|
|
| Author |
Message |
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:35 pm Post subject:
Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
|
|
|
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:54:47 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:5btlc1thgo98g0dcm62k77s9982urvisbs@4ax.com...
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:42:36 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:fmkjc1htvje39ccfbcdmmllpg9dgcfisjo@4ax.com...
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com
wrote:
The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment.
Why? photons have cross-sections.
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
wavecrests
change
or not?
You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed
the
interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have
just
saw the images of the two slits.
I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double
slit
experiment.
How could it?
Sigh.....light speed got nothing to do with the experiment. If light is
bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference
fringes.
Ken, a photon is not like an ordinary bullet...
So now you admitted that BaT is dead.
The rest of your bull s**t is trying to use the fact that light is a wave
phenomenon.
|
You know Ken, I DO have a sneaking suspicion that some kind of periodicity IS
involved in light...be it spatially or time based.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jerry
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 574
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:27 am Post subject:
Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 4 Jul 2005 01:29:02 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
The extincr\tion argument was put forward by a gentleman called Fox, who
subsequently showed that DeSitter's argument against the BaT was wrong.
...and this very same Fox conducted an experiment specifically
designed to counter extinction arguments, the result of which
was ihnconsistent with BaT.
Different Fox.
|
Can't you get even THIS simple matter right?
The same John G. Fox wrote
Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 30, 297(1962)
Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 33, 1(1964)
(critiqued DeSitter)
and also wrote
Filipas, T.A. and Fox, J.G. Phys. Rev. 135, B1071(1964)
(conducted experiment designed to counter extinction
arguments, obtained results inconsistent with BaT.)
Jerry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:20 am Post subject:
Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
|
|
|
On 5 Jul 2005 21:27:04 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Henri Wilson wrote:
On 4 Jul 2005 01:29:02 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
The extincr\tion argument was put forward by a gentleman called Fox, who
subsequently showed that DeSitter's argument against the BaT was wrong.
...and this very same Fox conducted an experiment specifically
designed to counter extinction arguments, the result of which
was ihnconsistent with BaT.
Different Fox.
Can't you get even THIS simple matter right?
The same John G. Fox wrote
Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 30, 297(1962)
Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 33, 1(1964)
(critiqued DeSitter)
and also wrote
Filipas, T.A. and Fox, J.G. Phys. Rev. 135, B1071(1964)
(conducted experiment designed to counter extinction
arguments, obtained results inconsistent with BaT.)
Jerry
|
I know a fellow called Arnold Fox who reckoned DeSitter was wrong, too.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 574
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:38 pm Post subject:
Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 5 Jul 2005 21:27:04 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Different Fox.
Can't you get even THIS simple matter right?
The same John G. Fox wrote
Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 30, 297(1962)
Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 33, 1(1964)
(critiqued DeSitter)
and also wrote
Filipas, T.A. and Fox, J.G. Phys. Rev. 135, B1071(1964)
(conducted experiment designed to counter extinction
arguments, obtained results inconsistent with BaT.)
Jerry
I know a fellow called Arnold Fox who reckoned DeSitter was wrong, too.
|
You are attempting to muddy the waters.
The plain fact of the matter is that you are hopelessly
ignorant of the literature, and are likely to remain so for
eternity.
Jerry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Dishman
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:04 pm Post subject:
Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
|
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
....
| Quote: | The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
|
Not really, it's the distance between points
of equal phase measured in the directon of
propagation.
| Quote: | If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests
change
or not?
|
Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.
George |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Dishman
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:07 pm Post subject:
Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
|
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:wsmye.46998$7X1.43224@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
| Quote: | "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:fmkjc1htvje39ccfbcdmmllpg9dgcfisjo@4ax.com...
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
....
You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed
the
interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have
just
saw the images of the two slits.
I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double
slit
experiment.
How could it?
Sigh.....light speed got nothing to do with the experiment. If light is
bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference
fringes.
|
The suggestion is that is it wave-like but
that the speed of the waves depends on the
speed of the source that emits them. I don't
agree (for many reasons, the most obvious
being the Sagnac effect) but you should try
to understand his suggestion if you want to
offer valid criticisms.
George |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:08 pm Post subject:
Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
|
|
|
On 6 Jul 2005 07:38:21 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Henri Wilson wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 21:27:04 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Different Fox.
Can't you get even THIS simple matter right?
The same John G. Fox wrote
Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 30, 297(1962)
Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 33, 1(1964)
(critiqued DeSitter)
and also wrote
Filipas, T.A. and Fox, J.G. Phys. Rev. 135, B1071(1964)
(conducted experiment designed to counter extinction
arguments, obtained results inconsistent with BaT.)
Jerry
I know a fellow called Arnold Fox who reckoned DeSitter was wrong, too.
You are attempting to muddy the waters.
The plain fact of the matter is that you are hopelessly
ignorant of the literature, and are likely to remain so for
eternity.
|
Just read MY literature and you will learn considerably more than you will from
DeSitter.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:12 pm Post subject:
Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
|
|
|
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
...
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
Not really, it's the distance between points
of equal phase measured in the directon of
propagation.
|
You can say that about generated radio waves but not individual photons.
| Quote: |
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests
change
or not?
Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.
|
No doubt about that one, George.
Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in his
frame?
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Dishman
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:33 pm Post subject:
Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
|
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:e0arc1lpe6dpenhsc90i7hce2sa82hfplg@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman"
george@briar.demon.co.uk
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
...
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
Not really, it's the distance between points
of equal phase measured in the directon of
propagation.
You can say that about generated radio waves
but not individual photons.
|
Another interesting subject.
Consider Young's slits illuminated by a laser.
If the setup is symmetrical you get a bright
line in the centre with fringes either side.
Conventionally the high brightness at a
location ten fringes to one side is due to the
signal interfering such that the peak through
one slit coincides with a peak ten wavelengths
later that has travelled a longer path having
come through the other slit.
If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
add a shutter, you can allow single photons
into the setup. At the same location as above,
you still get a peak of probability of photons
arriving while half a fringe either side, the
probability is zero because a peak through one
slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
wavelengths later. That must apply to each
photon individually.
| Quote: | If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
wavecrests change or not?
Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.
No doubt about that one, George.
Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in
his
frame?
|
In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength
to change according to the classical formula
for a moving observer while if SR is right, it
should change according to the relativistic
formula.
George |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jahn
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:56 pm Post subject:
Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
|
|
|
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:dareqb$6d8$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
| Quote: |
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:e0arc1lpe6dpenhsc90i7hce2sa82hfplg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman"
george@briar.demon.co.uk
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
...
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
Not really, it's the distance between points
of equal phase measured in the directon of
propagation.
You can say that about generated radio waves
but not individual photons.
Another interesting subject.
Consider Young's slits illuminated by a laser.
If the setup is symmetrical you get a bright
line in the centre with fringes either side.
Conventionally the high brightness at a
location ten fringes to one side is due to the
signal interfering such that the peak through
one slit coincides with a peak ten wavelengths
later that has travelled a longer path having
come through the other slit.
If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
add a shutter, you can allow single photons
into the setup.
|
If you do this by reducing the brigtness of the
laser you allow a single *absorbed* photons to eject a
photoelectron.
Quantum dot emitters that will measure out a single
photon are now available.
<<The experiment and Results
This experiment proved that the following two things were possible in an
open photonic network environment such as the Internet.
1. A single photon can interfere...>>
http://www.physorg.com/news4536.html
IOW a single *emitted* photon goes through
both slits.
That doens't look favorable for BaT or
particle propagation models.
Sue...
At the same location as above,
| Quote: | you still get a peak of probability of photons
arriving while half a fringe either side, the
probability is zero because a peak through one
slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
wavelengths later. That must apply to each
photon individually.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
wavecrests change or not?
Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.
No doubt about that one, George.
Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in
his
frame?
In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength
to change according to the classical formula
for a moving observer while if SR is right, it
should change according to the relativistic
formula.
George
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
|
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:33:25 +0100, "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:e0arc1lpe6dpenhsc90i7hce2sa82hfplg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman"
george@briar.demon.co.uk
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
...
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
Not really, it's the distance between points
of equal phase measured in the directon of
propagation.
You can say that about generated radio waves
but not individual photons.
Another interesting subject.
Consider Young's slits illuminated by a laser.
If the setup is symmetrical you get a bright
line in the centre with fringes either side.
Conventionally the high brightness at a
location ten fringes to one side is due to the
signal interfering such that the peak through
one slit coincides with a peak ten wavelengths
later that has travelled a longer path having
come through the other slit.
If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
add a shutter, you can allow single photons
into the setup.
|
That is a pretty tricky operation.
| Quote: | At the same location as above,
you still get a peak of probability of photons
arriving while half a fringe either side, the
probability is zero because a peak through one
slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
wavelengths later. That must apply to each
photon individually.
|
How about using parallel light from a very dim star instead of a laser.
If single photons reach the slits, the spacing should give an indication of
photon cross section.
| Quote: |
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
wavecrests change or not?
Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.
No doubt about that one, George.
Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in
his
frame?
In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength
to change according to the classical formula
for a moving observer while if SR is right, it
should change according to the relativistic
formula.
|
I would not expect the wavelength to change at all.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:17 pm Post subject:
Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
|
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:56:23 -0400, "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:dareqb$6d8$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:e0arc1lpe6dpenhsc90i7hce2sa82hfplg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman"
george@briar.demon.co.uk
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
...
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
Not really, it's the distance between points
of equal phase measured in the directon of
propagation.
You can say that about generated radio waves
but not individual photons.
Another interesting subject.
Consider Young's slits illuminated by a laser.
If the setup is symmetrical you get a bright
line in the centre with fringes either side.
Conventionally the high brightness at a
location ten fringes to one side is due to the
signal interfering such that the peak through
one slit coincides with a peak ten wavelengths
later that has travelled a longer path having
come through the other slit.
If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
add a shutter, you can allow single photons
into the setup.
If you do this by reducing the brigtness of the
laser you allow a single *absorbed* photons to eject a
photoelectron.
Quantum dot emitters that will measure out a single
photon are now available.
The experiment and Results
This experiment proved that the following two things were possible in an
open photonic network environment such as the Internet.
1. A single photon can interfere...
http://www.physorg.com/news4536.html
IOW a single *emitted* photon goes through
both slits.
That doens't look favorable for BaT or
particle propagation models.
|
Why not?
Photons have an effective cross section that stretches to infinity. It does off
very rapidly with distance from the central axis, though.
| Quote: | Sue...
At the same location as above,
you still get a peak of probability of photons
arriving while half a fringe either side, the
probability is zero because a peak through one
slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
wavelengths later. That must apply to each
photon individually.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
wavecrests change or not?
Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.
No doubt about that one, George.
Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in
his
frame?
In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength
to change according to the classical formula
for a moving observer while if SR is right, it
should change according to the relativistic
formula.
George
|
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Dishman
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:10 am Post subject:
Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:33:25 +0100, "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:e0arc1lpe6dpenhsc90i7hce2sa82hfplg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman"
george@briar.demon.co.uk
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn@4ax.com...
...
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
Not really, it's the distance between points
of equal phase measured in the directon of
propagation.
You can say that about generated radio waves
but not individual photons.
Another interesting subject.
Consider Young's slits illuminated by a laser.
If the setup is symmetrical you get a bright
line in the centre with fringes either side.
Conventionally the high brightness at a
location ten fringes to one side is due to the
signal interfering such that the peak through
one slit coincides with a peak ten wavelengths
later that has travelled a longer path having
come through the other slit.
If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
add a shutter, you can allow single photons
into the setup.
That is a pretty tricky operation.
|
True but it is done.
| Quote: | At the same location as above,
you still get a peak of probability of photons
arriving while half a fringe either side, the
probability is zero because a peak through one
slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
wavelengths later. That must apply to each
photon individually.
How about using parallel light from a very dim star instead of a laser.
|
A laser is monochromatic, a star isn't. The
linewidth is important in this case. A laser
will show interference with single photons
even if the difference in the path length
is many wavelengths. This abstract mentions
a choerence length of 50m for one laser and
is nothing special, just the first that came
out of Google:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/tmop/1998/00000045/00000008/art00003
| Quote: | If single photons reach the slits, the spacing should give an indication of
photon cross section.
|
That's a different subject, I was responding to
your comment on the applicability of wavelength
to single photons.
| Quote: | If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
wavecrests change or not?
Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.
No doubt about that one, George.
Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in
his
frame?
In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength
to change according to the classical formula
for a moving observer while if SR is right, it
should change according to the relativistic
formula.
I would not expect the wavelength to change at all.
|
You are right, I was thinking it would be reduced
by the distance the observer had moved but that is
not correct. There is still a difference between
the two theories.
George |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:52 pm Post subject:
Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
|
|
|
On 12 Jul 2005 05:10:05 -0700, "george@briar.demon.co.uk"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
Henri Wilson wrote:
If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
add a shutter, you can allow single photons
into the setup.
That is a pretty tricky operation.
True but it is done.
At the same location as above,
you still get a peak of probability of photons
arriving while half a fringe either side, the
probability is zero because a peak through one
slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
wavelengths later. That must apply to each
photon individually.
How about using parallel light from a very dim star instead of a laser.
A laser is monochromatic, a star isn't. The
linewidth is important in this case.
|
Single photons should be monochromatic, should they not?
A filter could be used anyway.
| Quote: | A laser
will show interference with single photons
even if the difference in the path length
is many wavelengths. This abstract mentions
a coherence length of 50m for one laser and
is nothing special, just the first that came
out of Google:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/tmop/1998/00000045/00000008/art00003
If single photons reach the slits, the spacing should give an indication of
photon cross section.
That's a different subject, I was responding to
your comment on the applicability of wavelength
to single photons.
|
You know my 'sawblade model' of a photon. It has a spatial regularity that
shows up as 'frequency' when it passes an observer. The wavelength is fixed.
It is the nature of this 'spatial pattern' that is of interest.
One explanation is that the 'wave package' itself features a standing
oscillation from back to front as it travels along.
| Quote: | If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
wavecrests change or not?
Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.
No doubt about that one, George.
Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in
his
frame?
In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength
to change according to the classical formula
for a moving observer while if SR is right, it
should change according to the relativistic
formula.
I would not expect the wavelength to change at all.
You are right, I was thinking it would be reduced
by the distance the observer had moved but that is
not correct. There is still a difference between
the two theories.
|
Under BaT, diffraction is explained in terms of frequency, not wavelength.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Dishman
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:05 am Post subject:
Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
|
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:gvh8d19d0qrhqheljtd1rgec71oehjstkc@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On 12 Jul 2005 05:10:05 -0700, "george@briar.demon.co.uk"
george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
add a shutter, you can allow single photons
into the setup.
That is a pretty tricky operation.
True but it is done.
At the same location as above,
you still get a peak of probability of photons
arriving while half a fringe either side, the
probability is zero because a peak through one
slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
wavelengths later. That must apply to each
photon individually.
How about using parallel light from a very dim star instead of a laser.
A laser is monochromatic, a star isn't. The
linewidth is important in this case.
Single photons should be monochromatic, should they not?
|
Frequency is a measure of momentum so an
accurately known momentum implies a single
frequency, but the bandwidth of a tone burst
is inversely proportional to the duration.
The uncertainty of the value of the momentum
therefore relates inversely to the 'length'
of the photon but it is hard to say where a
'long' burst of sine wave is located. This
is basically another way of looking at the
uncertainty principle, dx * dp has a minimum
value.
| Quote: | A filter could be used anyway.
A laser
will show interference with single photons
even if the difference in the path length
is many wavelengths. This abstract mentions
a coherence length of 50m for one laser and
is nothing special, just the first that came
out of Google:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/tmop/1998/00000045/00000008/art00003
If single photons reach the slits, the spacing should give an indication
of
photon cross section.
That's a different subject, I was responding to
your comment on the applicability of wavelength
to single photons.
You know my 'sawblade model' of a photon.
|
No, I haven't seen you post that that.
| Quote: | It has a spatial regularity that
shows up as 'frequency' when it passes an observer. The wavelength is
fixed.
It is the nature of this 'spatial pattern' that is of interest.
One explanation is that the 'wave package' itself features a standing
oscillation from back to front as it travels along.
|
What is it reflecting off at the ends?
| Quote: | You are right, I was thinking it would be reduced
by the distance the observer had moved but that is
not correct. There is still a difference between
the two theories.
Under BaT, diffraction is explained in terms of frequency, not wavelength.
|
I'm not quite sure what you mean, are you
talking of a diffraction grating rather
than diffraction itself?
George |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:33 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Relativity
