Zero Size Physics, revisited
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Way off topic: oil and politics (was: Hexagonal grid and itsthree directions)
Next: New Solutions Manuals, Test Banks, Instructor Manuals 2011
From: mpc755 on 31 May 2010 16:17 On May 31, 2:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 31, 12:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 31, 2:06 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 31, 12:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 31, 2:00 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 31, 11:56 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 30, 1:11 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 30, 2:55 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 30, 12:28 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 9:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 30, 12:16 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 9:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 11:38 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please I am not searching for the answer I asked you for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not asking for much. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Define how a particle of light can be detected at a hole while > > > > > > > > > > > > > passing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > By placing any of the following detectors at the entrance to the > > > > > > > > > > > > slits. The particle is always detected entering a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is your fudge. What is it exactly you are placing? > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing in science that can measure a particle for passing > > > > > > > > > > > light. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please show how such a detector works with a passing lightwaveor go > > > > > > > > > > > away. > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if you define that I know you are using bunk science. > > > > > > > > > > > There's just enough fudge to make it look like it works. > > > > > > > > > > > Your believability in science is just like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > A detector is defined here: > > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Interference'http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ > > > > > > > > > > ~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/ > > > > > > > > > > SinglePhotonInt > > > > > > > > > > erference.html > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > 'Quantum Information Group, Single Photon Detection'http://www.toshiba- > > > > > > > > > > europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection.html > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > 'A single photon detector inspired by the human eye'http://spie.org/x19173.xml?ArticleID=x19173 > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Detector Conquers The Dark Side'http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030813070545.htm-Hidequo... > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > I told you I am not on a wild goose chase to find your detectors of > > > > > > > > > bunk science. I am objective enough to know that science does not know > > > > > > > > > what it is doing. But you are part of the problem by using its fudge > > > > > > > > > for promoting your own theory. > > > > > > > > > > For your conscience please show how a detector really is supposed to > > > > > > > > > work. > > > > > > > > > > The science you borrow is fudge and you are its missuser. You make > > > > > > > > > claims using its claims and they are both wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > A single photon detector is defined here: > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Interference'http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ > > > > > > > > ~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/ > > > > > > > > SinglePhotonInt > > > > > > > > erference.html > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > 'Quantum Information Group, Single Photon Detection'http://www.toshiba- > > > > > > > > europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection.html > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > 'A single photon detector inspired by the human eye'http://spie.org/x19173.xml?ArticleID=x19173 > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Detector Conquers The Dark Side'http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030813070545.htm-Hidequo... > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > Please supply how the detector works. I challenge you on that account. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > A single photon detector is defined here: > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Interference'http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ > > > > > > ~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/ > > > > > > SinglePhotonInterference.html > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > 'Quantum Information Group, Single Photon Detection'http://www.toshiba- > > > > > > europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection.html > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > 'A single photon detector inspired by the human eye'http://spie..org/x19173.xml?ArticleID=x19173 > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Detector Conquers The Dark Side'http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030813070545.htm > > > > > > > Read the articles to understand how they work.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > I am not into following links. Please give a short explanation of how > > > > > it works. Try doing it yourself. I don't believe what I read on the > > > > > internet but perhaps I can believe you when you are honest about the > > > > > detectors. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > If you are interested in understanding how the detectors work then > > > > read the articles.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > NO. I won't go on your wild goose chase when if you know you could > > > tell me directly. But I think that this is just evidence that you are > > > not being honest about these detectors. > > > > I challenge you that they are nothing more than made u science. > > > Please show me where I am wrong if you can do it in your own words. > > > And please no repeats or links. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > When a double slit experiment is performed with photons, the > > interference pattern is not created like waves washing ashore. The > > interference pattern is created by the cumulation of photons that are > > detected at the screen. > > > The following image shows the interference pattern developing over > > time for electrons. The same occurs for photons. > > > The caption under the image here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_dynamics_in_the_double-slit_exper... > > > Reads: > > "Double-slit experiment when performed with electrons. The results are > > similar for photons. The figures show the buildup over time of > > electron collisions with the screen." > > > The electron, or photon, collision with the screen is the particle.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Please stop acting like you know something. > Wave interference requires no particle. > > Mitch Raemsch You do realize the interference pattern created by electrons and photons are created by multiple particles being detected, correct? The electron/photon wave enters and exits both slits. The electron/ photon particle enters and exits a single slit. The wave creates interference which alters the direction the particle travels. The following image shows the interference pattern being created by multiple electron particles. The same occurs for photons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Double-slit_experiment_results_Tana... Here is an image of the interference pattern being formed by photons being detected at the screen over time: http://www.cbu.edu/~jvarrian/252/photslit.gif Here is another example with electrons: http://skullsinthestars.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/pozzidoubleslit.jpg
From: mpc755 on 31 May 2010 16:22 On May 31, 2:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 31, 12:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 31, 2:06 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 31, 12:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 31, 2:00 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 31, 11:56 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 30, 1:11 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 30, 2:55 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 30, 12:28 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 9:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 30, 12:16 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 9:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 11:38 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please I am not searching for the answer I asked you for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not asking for much. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Define how a particle of light can be detected at a hole while > > > > > > > > > > > > > passing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > By placing any of the following detectors at the entrance to the > > > > > > > > > > > > slits. The particle is always detected entering a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is your fudge. What is it exactly you are placing? > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing in science that can measure a particle for passing > > > > > > > > > > > light. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please show how such a detector works with a passing lightwaveor go > > > > > > > > > > > away. > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if you define that I know you are using bunk science. > > > > > > > > > > > There's just enough fudge to make it look like it works. > > > > > > > > > > > Your believability in science is just like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > A detector is defined here: > > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Interference'http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ > > > > > > > > > > ~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/ > > > > > > > > > > SinglePhotonInt > > > > > > > > > > erference.html > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > 'Quantum Information Group, Single Photon Detection'http://www.toshiba- > > > > > > > > > > europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection.html > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > 'A single photon detector inspired by the human eye'http://spie.org/x19173.xml?ArticleID=x19173 > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Detector Conquers The Dark Side'http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030813070545.htm-Hidequo... > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > I told you I am not on a wild goose chase to find your detectors of > > > > > > > > > bunk science. I am objective enough to know that science does not know > > > > > > > > > what it is doing. But you are part of the problem by using its fudge > > > > > > > > > for promoting your own theory. > > > > > > > > > > For your conscience please show how a detector really is supposed to > > > > > > > > > work. > > > > > > > > > > The science you borrow is fudge and you are its missuser. You make > > > > > > > > > claims using its claims and they are both wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > A single photon detector is defined here: > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Interference'http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ > > > > > > > > ~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/ > > > > > > > > SinglePhotonInt > > > > > > > > erference.html > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > 'Quantum Information Group, Single Photon Detection'http://www.toshiba- > > > > > > > > europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection.html > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > 'A single photon detector inspired by the human eye'http://spie.org/x19173.xml?ArticleID=x19173 > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Detector Conquers The Dark Side'http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030813070545.htm-Hidequo... > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > Please supply how the detector works. I challenge you on that account. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > A single photon detector is defined here: > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Interference'http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ > > > > > > ~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/ > > > > > > SinglePhotonInterference.html > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > 'Quantum Information Group, Single Photon Detection'http://www.toshiba- > > > > > > europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection.html > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > 'A single photon detector inspired by the human eye'http://spie..org/x19173.xml?ArticleID=x19173 > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Detector Conquers The Dark Side'http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030813070545.htm > > > > > > > Read the articles to understand how they work.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > I am not into following links. Please give a short explanation of how > > > > > it works. Try doing it yourself. I don't believe what I read on the > > > > > internet but perhaps I can believe you when you are honest about the > > > > > detectors. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > If you are interested in understanding how the detectors work then > > > > read the articles.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > NO. I won't go on your wild goose chase when if you know you could > > > tell me directly. But I think that this is just evidence that you are > > > not being honest about these detectors. > > > > I challenge you that they are nothing more than made u science. > > > Please show me where I am wrong if you can do it in your own words. > > > And please no repeats or links. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > When a double slit experiment is performed with photons, the > > interference pattern is not created like waves washing ashore. The > > interference pattern is created by the cumulation of photons that are > > detected at the screen. > > > The following image shows the interference pattern developing over > > time for electrons. The same occurs for photons. > > > The caption under the image here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_dynamics_in_the_double-slit_exper... > > > Reads: > > "Double-slit experiment when performed with electrons. The results are > > similar for photons. The figures show the buildup over time of > > electron collisions with the screen." > > > The electron, or photon, collision with the screen is the particle.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Please stop acting like you know something. > Wave interference requires no particle. > > Mitch Raemsch You do realize the interference pattern created by electrons and photons are created by multiple particles being detected, correct? The electron/photon wave enters and exits both slits. The electron/ photon particle enters and exits a single slit. The wave creates interference which alters the direction the particle travels. The following image shows the interference pattern being created by multiple electron particles. The same occurs for photons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Double-slit_experiment_results_Tanamura_2..jpg Here is an image of the interference pattern being formed by photons being detected at the screen over time: http://www.cbu.edu/~jvarrian/252/photslit.gif Here is another example with electrons: http://skullsinthestars.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/pozzidoubleslit.jpg
From: BURT on 31 May 2010 18:05 On May 31, 1:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 31, 2:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 31, 12:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 31, 2:06 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 31, 12:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 31, 2:00 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 31, 11:56 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 30, 1:11 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 30, 2:55 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 30, 12:28 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 9:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 30, 12:16 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 9:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 11:38 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please I am not searching for the answer I asked you for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not asking for much. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Define how a particle of light can be detected at a hole while > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By placing any of the following detectors at the entrance to the > > > > > > > > > > > > > slits. The particle is always detected entering a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is your fudge. What is it exactly you are placing? > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing in science that can measure a particle for passing > > > > > > > > > > > > light. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please show how such a detector works with a passing lightwaveor go > > > > > > > > > > > > away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if you define that I know you are using bunk science. > > > > > > > > > > > > There's just enough fudge to make it look like it works. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your believability in science is just like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > A detector is defined here: > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Interference'http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ > > > > > > > > > > > ~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/ > > > > > > > > > > > SinglePhotonInt > > > > > > > > > > > erference.html > > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Quantum Information Group, Single Photon Detection'http://www.toshiba- > > > > > > > > > > > europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection.html > > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > > 'A single photon detector inspired by the human eye'http://spie.org/x19173.xml?ArticleID=x19173 > > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Detector Conquers The Dark Side'http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030813070545.htm-Hidequo... > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > I told you I am not on a wild goose chase to find your detectors of > > > > > > > > > > bunk science. I am objective enough to know that science does not know > > > > > > > > > > what it is doing. But you are part of the problem by using its fudge > > > > > > > > > > for promoting your own theory. > > > > > > > > > > > For your conscience please show how a detector really is supposed to > > > > > > > > > > work. > > > > > > > > > > > The science you borrow is fudge and you are its missuser. You make > > > > > > > > > > claims using its claims and they are both wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > A single photon detector is defined here: > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Interference'http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ > > > > > > > > > ~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/ > > > > > > > > > SinglePhotonInt > > > > > > > > > erference.html > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > 'Quantum Information Group, Single Photon Detection'http://www.toshiba- > > > > > > > > > europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection.html > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > 'A single photon detector inspired by the human eye'http://spie.org/x19173.xml?ArticleID=x19173 > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Detector Conquers The Dark Side'http://www..sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030813070545.htm-Hidequo... > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > Please supply how the detector works. I challenge you on that account. > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > A single photon detector is defined here: > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Interference'http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ > > > > > > > ~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/ > > > > > > > SinglePhotonInterference.html > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > 'Quantum Information Group, Single Photon Detection'http://www.toshiba- > > > > > > > europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection.html > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > 'A single photon detector inspired by the human eye'http://spie.org/x19173.xml?ArticleID=x19173 > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Detector Conquers The Dark Side'http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030813070545.htm > > > > > > > > Read the articles to understand how they work.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > I am not into following links. Please give a short explanation of how > > > > > > it works. Try doing it yourself. I don't believe what I read on the > > > > > > internet but perhaps I can believe you when you are honest about the > > > > > > detectors. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > If you are interested in understanding how the detectors work then > > > > > read the articles.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > NO. I won't go on your wild goose chase when if you know you could > > > > tell me directly. But I think that this is just evidence that you are > > > > not being honest about these detectors. > > > > > I challenge you that they are nothing more than made u science. > > > > Please show me where I am wrong if you can do it in your own words. > > > > And please no repeats or links. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > When a double slit experiment is performed with photons, the > > > interference pattern is not created like waves washing ashore. The > > > interference pattern is created by the cumulation of photons that are > > > detected at the screen. > > > > The following image shows the interference pattern developing over > > > time for electrons. The same occurs for photons. > > > > The caption under the image here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_dynamics_in_the_double-slit_exper... > > > > Reads: > > > "Double-slit experiment when performed with electrons. The results are > > > similar for photons. The figures show the buildup over time of > > > electron collisions with the screen." > > > > The electron, or photon, collision with the screen is the particle.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Please stop acting like you know something. > > Wave interference requires no particle. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > You do realize the interference pattern created by electrons and > photons are created by multiple particles being detected, correct? > > The electron/photon wave enters and exits both slits. The electron/ > photon particle enters and exits a single slit. The wave creates > interference which alters the direction the particle travels. > > The following image shows the interference pattern being created by > multiple electron particles. The same occurs for photons:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Double-slit_experiment_results_Tana... > > Here is an image of the interference pattern being formed by photons > being detected at the screen over time:http://www.cbu.edu/~jvarrian/252/photslit.gif > > Here is another example with electrons:http://skullsinthestars.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/pozzidoubleslit.jpg- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I am saying light does not need a particle for wave interference. The wave electron is a different story so stop trying to pull my leg. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 2 Jun 2010 03:43 On May 31, 6:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 31, 1:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 31, 2:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 31, 12:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 31, 2:06 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 31, 12:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 31, 2:00 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 31, 11:56 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 30, 1:11 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 30, 2:55 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 30, 12:28 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 9:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 30, 12:16 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 9:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 11:38 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please I am not searching for the answer I asked you for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not asking for much. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Define how a particle of light can be detected at a hole while > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By placing any of the following detectors at the entrance to the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > slits. The particle is always detected entering a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is your fudge. What is it exactly you are placing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing in science that can measure a particle for passing > > > > > > > > > > > > > light. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please show how such a detector works with a passing lightwaveor go > > > > > > > > > > > > > away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if you define that I know you are using bunk science. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's just enough fudge to make it look like it works. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your believability in science is just like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > A detector is defined here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Interference'http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ > > > > > > > > > > > > ~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/ > > > > > > > > > > > > SinglePhotonInt > > > > > > > > > > > > erference.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Quantum Information Group, Single Photon Detection'http://www.toshiba- > > > > > > > > > > > > europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'A single photon detector inspired by the human eye'http://spie.org/x19173.xml?ArticleID=x19173 > > > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Detector Conquers The Dark Side'http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030813070545.htm-Hidequo... > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > I told you I am not on a wild goose chase to find your detectors of > > > > > > > > > > > bunk science. I am objective enough to know that science does not know > > > > > > > > > > > what it is doing. But you are part of the problem by using its fudge > > > > > > > > > > > for promoting your own theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > For your conscience please show how a detector really is supposed to > > > > > > > > > > > work. > > > > > > > > > > > > The science you borrow is fudge and you are its missuser. You make > > > > > > > > > > > claims using its claims and they are both wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > A single photon detector is defined here: > > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Interference'http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ > > > > > > > > > > ~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/ > > > > > > > > > > SinglePhotonInt > > > > > > > > > > erference.html > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > 'Quantum Information Group, Single Photon Detection'http://www.toshiba- > > > > > > > > > > europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection.html > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > 'A single photon detector inspired by the human eye'http://spie.org/x19173.xml?ArticleID=x19173 > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Detector Conquers The Dark Side'http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030813070545.htm-Hidequo... > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > Please supply how the detector works. I challenge you on that account. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > A single photon detector is defined here: > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Interference'http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ > > > > > > > > ~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/ > > > > > > > > SinglePhotonInterference.html > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > 'Quantum Information Group, Single Photon Detection'http://www.toshiba- > > > > > > > > europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection.html > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > 'A single photon detector inspired by the human eye'http://spie.org/x19173.xml?ArticleID=x19173 > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Detector Conquers The Dark Side'http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030813070545.htm > > > > > > > > > Read the articles to understand how they work.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > I am not into following links. Please give a short explanation of how > > > > > > > it works. Try doing it yourself. I don't believe what I read on the > > > > > > > internet but perhaps I can believe you when you are honest about the > > > > > > > detectors. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > If you are interested in understanding how the detectors work then > > > > > > read the articles.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > NO. I won't go on your wild goose chase when if you know you could > > > > > tell me directly. But I think that this is just evidence that you are > > > > > not being honest about these detectors. > > > > > > I challenge you that they are nothing more than made u science. > > > > > Please show me where I am wrong if you can do it in your own words. > > > > > And please no repeats or links. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > When a double slit experiment is performed with photons, the > > > > interference pattern is not created like waves washing ashore. The > > > > interference pattern is created by the cumulation of photons that are > > > > detected at the screen. > > > > > The following image shows the interference pattern developing over > > > > time for electrons. The same occurs for photons. > > > > > The caption under the image here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_dynamics_in_the_double-slit_exper... > > > > > Reads: > > > > "Double-slit experiment when performed with electrons. The results are > > > > similar for photons. The figures show the buildup over time of > > > > electron collisions with the screen." > > > > > The electron, or photon, collision with the screen is the particle.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Please stop acting like you know something. > > > Wave interference requires no particle. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > You do realize the interference pattern created by electrons and > > photons are created by multiple particles being detected, correct? > > > The electron/photon wave enters and exits both slits. The electron/ > > photon particle enters and exits a single slit. The wave creates > > interference which alters the direction the particle travels. > > > The following image shows the interference pattern being created by > > multiple electron particles. The same occurs for photons:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Double-slit_experiment_results_Tana... > > > Here is an image of the interference pattern being formed by photons > > being detected at the screen over time:http://www.cbu.edu/~jvarrian/252/photslit.gif > > > Here is another example with electrons:http://skullsinthestars.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/pozzidoubleslit.jpg-Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I am saying light does not need a particle for wave interference. > The wave electron is a different story so stop trying to pull my leg. > > Mitch Raemsch You just said light needs a particle here: "No. The screen is absorbing waves. A light wave oscillates into the point particle giving it its electric energy. A particle nature is not needed for the absorption of light." An ocean wave which washes ashore does not oscillate into a point particle because an ocean wave does not consist of a particle. A light wave oscillates into a point particle because a photon consists of a physical particle and a physical wave. Here is an image of the interference pattern being formed by photons being detected at the screen over time: http://www.cbu.edu/~jvarrian/252/photslit.gif Image (a) is of 1000 photons detected after 10 seconds. Image (b) is of 60000 photons detected after 10 minutes. Notice how the photon 'particles' create the interference pattern. The photon 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The photon wave enters and exits both slits and alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels.
From: BURT on 2 Jun 2010 15:01
On Jun 2, 12:43 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 31, 6:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 31, 1:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 31, 2:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 31, 12:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 31, 2:06 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 31, 12:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 31, 2:00 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 31, 11:56 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 30, 1:11 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 30, 2:55 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 30, 12:28 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 9:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 30, 12:16 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 9:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 29, 11:38 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please I am not searching for the answer I asked you for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not asking for much. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Define how a particle of light can be detected at a hole while > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By placing any of the following detectors at the entrance to the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > slits. The particle is always detected entering a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is your fudge. What is it exactly you are placing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing in science that can measure a particle for passing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please show how such a detector works with a passing lightwaveor go > > > > > > > > > > > > > > away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if you define that I know you are using bunk science. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's just enough fudge to make it look like it works. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your believability in science is just like that.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A detector is defined here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Interference'http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > SinglePhotonInt > > > > > > > > > > > > > erference.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Quantum Information Group, Single Photon Detection'http://www.toshiba- > > > > > > > > > > > > > europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection..html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'A single photon detector inspired by the human eye'http://spie.org/x19173.xml?ArticleID=x19173 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Detector Conquers The Dark Side'http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030813070545.htm-Hidequo... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > I told you I am not on a wild goose chase to find your detectors of > > > > > > > > > > > > bunk science. I am objective enough to know that science does not know > > > > > > > > > > > > what it is doing. But you are part of the problem by using its fudge > > > > > > > > > > > > for promoting your own theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > For your conscience please show how a detector really is supposed to > > > > > > > > > > > > work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The science you borrow is fudge and you are its missuser. You make > > > > > > > > > > > > claims using its claims and they are both wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > A single photon detector is defined here: > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Interference'http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ > > > > > > > > > > > ~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/ > > > > > > > > > > > SinglePhotonInt > > > > > > > > > > > erference.html > > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Quantum Information Group, Single Photon Detection'http://www.toshiba- > > > > > > > > > > > europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection.html > > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > > 'A single photon detector inspired by the human eye'http://spie.org/x19173.xml?ArticleID=x19173 > > > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Detector Conquers The Dark Side'http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030813070545.htm-Hidequo... > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > Please supply how the detector works. I challenge you on that account. > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > A single photon detector is defined here: > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Interference'http://www.fas.harvard.edu/ > > > > > > > > > ~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/ > > > > > > > > > SinglePhotonInterference.html > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > 'Quantum Information Group, Single Photon Detection'http://www.toshiba- > > > > > > > > > europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection.html > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > 'A single photon detector inspired by the human eye'http://spie.org/x19173.xml?ArticleID=x19173 > > > > > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > > > > > 'Single Photon Detector Conquers The Dark Side'http://www..sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030813070545.htm > > > > > > > > > > Read the articles to understand how they work.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > I am not into following links. Please give a short explanation of how > > > > > > > > it works. Try doing it yourself. I don't believe what I read on the > > > > > > > > internet but perhaps I can believe you when you are honest about the > > > > > > > > detectors. > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > If you are interested in understanding how the detectors work then > > > > > > > read the articles.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > NO. I won't go on your wild goose chase when if you know you could > > > > > > tell me directly. But I think that this is just evidence that you are > > > > > > not being honest about these detectors. > > > > > > > I challenge you that they are nothing more than made u science. > > > > > > Please show me where I am wrong if you can do it in your own words. > > > > > > And please no repeats or links. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > When a double slit experiment is performed with photons, the > > > > > interference pattern is not created like waves washing ashore. The > > > > > interference pattern is created by the cumulation of photons that are > > > > > detected at the screen. > > > > > > The following image shows the interference pattern developing over > > > > > time for electrons. The same occurs for photons. > > > > > > The caption under the image here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_dynamics_in_the_double-slit_exper... > > > > > > Reads: > > > > > "Double-slit experiment when performed with electrons. The results are > > > > > similar for photons. The figures show the buildup over time of > > > > > electron collisions with the screen." > > > > > > The electron, or photon, collision with the screen is the particle.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Please stop acting like you know something. > > > > Wave interference requires no particle. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > You do realize the interference pattern created by electrons and > > > photons are created by multiple particles being detected, correct? > > > > The electron/photon wave enters and exits both slits. The electron/ > > > photon particle enters and exits a single slit. The wave creates > > > interference which alters the direction the particle travels. > > > > The following image shows the interference pattern being created by > > > multiple electron particles. The same occurs for photons:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Double-slit_experiment_results_Tana... > > > > Here is an image of the interference pattern being formed by photons > > > being detected at the screen over time:http://www.cbu.edu/~jvarrian/252/photslit.gif > > > > Here is another example with electrons:http://skullsinthestars.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/pozzidoubleslit.j...quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I am saying light does not need a particle for wave interference. > > The wave electron is a different story so stop trying to pull my leg. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > You just said light needs a particle here: > > "No. The screen is absorbing waves. A light wave oscillates into the > point particle giving it its electric energy. > > A particle nature is not needed for the absorption of light." > > An ocean wave which washes ashore does not oscillate into a point > particle because an ocean wave does not consist of a particle. > > A light wave oscillates into a point particle because a photon > consists of a physical particle and a physical wave. > > Here is an image of the interference pattern being formed by photons > being detected at the screen over time:http://www.cbu.edu/~jvarrian/252/photslit.gif > Image (a) is of 1000 photons detected after 10 seconds. Image (b) is > of 60000 photons detected after 10 minutes. Notice how the photon > 'particles' create the interference pattern. > > The photon 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The photon wave > enters and exits both slits and alters the direction the photon > 'particle' travels.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No. EM waves can oscillate into electric matter particles. Only the wave nature can be proven beyond a doubt. There is no physics that requires light to be a particle at absorption. It can go into electric energy anyway. Mitch Raemsch |