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: Inertial on 21 Jan 2010 17:31 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4ed78c8b-461c-4cab-b5d4-91b2ae723b26(a)21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > 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 ??? It would depend on the particular tool. . If you're interested, perhaps you can look up the specs of such experimental equipment from the manufacturer. Of course, it doesn't matter WHAT the lower limit is .. that it CAN pick up individual photons is the point and all one needs to know to refute your earlier argument. Not that the truth will stop you posting more of your nonsense .. it hasn't stopped you yet.
From: Inertial on 21 Jan 2010 17:38 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e34addfe-f022-4113-a0ce-ee884a02c8ca(a)a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > BTW > please tell the psychopath Inertial > that electrons of the Atom has no 'relativistic mass' Everything has relativistic mass .. and if the object is in motion that mass is higher than rest mass As i said, whether or not one can consider an electron orbital in an antom as an electron in motion is not clear .. orbitals are not orbits .. electrons do not orbit around the nucleus like a planet around the sun. Of course, my claim was nothing to do with electrons in atoms (that was your little diversion), mine was that heated object increase (slightly) in mass due to the increase in the motion (and so relativistic mass) of the atoms/molecules within them, as pointed out in the articles I gave you a link to read. > (and anyone who say that cannot prove it !!! > especially while we know that electrons do not orbit !! ) That's what *I* told *you* when you started talking about electrons moving in atoms!!! Gees. You are such a liar.
From: PD on 21 Jan 2010 17:45 On Jan 21, 10:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Porat, Porat. Porat. If you look through a microscope and you a bacterium, and you can't be sure it's the smallest bacterium, would this make you believe that the one bacterium is possibly many bacteria? > 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 > --------------------
From: Y.Porat on 22 Jan 2010 04:28 On Jan 22, 12:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 21, 10:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > Porat, Porat. Porat. > If you look through a microscope and you a bacterium, and you can't be > sure it's the smallest bacterium, would this make you believe that the > one bacterium is possibly many bacteria? > > > 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 > > -------------------- you have magnificent metaphors but they miss the target it eas you who saied that one cicle per second is not thwe smallest BECAUSE THE FORMULA E=hf covers ebven those possibilities so what are you mumling about bacteria!!! WHAT I SAID IS BASED ON A KNOW PGYSICS FORMULA !!! (iow it is either you dont know what i am talkinf about or worse you dont know what your are talking about !!! at tghe good case at the worse cas of wich i am not sure it is DEMAGOGISM...) it is as well may be that i am a bad explainer or else you afre deorived comopletely from creative immagination!!! if it is the first case let me give you another methaphor may be it wo\ill help for us to understand betetr each other : atke the infiltartin of Mexican people to the US southern border you catch some of the but you DONT CATCH MOST OF THEM so you live in an illusion that they are insgnificant threath for you about unwanted infiltration and suddenly one day you wake up and find youself with 40 million infiltrated foreighners that didnt got permission to immigarte to your land !!! you canbe sure that your curent tools HAVE A BOTTOM LIMIT OF DETECTION becaue youfolow the data and yousee that you detect smaller and smaller photons untill the picture becomes vague its resolusion is more and more vague unclear- you see soemthing there but not clear and then you realise (if you are a realistic person that quite sure you have A BOTTOM LIMIT FOR YOUR DETECTION!! btw IT IS MUCH ABOVE ONE CYCLE PER SECOND !!! so waht do you know about how many such 'infiltrators sniiked into your samle WITHOUT YOUR ABILITY TO DEFINE OE EVEN NORICE IT ?? 2 they peobably not weak by there are a huge mumber of them so a hugenumber can turn tobe significant 3 you completely ignored my remark about: if we have a photon withfrequency f and another one with n times f or f.n while f is aninteger??? waht willahppen? it caninerfere with your 'LIGAL' PHOTOND A AND DSITORT THE RESULTS 4 you completely ignore the remarks about; if a photon is passint through matter or even very close to it and the 'matter in our case is the matter of the SLIT (in case you ddint get it it can ahve some influence on theneer by eelctrons so do i have to explain to you waht does it makes while electrons (at very close serface of the slit ) change something in their stationary position ?? 5 my suggestion is just try to be a bit more than a parrot ... and for that you have morons ' like Y.Porat thst you hold their book ''a model of the Atom and the nuc '' and not scientists like the anonymous psychopath Inertial that have 'relativistic mass in E=mc^2 ie they have your above microscope of yours and they see there in the E=mc^2 ------> a Gamma factor !!! (:-)) Y.Porat --------------------
From: Inertial on 22 Jan 2010 07:16
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c70c7cfb-6f50-476c-b4fb-1ef7da99fc7f(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 22, 12:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 21, 10:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > 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 >> >> Porat, Porat. Porat. >> If you look through a microscope and you a bacterium, and you can't be >> sure it's the smallest bacterium, would this make you believe that the >> one bacterium is possibly many bacteria? >> >> > 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 >> > -------------------- > > you have magnificent metaphors > but they miss the target Nope .. they were spot on > it eas you who saied that one cicle per second > is not thwe smallest There is no known smallest > BECAUSE THE FORMULA E=hf > covers ebven those possibilities Of course .. it is for ALL photons no matter what frequency. > so what are you mumling about bacteria!!! That a single bacteria is a single bacteria, no matter what its size. Just like a single photon is a single photon, no matter what its frequency. > WHAT I SAID IS BASED ON A KNOW PGYSICS FORMULA !!! That is what PD was talking about. You seem to be very confused by photons and the formula for its energy. > (iow it is either you dont know what i am talkinf about > or worse > you dont know what your are talking about !!! > at tghe good case > at the worse cas of wich i am not sure it is DEMAGOGISM...) > it is as well may be that i am a bad explainer > or else > you afre deorived comopletely from creative immagination!!! > if it is the first case > let me give you another methaphor > may be it wo\ill help for us to understand betetr each other > : > atke the infiltartin of Mexican people to the US southern border > > you catch some of the > but you DONT CATCH MOST OF THEM > so you live in an illusion that they are insgnificant threath > for you about unwanted infiltration > and suddenly one day you wake up and find youself with 40 million > infiltrated foreighners that didnt got permission to immigarte to your > land !!! > > you canbe sure that your curent tools > HAVE A BOTTOM LIMIT OF DETECTION Of course they do .. it isn't relevant what the limit is, however > becaue youfolow the data and yousee > that you > detect smaller and smaller photons NO .. photons with lower frequencies .. not 'smaller'. > untill the picture > becomes vague its resolusion is more and more vague > unclear- you see soemthing there but not clear > and then you realise (if you are a realistic person > that quite sure you have A BOTTOM LIMIT FOR YOUR > DETECTION!! > btw > IT IS MUCH ABOVE ONE CYCLE PER SECOND !!! Doesn't matter what it is > so > waht do you know about how many such 'infiltrators > sniiked into your samle Say what? > WITHOUT YOUR ABILITY TO DEFINE OE EVEN NORICE IT ?? > 2 > they peobably not weak by there are a huge mumber of them > so a hugenumber can turn tobe significant > > 3 you completely ignored my remark about: > > if we have a photon withfrequency f > and another one with n times f or f.n > while f is aninteger??? > waht willahppen? Nothing in particular .. you just have two photons > it caninerfere with your 'LIGAL' PHOTOND A > AND DSITORT THE RESULTS No .. because the experiments are done with photons of light of known fixed frequency. |