsut below both of us and not only us agreed that even detecting a phootn with one cycle per second is beyond the curent tools ability !!! and therefore we could not prove that such a photon wuith one cycle per second now just add that fact of lackof ability todetect the very smalle phootns and addon it the fact that we learned that a phootn tha tis passing near some mass is disturbing the order of electronsin that mass!!! iow you cant insulate such little UNKNOWN NOISES !! that can fail your experimnt ! by unknown misleading effects 2 if so talking about a photon with even a samller enegy is useless talking !! 3 the other problem of mine is that the definition E =hf is not a definition of one single photon AS NATURE CREATED IT IT IS A HUMAN ARBITRARY DEFINITION no one told you that counting single photons is strating or ending by counting them just along one second why not along 1/1000 of a second etc etc it is not as you said above in defining say the gravitation constant g that you can measure it a long 1 meter along one kilometer etc etd why ?? because it remains constant no matter if youmeasure it during a meter movenet of a kilometer movement it ia always the same g othia if you measure photon wave cycles during a second or during 1/1000 second you get different quantities of photon energy !!! ow thetrouble is that poele DEFINE **!! asingle photon as meaured by the arbitarry one second and not say by natures unit say : one wave lenght and for the cureent paradigm a photon with 1 cycle pwer second and a photon with one billin cu\ycles per secong are both** a single photon'' whiile those tweo 'singlephoton' have a huge energy difference !!! (you can call a photon of one jaul a single photon and anotherone with 1/10000 jaule a single photon as well!!! it is physics nonsense an a huge cuase for mistakes and miss understandings (thatis why i would suggest that a single photon wil be defioned as a photon with one cycle per second ie one wave lenth per second and in that case the definition is based on one physical entity more defined by nature and less misleading less ambiguous !! and now why is it relevant to our issue: if you take a photon with f cicles and you atke a photon with nf cycles per second **wile n is an integer* and let em run simultaneously onm the same path what can happen ?? i leave it for you to thing about it .... (:-:) ATB Y.Porat -------------------- |