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: Marvin the Martian on 22 Jan 2010 21:11 On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:51:09 -0800, Y.Porat wrote: > 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 This guy has no clue what he is talking about. Not only does he not know physics, he mis-understands it and is one of those egotistical know it alls that pontificates his misunderstandings as if they were gospel. At this point, he's just trolling.
From: eric gisse on 22 Jan 2010 22:05 Marvin the Martian wrote: [...] > At this point, he's just trolling. For 7 years straight?
From: Y.Porat on 24 Jan 2010 04:58 On Jan 23, 4:11 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:51:09 -0800, Y.Porat wrote: > > 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 > > This guy has no clue what he is talking about. Not only does he not know > physics, he mis-understands it and is one of those egotistical know it > alls that pontificates his misunderstandings as if they were gospel. > > At this point, he's just trolling. ------------------ another genius around the table.... do you claim that thers is a bottom limit to photon energy or not 2 do you deny that even the defined small photon with energy of one cycle per second E=h times 1/time unit----- IS AS FOR NOW WITH CURRENT TOOLS- IS UNDETECTABLE ???!! if undetectable than what is the lowest linit of photon energy that can be tedected with existing tools ?? if you dont know - just shut up until you know i can tell you that between that photon with one cycle and the detatble photons --- THERE IS STILL A VAST UNDETECTED RANGE and that is the range i a m talking about !! that can interfere with the double slit experiment (i say can interfere as a possibility that was never (AFAIK) taken into account another possible factor thatis overloked is the possible influence of the slits material anmother factorthat is overloked is the possible influence of the screen material fo rinstance waht is the time dealtion between photons hiting it and the momentwe see them or *how long* is the point on the screen that the photon was hitting is still in a glare situation iow how long it takes it to fade away ??1!! and all that on top about --- WHAT IS REALY 'A SINGLE PHOTON'?? does anyone can agree to the more abstract physical question: that ANY **SINGLE** PHYSICAL ENTITY ***CANNOT BE ***(by definition ) AT THE SAME TIME **IN TWO **SEPARATED**!! LOCATIONS (AT THE SAME TIME ???!!!) (is there any previous documentation that this last question was ever discussed and not to mestion--- given a reasonable answer ?? !!) TIA Y.Porat --------------------
From: Inertial on 24 Jan 2010 07:05 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:365c61aa-ebd0-43be-9daf-ffcc0d07ab94(a)e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 23, 4:11 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:51:09 -0800, Y.Porat wrote: >> > 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 >> >> This guy has no clue what he is talking about. Not only does he not know >> physics, he mis-understands it and is one of those egotistical know it >> alls that pontificates his misunderstandings as if they were gospel. >> >> At this point, he's just trolling. > > ------------------ > another genius around the table.... > > do you claim that thers is a bottom limit to photon energy or not Not that AGAIN !!!!! What the hell difference does it make? There are practical limits of detection (which change with technology), but AFAIK know known physics that predicts a lowest energy. Given that simply walking away from a photon of a given frequency decrease that frequency, it would seem that no lower limit is possible. But when low enough, the photon would be almost impossible to detect. > 2 > do you deny that even the defined small photon > with energy > of one cycle per second Why do you think nature cares about human-defined periods of time? > E=h times 1/time unit----- > IS AS FOR NOW WITH CURRENT TOOLS- > IS UNDETECTABLE ???!! I'm not sure of current technology, but there will certainly be a lowest frequency (ie energy) for a photon below which we cannot detect the photons. > if undetectable than what is the lowest linit > of photon energy that can be tedected > with existing tools ?? It depends on the tools ..and as technology improves, the lower limits will go down > if you dont know - just shut up until you know > i can tell you that between that photon > with one cycle > and the detatble photons --- > THERE IS STILL A VAST UNDETECTED RANGE Which makes no difference to anybody > and that is the range i a m talking about !! Why .. because you know what you say is nonsense for all observable ranges of photons, so you decide that they behave differently when we can't detect them so noone can prove you wrong? > that can interfere with the double slit experiment No .. they can't .. not in the way the interference patterns appear > (i say can interfere as a possibility that was never (AFAIK) taken > into account > another possible factor thatis overloked > is the possible influence of the > slits material > anmother factorthat is overloked > is the possible influence of > the screen material > fo rinstance > waht is the time dealtion between photons hiting it and the momentwe > see them > or > *how long* is the point on the screen > that the photon was hitting > is still in a glare situation > iow > how long it takes it to fade away ??1!! > > and all that on top about --- > WHAT IS REALY 'A SINGLE PHOTON'?? What we detect > does anyone can agree to the more abstract physical question: > that > > ANY **SINGLE** PHYSICAL ENTITY > ***CANNOT BE ***(by definition ) AT THE SAME TIME > **IN TWO **SEPARATED**!! LOCATIONS It may not be in *any* particular location .. just have a probability of being there. But once it has a location, it has just one > (AT THE SAME TIME ???!!!) > > (is there any previous documentation > that this last question was ever discussed > and not to mestion--- > given a reasonable > answer ?? !!) The notion of location of particles in Quantum physics would be well discussed in texts. There are certainly discussions that two objects cannot be in the same location at the same time. Look up exclusion principle. Note the the generation of interference patterns from a sequence of individual photons does NOT require the photons to be in multiple locations at one time.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 24 Jan 2010 08:06
On 24.01.2010 10:58, Y.Porat wrote: > > do you claim that thers is a bottom limit to photon energy or not Of course there is no bottom limit to photon energy. E = h*nu where nu is the frequency. There is no bottom limit to the frequency of EM-radiation > 2 > do you deny that even the defined small photon > with energy > of one cycle per second E=h times 1/time unit----- > IS AS FOR NOW WITH CURRENT TOOLS- > IS UNDETECTABLE ???!! That is nu = 1. The energy E = h*1 is about 10^14 (hundred thousand billions) times less than what can be detected. The wavelength of such a photon would be 33 000 km. How do you think the double slit would have to be? :-) > if undetectable than what is the lowest linit > of photon energy that can be tedected > with existing tools ?? I think the current limit for single photon detection is in the near IR area. Say lambda = 1.5-2um. So nu ~= 1.5*10^14 E = h*1.5*10^14 = 10^-19 Joules > if you dont know - just shut up until you know > i can tell you that between that photon > with one cycle > and the detatble photons --- > THERE IS STILL A VAST UNDETECTED RANGE > and that is the range i a m talking about !! > that can interfere with the double slit experiment > (i say can interfere as a possibility that was never (AFAIK) taken > into account > another possible factor thatis overloked > is the possible influence of the > slits material > anmother factorthat is overloked > is the possible influence of > the screen material > fo rinstance > waht is the time dealtion between photons hiting it and the momentwe > see them > or > *how long* is the point on the screen > that the photon was hitting > is still in a glare situation > iow > how long it takes it to fade away ??1!! > > and all that on top about --- > WHAT IS REALY 'A SINGLE PHOTON'?? One quantum of EM-radiation. The theory of photons is QED. Look it up. > > does anyone can agree to the more abstract physical question: > that > > ANY **SINGLE** PHYSICAL ENTITY > ***CANNOT BE ***(by definition ) AT THE SAME TIME > **IN TWO **SEPARATED**!! LOCATIONS > > (AT THE SAME TIME ???!!!) Right. Nobody would disagree. QED says nothing about where the photons are between creation and detection. It only gives the probability for detection within a certain area and time interval. That - very loosely - the probability interference pattern is as if the photon went all possible ways from source to detector (in double slit - through both slits) doesn't mean that it actually goes several ways at the same time. This is only a way to calculate the probability for detection. In QM the question where an entity is between creation and detection isn't even meaningful. > > (is there any previous documentation > that this last question was ever discussed > and not to mestion--- > given a reasonable > answer ?? !!) Good grief. :-) Read some QM. You are obviously ignorant of the most basic concepts. -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |