What is the smallest quantity of a photon energy ('Quanta') ??
Y.Porat
emitted by Quanta of energy
if it i s a 'Quanta'
so there must be the smallest quanta
so what is it ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------
hanson
news:1180538498.3...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Taking the current heuristic notion of E = hf or hc/l
then the following case can be made
E, your quanta, becomes the smallest at the longest
observable wave length (l) which is the size of the
accessible portion of our unverse aka as the distance
from light wall to light wall, some 10^28 cm.
Plug in the numbers to get the value of the smallest quanta.
>
I know that to are driving up to your favorite "mass of
the photon". So, divide that E-number by c^2 and you
get the "mass" of the photon... and realize that this
photon associated mass is spread across the entire
accessible universe. -- Some slim mass pickens, Yehi ---
Yehi, mass used his this context is just a "dimensional"
concept that has NOTHING to do with the mass or the
weight of some stone that you can throw at a glass house..
Take care, Yehi
hanson
PS: When fancy strikes I will comment on your unresolved
issues you have with Tom Potter... in a **balanced** way.
Meanwhile, do not create more Anti-Semitism, Yehi.. ahaha..
PD
> We know that Plank and Einstein found that photon and photon energy is
> emitted by Quanta of energy
> if it i s a 'Quanta'
> so there must be the smallest quanta
No, there isn't. I don't know why you would think that there must be.
> so what is it ??
A figment of your imagination.
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ------------------------------
Y.Porat
> Yehiel "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180538498.3...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> We know that Plank and Einstein found that photon and
> > photon energy is emitted by Quanta of energy
> > if it i s a 'Quanta'
> > so there must be the smallest quanta
> > so what is it ??
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > ------------------------------
>
> [hanson]
> Taking the current heuristic notion of E = hf or hc/l
> then the following case can be made
> E, your quanta, becomes the smallest at the longest
> observable wave length (l) which is the size of the
> accessible portion of our unverse aka as the distance
> from light wall to light wall, some 10^28 cm.
> Plug in the numbers to get the value of the smallest quanta.
Hi my friend hanson
fors tof all i aould lke you to understand the
phylosophy '' of my question:;
please think abou thr known term 'Quanta' !!
it is ment to indicate that photons are composed of some
indivisible qauntity
or else you cant speak about a quantas
if th eenrgy is found in some measurable constant
steps
it is that ther are 'steps' of that quantity
and nothing **between * thsoe steps
soit leads directly to my question
waht is that quanta minma amount
that cant be divided anymore
analogous to the electron or proton
etc to the quark if youlike
anyway as we zoom into matetd
and physical entities we reallise that
at the end of the day we will must come
to the last indivisible entiry
of whic if at all possible todivide it
it wil not be anymore that entity but
may be something else
is short
we ahvr to amke clear to us
what is the smallest quanta of photon energy !!
----
> I know that to are driving up to your favorite "mass of
> the photon". So, divide that E-number by c^2 and you
> get the "mass" of the photon... and realize that this
> photon associated mass is spread across the entire
> accessible universe. -- Some slim mass pickens, Yehi ---
>
> Yehi, mass used his this context is just a "dimensional"
> concept that has NOTHING to do with the mass or the
>
--sorry that you stil didnt get it
but one day you will !!
--
weight of some stone that you can throw at a glass house..
> Take care, Yehi
> hanson
>
> PS: When fancy strikes I will comment on your unresolved
> issues you have with Tom Potter...
please remind me what are you atlking about
in a **balanced** way.
> Meanwhile, do not create more Anti-Semitism, Yehi.. ahaha..
------------
nothing to do with racism it is pure science
keep well
Y.Porat
------------------
Y.Porat
> On May 30, 10:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We know that Plank and Einstein found that photon and photon energy is
> > emitted by Quanta of energy
> > if it i s a 'Quanta'
> > so there must be the smallest quanta
>
> No, there isn't. I don't know why you would think that there must be.
----------------
i thought it is an obvius indispensible question!!
may be i am a poor expressor of my thoughts
(:-)
so what is a 'quanta' of energy
according to you
and why that term has beed introduced
what was the innovation in it
and what is the difference between that
and what was before that ??
Mr PD ??
>
> > so what is it ??
>
> A figment of your imagination.
??? really ??........
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
Jeckyl
> i thought it is an obvius indispensible question!!
> may be i am a poor expressor of my thoughts
> (:-)
>
> so what is a 'quanta' of energy
> according to you
> and why that term has beed introduced
> what was the innovation in it
> and what is the difference between that
> and what was before that ??
> Mr PD ??
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
although your increasingly odd view of photons would probably disagree with
the rest of the world of physics.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180582297....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > i thought it is an obvius indispensible question!!
> > may be i am a poor expressor of my thoughts
> > (:-)
>
> > so what is a 'quanta' of energy
> > according to you
> > and why that term has beed introduced
> > what was the innovation in it
> > and what is the difference between that
> > and what was before that ??
> > Mr PD ??
>
>
> although your increasingly odd view of photons would probably disagree with
> the rest of the world of physics.
----------
so it is not as PD thought
that there is nmo bottom limit fo rthe phoron energy
quanta
now the second question:
if it i s as in vikipedia
about (please nothe the 'about' there !!)
4x10-19 Joule
and it means it is the smallest quanta ?
so
to what frequency does it belong ??
----------
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------
Jeckyl
> so it is not as PD thought
> that there is nmo bottom limit fo rthe phoron energy
> quanta
There is no bottom limit
> now the second question:
>
> if it i s as in vikipedia
> about (please nothe the 'about' there !!)
> 4x10-19 Joule
> and it means it is the smallest quanta ?
No .. read the article again
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
--------------
here is the quote from Vikipedia:
quote
''
where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, and λ is its
wavelength. For visible light, the energy carried by a single photon
would be around a tiny ... joules. However, this energy is sufficient
to, for example, excite a single molecule in the retina of a human
eye, thus contributing to human vision.
end of quote
so what and why is that
'single photon' mensioin there as a special case
with a numeric value
(BTw i dont know why the 4x10-19 was not pasted in
though i did a 'copy' of it )
in what it is different from others
and what i sso special abou that case
worth mensioning there ??
TIA
Y.Porat
so it is a single photon!!
waht is for you a single photon
as different from
Jeckyl
>here is the quote from Vikipedia:
>
>quote
>
>''
>wavelength. For visible light, the energy carried by a single photon
>would be around a tiny ... joules. However, this energy is sufficient
>to, for example, excite a single molecule in the retina of a human
>eye, thus contributing to human vision.
>end of quote
>
>so what and why is that
>'single photon' mensioin there as a special case
>with a numeric value
>(BTw i dont know why the 4x10-19 was not pasted in
>though i did a 'copy' of it )
>
>in what it is different from others
>and what i sso special abou that case
>worth mensioning there ??
>
>TIA
>Y.Porat
>
>
>so it is a single photon!!
>
>waht is for you a single photon
>as different from
I don't understand what you're asking or saying .. try again.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
-------
lets find first and answer to my previous question
Vikipedia defines a *single photon* energy
as about
4 x 10-19 loule
my question was
1
according to E=hf
to what frequency f does that (above mensioned)
energy
belong to ??
i have another very BTW less important question:
from when is that information of vikipedia
ie the date of its last unpdate ??
but first
the first question please ??!!
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------
The_Man
> On May 31, 9:37 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1180592971....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >here is the quote from Vikipedia:
>
> > >quote
>
> > >''
> > >where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, and ? is its
> > >wavelength. For visible light, the energy carried by a single photon
> > >would be around a tiny ... joules. However, this energy is sufficient
> > >to, for example, excite a single molecule in the retina of a human
> > >eye, thus contributing to human vision.
> > >end of quote
They are talking about vision. The mechanism of vision is very
interesting chemically, but it is far too complicated for YOU to
understand.
>
> > >so what and why is that
> > >'single photon' mensioin there as a special case
> > >with a numeric value
> > >(BTw i dont know why the 4x10-19 was not pasted in
> > >though i did a 'copy' of it )
>
> > >in what it is different from others
> > >and what i sso special abou that case
> > >worth mensioning there ??
They are merely giving an example of an important biochemical example.
The photon energy is sufficient to cause an isomerization in retinol.
Photons in the visible region are farly energetic photons - they are
strong enough to promote electrons from one MO to another.
>
> > >TIA
> > >Y.Porat
>
> > >so it is a single photon!!
>
> > >waht is for you a single photon
> > >as different from
>
> > I don't understand what you're asking or saying .. try again.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> -------
> lets find first and answer to my previous question
>
> Vikipedia defines a *single photon* energy
> as about
> 4 x 10-19 loule
The range of 10^-19 Joules is obviously visible light. A problem I can
do in my head is that the frequency will be 6.037 x 10^14 Hz, so the
wavelength is 498 nanometers.
>From E= h nu and c = lambda nu
This is probably a high school level problem, and is covered in detail
in the FIRST semester of college/university chemistry.
Even the FRESHMEN can do this problem.
>
> my question was
>
> 1
> according to E=hf
>
> to what frequency f does that (above mensioned)
> energy
> belong to ??
Answered.
>
> i have another very BTW less important question:
>
> from when is that information of vikipedia
> ie the date of its last unpdate ??
Wikipedia is complete and total shit. Does this remind you of anything
(or anyone)????
>
> but first
> the first question please ??!!
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -------------------- Hide quoted text -
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
---------------
btw if it is th equanta that is still visible
than waht is so complicated to me
and not complicated to you ??
doyou know about the human eyesight
more than me ??
so
if we talk about 'quanta of energy'
what does it mean for you ??
iow
can we have a small quanta and a big quanta
or is that
'quanta' a fixed constant quantity ??
can we have any qaunta of photon energy
we like ?
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------
PD
> On May 30, 8:37 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 30, 10:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > We know that Plank and Einstein found that photon and photon energy is
> > > emitted by Quanta of energy
> > > if it i s a 'Quanta'
> > > so there must be the smallest quanta
>
> > No, there isn't. I don't know why you would think that there must be.
>
> ----------------
> i thought it is an obvius indispensible question!!
> may be i am a poor expressor of my thoughts
> (:-)
>
> so what is a 'quanta' of energy
> according to you
The quanta of energy is how energy is delivered -- in lumps. However,
those lumps come in all sizes, depending on the frequency of the
light. There are huge lumps (large frequency) called gamma rays, big
lumps called X-rays, medium-sized lumps called visible-light photons,
small lumps (low frequency) called microwave photons, and itty bitty
lumps called radio-frequency photons. There is no smallest size lump,
but energy is delivered in lumps nonetheless.
> and why that term has beed introduced
> what was the innovation in it
> and what is the difference between that
> and what was before that ??
Before that, energy was thought to be delivered *continuously*, which
is how people thought waves delivered energy.
> Mr PD ??
>
> > > so what is it ??
>
> > A figment of your imagination.
>
> ??? really ??........
Really.
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ----------------------
The_Man
I don't know - only you can answer that.
>
> doyou know about the human eyesight
> more than me ??
Yes. A Ph.D. in chemistry will do that....
> so
> if we talk about 'quanta of energy'
> what does it mean for you ??
> iow
> can we have a small quanta and a big quanta
> or is that
> 'quanta' a fixed constant quantity ??
Quanta of radio waves have very low energies. We know that it is still
quantized, because radio waves of the right quantum are absorbed (and
the wrong quanta are NOT absorbed) to cause transitions between
nuclear spin states (NMR or MRI)
>
> can we have any qaunta of photon energy
> we like ?
Yes, if we ask nicely.
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> --------------- Hide quoted text -
Y.Porat
SO THE NEW CONCWEPT OF -'not continuously'
does not fit to your claim that
photn energy can be delivered by ......
*any quanta*!!
it is contradictiry to the concept
QUANTA !!
that is exactly my question
what property of it makes it not continously!
and we would like to know and make clear
what are possible 'interavls' ie
between posible and not possible
amopunts of of energy
and what are noexistant intervals
of photon energy
metahphoricaly
if we compare it on moving upwards of steps
we can only do it if steping on a whole
step
if we lift our leg only to the middle of thestep
we ... stumble !!!
unlike moving on a ramp !!
that we can move forwards by any amount
of a foot strideso my specific question is
WAHT IS THAT 'STEP' ??
hope that you realset at last
that in photon emmision
it is done by some 'steps' and not on a ramp ..(methaphorically )
hope i made myself clear !!
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
>
Jeckyl
> lets find first and answer to my previous question
> Vikipedia defines a *single photon* energy
> as about 4 x 10-19 loule
Yes
> my question was
> 1 according to E=hf
>
> to what frequency f does that (above mensioned)
> energy belong to ??
Do the calculation .. h is a constant, you know E = 4x10^-19J, so you can
work out f using f = E/h
Jeckyl
> On May 31, 2:17 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The quanta of energy is how energy is delivered -- in lumps. However,
>> those lumps come in all sizes, depending on the frequency of the
>> light. There are huge lumps (large frequency) called gamma rays, big
>> lumps called X-rays, medium-sized lumps called visible-light photons,
>> small lumps (low frequency) called microwave photons, and itty bitty
>> lumps called radio-frequency photons. There is no smallest size lump,
>> but energy is delivered in lumps nonetheless.
>>
>> > and why that term has beed introduced
>> > what was the innovation in it
>> > and what is the difference between that
>> > and what was before that ??
>>
>> Before that, energy was thought to be delivered *continuously*, which
>> is how people thought waves delivered energy.
>> ----------------
>
> SO THE NEW CONCWEPT OF -'not continuously'
> does not fit to your claim that
> photn energy can be delivered by ......
> *any quanta*!!
> it is contradictiry to the concept
> QUANTA !!
> that is exactly my question
> what property of it makes it not continously!
That it is in discrete lumps. A little packet of energy per photon.
> and we would like to know and make clear
> what are possible 'interavls' ie
> between posible and not possible
> amopunts of of energy
Whatever the energy is in one photon for a particular frequency of light
> and what are noexistant intervals
> of photon energy
> metahphoricaly
> if we compare it on moving upwards of steps
Eh?
> we can only do it if steping on a whole
> step
> if we lift our leg only to the middle of thestep
> we ... stumble !!!
> unlike moving on a ramp !!
> that we can move forwards by any amount
> of a foot strideso my specific question is
> WAHT IS THAT 'STEP' ??
> hope that you realset at last
> that in photon emmision
> it is done by some 'steps' and not on a ramp ..(methaphorically )
> hope i made myself clear !!
Not really .. no. But if it what I think you are asking, the total energy
in a given beam of light is going to be a multiple of the energy of one
photon (one quanta) .. but the energy of one photon depends on the frequency
of the light. This is given be E = hf and has been explained to you
already.
PD
You did, but you seem to have ignored what I wrote you. Let me try to
teach you a different way.
A nonzero fraction is any number that can be expressed as the quotient
of two nonzero integers. For a given denominator, the fractions are
discrete, they come in steps. For example, if I am counting fourths,
then the spacing between success fourths is a discrete step: 1/4, 2/4,
3/4, 4/4, 5/4, and so on. There are no fourths between 2/4 and 3/4.
The fourths are quantized, if you like.
But there are also hundredths: 1/100, 2/100, 3/100, 4/100 and so on,
and those are also quantized, so that there is a step between 7/100
and 8/100.
Now, let me ask you this question, Porat: What is the smallest nonzero
fraction? When you can answer this, then you understand what the
smallest photon is.
PD
Jeckyl
news:1180619267....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Now, let me ask you this question, Porat: What is the smallest nonzero
> fraction? When you can answer this, then you understand what the
> smallest photon is.
Nicely put.
Y.Porat
Mr PD
dont speak about divisions of quatities
speak about substarctions of quantities ??
for instance hf1 - fh2 !!
it will be
h( f1 -f2 )
f are in practice whole numbers
not fractions!!
so it whill be comptete nuber multipications of ....
h !!
you dont use
h times 3.5 do you ??
why do you insist on confuson the problem?
bymixing many phtons
lets first dewll on rhe same photon
ie withthe same freauancy !!
and what is happening with it
so
my question is :
waht is the increnental addition
between hf and h (f+1)
and that should be the anser to your question
about waht is the smallerst amount
of photon energy
not dependant on f !!
it wil lbe a multiplication of .....
surprise .....
of h !!
th e machine that produces f 'h es
produces a huge number of h multiplyers
it is not a mathematical creation
we ahve to stick to reality
in relaity all the increments of hf
are of more and more h incements
so we ahve to find out not waht are the possibilites on the paper
but waht do we get in expariment
in experiment your tools are not sensitive anough to make the difernce
between
10^6 cycles and 10 ^ plus one !!
so you ahve to tale a compltete number
not only practially because not sensitive enough
measurment tools
but becauase your machine proves itself statistically
to produce copmlete units of h
if it was not as complete mumber
you could not by definition callit
quanta !!
quanta issome certain fixed quantity
if it is not afixed quantity
it would not be called ' A QUANTA ' '!
yet wahever you will do
you will ahve to multiply the quantity h !!
whci is th e main sunsatntial physical fator in that formula
the same as the electron has a fixed
number of units in an electron beam!!
can you have there 10^6 electrons
plus one half electron ??
ATB
Y.Porat
------------
TIA
Y.Porat
------------
>
PD
That is simply wrong. There is simply NO requirement whatsoever that f
be a whole number. f can be *any* positive number, whether 2.3E14 or
5,342,912 or 6.322 or 0.001857 or 23/45 Hz.
I don't know where you got the idea that f was measured in whole
numbers.
> so it whill be comptete nuber multipications of ....
>
> h !!
> you dont use
> h times 3.5 do you ??
Certainly do, yes.
PD
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -
------------
lets take a simple taggible example:
suppose 2 cases
case one
lets take a photon of 10^6 cycles per second
and look at its wave lengths and draw it on a paper
marrk each one with a succesive nymber
1 2 3 etc
lets atle the wave lengths as presenting the
increments of energy to the wjole series
of 10^6 of them
now lets zoom into wave (length) no 200
and th efolowing one 2001
and we mark the contributuion of wavelength
2001 contribution to all the ones befroe it
(the contribution of all the 2000)
lets mark the contricution of no 2001
to all those befor ehim wit say x
now case 2
leta take a photon not with 10^6 cycles persenf
but instead 10 ^ 7 cycles per second
and we goabck to th e one marked by
2001 in that new line even shroer wave lengths
but it doe sno tmatter )
and ask ourselves
waht is the(energy !!) contribution of wave lenth 2001
to the overall energy contributed by the
waves before it
and we mark it this time by y
now the questionis
will x be equal to y ??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------
Eric Gisse
[...]
Your inability to learn is quite impressive.
PD
Hopelessly confuffulated.
Some basic comments:
- Successive wavelengths are not the contributors to energy. Photons
are not individual wavelengths. It is not the case that the 200th
wavelength is one photon and the 201st wavelength is the next photon.
- A frequency of 10^6 cycles per second is the same thing as 1,000,000
Hz. It is certainly possible to have light with a frequency of
1,000,000.2 Hz or 1,000,000.0013897 Hz.
PD
Y.Porat
?????
------
> Some basic comments:
> - Successive wavelengths are not the contributors to energy.
really ??
who told you that ???
dont you hting that the acumulation of energy
by a photon is done succesively step by step
though immensly quick
do you clame is is done with zero time ??!!
Photons
> are not individual wavelengths. It is not the case that the 200th
> wavelength is one photon and the 201st wavelength is the next photon.
i am not speaking about the next photon
i am speasking about what happense
During the emmision of the specific photon!!
it is not an istantous process
it is an incremental process with time duration
actually extemely definte time table !!
though indeed very short !!
> - A frequency of 10^6 cycles per second is the same thing as 1,000,000
> Hz. It is certainly possible to have light with a frequency of
> 1,000,000.2 Hz or 1,000,000.0013897 Hz.
so ?????!!!
what has that got to do with my above example ??
i compared waht happence in a certian time
pint in a photon od f = 10^6
whitht at is happening ina photon with 10^7
cycles
and dewlld on a point were an additioonal sigle wave leneth went in
and its enery
contribution to the event before that from staert point of the
emmision with
wave No 1 on the series
>
> PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
so
the x or y of my previous post
**are the answer to your above question!!
what is th e smallest amount of photon energy and it is not freqauncy
dependant !!!
---------------
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------
Igor
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Nicely put, yes, but Porat will never get it.
PD
Yes. Photons deposit their energy *all at once*.
Let me ask you some basic questions.
Let's suppose we have light of frequency 10^6 Hz.
1. How many wavelengths long do you imagine that photon is?
2. Given the speed of light, how long does it take each wavelength to
deposit its energy?
3. Given the speed of light, how long do you think it takes the entire
single photon to deposit all of its energy?
When you've answered the last question, then we can do a very simple
comparison with experiment.
>
> Photons
>
> > are not individual wavelengths. It is not the case that the 200th
> > wavelength is one photon and the 201st wavelength is the next photon.
>
> i am not speaking about the next photon
>
> i am speasking about what happense
> During the emmision of the specific photon!!
> it is not an istantous process
> it is an incremental process with time duration
> actually extemely definte time table !!
> though indeed very short !!
>
> > - A frequency of 10^6 cycles per second is the same thing as 1,000,000
> > Hz. It is certainly possible to have light with a frequency of
> > 1,000,000.2 Hz or 1,000,000.0013897 Hz.
>
> so ?????!!!
> what has that got to do with my above example ??
It doesn't directly. It does however address your earlier statement
that f has to be whole numbers, and that you would never expect to see
f be a number like 3.5.
> i compared waht happence in a certian time
> pint in a photon od f = 10^6
> whitht at is happening ina photon with 10^7
> cycles
> and dewlld on a point were an additioonal sigle wave leneth went in
> and its enery
> contribution to the event before that from staert point of the
> emmision with
> wave No 1 on the series
>
> > PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> so
> the x or y of my previous post
> **are the answer to your above question!!
> what is th e smallest amount of photon energy and it is not freqauncy
> dependant !!!
>
> ---------------
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ------------ Hide quoted text -
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
-------------
do you know that light is moving in straight lines?
do you calime tha tin that linear movement
all ther photon units that ar epresented
by their wav elength
hit a target all of them at the same time point??
do you claim e that a very short time
is zero time ??
do you know that without time there is no physical process ??
without time there is no movement ???
so aht is that argument of yours
of a photon with 10^6 wave length
hitinng the target wit all of them
'at once '
they af elinearily arranged one after the other
not parallely to the target
and i repeat
th e increental contribution of each single *
wave lenge (with the energy it repersents)
is the same and not frequency dependant
it is methaphorically
a amchine gun shooting bullets
that all of them are identical
one after the other
(no mater if it is a quick machine
or a 'slow' machine (in shootong bulets
Y.Porat
-----------------
Y.Porat
-------------
Y.Porat
---------
may be you can lend me some lessons in physics ??
and may be some skills in hand wavings ??
or may be in assertive parroting ?
may i guess that you came to physics from
mathematics (:-)
Y.P
----------------
Autymn D. C.
> > i have another very BTW less important question:
>
> > from when is that information of vikipedia
> > ie the date of its last unpdate ??
>
> Wikipedia is complete and total shit. Does this remind you of anything
> (or anyone)????
No, you are. http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
PD
> On May 31, 7:50 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 11:35 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 31, 7:06 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Hopelessly confuffulated.
>
> > > ?????
> > > ------> Some basic comments:
> > > > - Successive wavelengths are not the contributors to energy.
>
> > > really ??
>
> > > who told you that ???
> > > dont you hting that the acumulation of energy
> > > by a photon is done succesively step by step
> > > though immensly quick
>
> > > do you clame is is done with zero time ??!!
>
> > Yes. Photons deposit their energy *all at once*.
>
> > Let me ask you some basic questions.
> > Let's suppose we have light of frequency 10^6 Hz.
> > 1. How many wavelengths long do you imagine that photon is?
> > 2. Given the speed of light, how long does it take each wavelength to
> > deposit its energy?
> > 3. Given the speed of light, how long do you think it takes the entire
> > single photon to deposit all of its energy?
>
> > When you've answered the last question, then we can do a very simple
> > comparison with experiment.
>
>
> do you know that light is moving in straight lines?
> do you calime tha tin that linear movement
> all ther photon units that ar epresented
> by their wav elength
> hit a target all of them at the same time point??
I asked you a series of very simple questions, Porat, with simple
numbers as expected answers.
If you will answer them, I will discuss this matter further with you
to explain in detail *how we know* photons deposit their energy all at
once. That is what physics is all about -- comparing expectations
against experimental observations -- and that's *how we know* what we
know.
If you can answer those questions, then I can point out why the
picture you have in your head of a train of wavelengths sequentially
hitting a target is NOT a good picture. But you need to answer the
questions.
The_Man
>From the psycho who obsesses about how to mispell English words. If
you think wikipedia is the equivalent of a science journal, go fuck
yourself.
Eric Gisse
Eric Gisse
This is why Porat thinks dividing both sides of an equation by a
nonzero quantity is like discovering a _whole new formula_: he doesn't
understand any algebra!
Which makes me question his claims of being an engineer.
Jeckyl
> what is th e smallest amount of photon energy and it is not freqauncy
> dependant !!!
As there is a strictly linear relationship between energy and frequency ..
ALL the photon energy is frequency dependant. The smaller the frequency the
smaller the energy. You will note that the formula for photon energy is E =
hf, it is not E = hf+k where k is some fixed energy that doesn't come from
the frequency.
Jeckyl
> On May 31, 7:41 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>> On May 31, 10:27 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:1180619267....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > Now, let me ask you this question, Porat: What is the smallest
>> > > nonzero
>> > > fraction? When you can answer this, then you understand what the
>> > > smallest photon is.
>>
>> > Nicely put.
>>
>> Nicely put, yes, but Porat will never get it.
>
> ---------
> may be you can lend me some lessons in physics ??
You ceratinly need it.
> and may be some skills in hand wavings ??
No. . you can wave your hands well already .. indeed that is ALL I have ever
seen you do .. hand waving .. oh and your laughable insults like "bump
parasite".
> or may be in assertive parroting ?
No .. you parrot well enough already
> may i guess that you came to physics from
> mathematics (:-)
Great place to start .. that way at least you have some tools to help you
understand the physics .. something you show a lack of.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
that is exactly why it is not f dependant!!!!
we are dealing withthe marginal INCREMENT OF ENERGY!!
the last marginal contribution of the last tested
or analised
f wave length of that long
procession of waves ( contribution of energy)
which is always .......... constant !!!
Y.Porat
--------------------
Eric Gisse
How quaint, a mid-19th century understanding of physics.
>
> Y.Porat
> --------------------
Y.Porat
you asked me about dividing the marginal
addition of the energy *of two differnet *
photons
i showed you that it is unreleavnt
toour discussion
becuse we have to take the marginal contribution
of the marginal 'last ' wave
NOT IN COMPARISON TO ANOTHER PHOTON
BUT TO THE PREVIOUS WAVE OF THE SAME PHOTON !!
WHICH IS CONSTANT ALL ALONG THE EMMISION EVENT !
ie
th emarginal contribution of an addtional
wave to the contribution of all those before that
IS CONSATNT AND IS h times 1.00000
now you dont agree with my claime that
we deal here with a 'machine gun'
sooting bullets one afterone in a proccession!!
thepicture in your head is waht instlead?
is it :
if itis a big photon (with big energy)
tha it is a big cannon bullet
hitting at once the target
case 2
if it is a 'small photon'
it is a small bullest hiting th etarget
at once with no time ????!!!!
is that waht is in your mind ??
do you know that there is not physical process without time ??
even an explosion takes time
th e big bang took time !!
no time-no motion and no physics .
(only in my proffesion of 'statics'
there is not always time
in earthquake analysis there is time and how !! what a horrible time
(:-))
indeed out time duratuion of photon emmission
is extreemly short
so what ???
we ahve to'zoom in' patiantly into that
short event step by step
**even if it is a very shory event** !!
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------
> > ------------------ Hide quoted text -
Jeckyl
> On Jun 1, 2:04 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1180629309.4...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > what is th e smallest amount of photon energy and it is not freqauncy
>> > dependant !!!
>>
>> As there is a strictly linear relationship between energy and frequency
>> ..
>> ALL the photon energy is frequency dependant. The smaller the frequency
>> the
>> smaller the energy. You will note that the formula for photon energy is E
>> =
>> hf, it is not E = hf+k where k is some fixed energy that doesn't come
>> from
>> the frequency.
> ---------------
> that is exactly why it is not f dependant!!!!
E = hf says the energy in a SINGLE PHOTON is COMPLETELY frequency dependant.
The total energy from a stream of identicla frequency photons would be a
multiple of the energy of a single photon.
> we are dealing withthe marginal INCREMENT OF ENERGY!!
What marginal increment of energy?
> the last marginal contribution of the last tested
> or analised
> f wave length of that long
> procession of waves ( contribution of energy)
> which is always .......... constant !!!
More incomprehensible gibberish from poor rat.
Jeckyl
Jeckyl
Hey .. don't use my copyrighted slogan "no time - no physics".
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180664003.1...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > no time-no motion and no physics .
>
> Hey .. don't use my copyrighted slogan "no time - no physics".
-----------
NMo time no motion copyright jekyle
Hey Jekyle
but copyright is time and date dependant
so what is the date
2
who was the inspiration for your copyright??(:-)
now the register of copyrights asket me
while i went there to registeryou
so he asked me
WHO IS JEKYLE ???? jelyle who ??!!
what is his identity card number
what is his address ???!!
and i went shemefully out of his office
with no answers looking as an idiot !!
so if you give me your detailes i can come abck to him
as a decent personality with historic achievements
(;-)
meantime -- hang on (not from ....)
humbly your ignorant servant
Y.Porat
---------------------
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
-----
hey Gisse
i ddint notice your impressive arrival
to mytread sorry !!
anyway
di dyou get theimpression we are missing you here ??
(:-)
did you noticed that this thread was not leaded
appositelly and civilisedly untill now ??
iow
what would we do without you here ??!! (:-)
ie without you learned big contributions
of extensive deap physics analysis
physics thinking etc etc ??
keep well and go finish your BSC
before you re thrown from Alaske university .
Y.Porat
----------------------
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -
----------
common Jekyle
if you start with your Poorast
you ar egoing tohave it
we know while you ar eloosing your temper
it is whil eyou satrt loosing your pants!!
so carefull !
before peole will satrt to know who really you are
and waht is your real worth !!and waht are your real intensions
in this ng and personanly tward me !!
yet jsut rememeber
i am not jesus christ ....
and if your intensins ar to sabotage this
thread than foregt about it !!
just speak physics
and not bulshit
if an idiot like you does not understand
that we are dealing with the
additional contribution of the single incremental
wave lenght to the contribution
of all the wave lengths before it ..
than go to your gangsters and duiscuss
with them !!
Y.Porat
-----------------
Jeckyl
> On Jun 1, 5:45 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1180664003.1...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > no time-no motion and no physics .
>>
>> Hey .. don't use my copyrighted slogan "no time - no physics".
>
> -----------
> NMo time no motion copyright jekyle
>
> Hey Jekyle
> but copyright is time and date dependant
> so what is the date
WTF are you on about?
> who was the inspiration for your copyright??(:-)
Myself
> now the register of copyrights asket me
> while i went there to registeryou
> so he asked me
> WHO IS JEKYLE ???? jelyle who ??!!
> what is his identity card number
We don[t have identity card numbers here.
> what is his address ???!!
> and i went shemefully out of his office
> with no answers looking as an idiot !!
You must be used to that by now after all your posts here.
Jeckyl
Waste of a post
Jeckyl
I'm far from common
> if you start with your Poorast
> you ar egoing tohave it
> we know while you ar eloosing your temper
Am I .. what temper?
> it is whil eyou satrt loosing your pants!!
Ohhh .. you're a kinky old man.
> so carefull !
> before peole will satrt to know who really you are
> and waht is your real worth !!and waht are your real intensions
> in this ng and personanly tward me !!
I think they already know
> yet jsut rememeber
> i am not jesus christ ....
Really? Yet you look so alike.
> and if your intensins ar to sabotage this
> thread than foregt about it !!
Not at all
> just speak physics
> and not bulshit
I have been .. maybe you just don't know how to read it . How about you
start with some physics yourself?
> if an idiot like you does not understand
> that we are dealing with the
> additional contribution of the single incremental
> wave lenght to the contribution
> of all the wave lengths before it ..
Firstly I'm not an idiot.. we only need one of those per thread, and you're
the designated one.
Secondly .. WTF are you on about wth wavelengthcontributions? We were
discussing photon energy. There is no smallest photon energy (other than
zero) and photon energy is simply linealy related to the frequency (which
can be other than whole numbers, of course).
> than go to your gangsters and duiscuss
> with them !!
I'm having to hold my gangsters back from going around to your place and
shooting you. They're a very trigger happy bunch you know.
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -
---------
(:-)
------------
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
------------
so before that w eahve to fing out
your undersatnding about it:
is it acording to you;
that a bif phtotn is a sort of a big
compact ball of spher or wahtever
while a small photon is a small compact ball
or wahtever
iow
how do you see a photon gemetrically
even as an abstract concept
i gave my concept of a long linear procession
of the photon basic units that are presented by
a linear procession of wave lengths
we can see them as wave basic units
ie
the single *wave length* and what it presents-
is the basic photon unit that creates
the bigger sries of units
and the energy of that* serie of units* is defined now as hf.
is your concept something not linear?
something compact ??of wichj
all the wave lengths hit the target at the same
**point** of time ??!!
because as you know
a photon is not a mathematical artifact
it is natures 'artifact'
with a very fefinit stuctre
while E=hf
cannot give the whole information about it !!
there is some mising inforamtion in it
if you thing you know anything about the photon
you are deluing youself and worst of that
deluding the others !!
TIA to PD (and not to the little gangsters
Gisse My Hyde etc that PD should not hide
behind their gangsterism )
Y.Porat
--------------
----------
PD
I don't. Trying to force it into a geometric model based on a picture
you can draw with a pencil and paper is the first mistake. Do not
start there.
You haven't answered the three little numerical questions. Those you
should be able to answer, with a pencil and a piece of paper. When you
answer them, I can demonstrate with those numbers and with
experimental results why your little mental pictures of a train of
wavelengths or as little balls are both BAD pictures of the photon.
> ----------- Hide quoted text -
The_Man
No, all photons are the same size. The even have the same total spin
angular momentum - sqrt(2) h bar. The have different energies,
linearly dependent on the frequency. They are bosons, so that an
infinite number of photons can be in one place at one time, and they
can be created or destroyed at will.
> iow
> how do you see a photon gemetrically
> even as an abstract concept
We do see photons geometrically - except for the polka dots. Everybody
knws that "BIg" photons hav big purple polka dots, while "small"
photons have small purple polka dots.
>
> i gave my concept of a long linear procession
> of the photon basic units that are presented by
> a linear procession of wave lengths
> we can see them as wave basic units
> ie
> the single *wave length* and what it presents-
> is the basic photon unit that creates
> the bigger sries of units
> and the energy of that* serie of units* is defined now as hf.
Wrong.
>
> is your concept something not linear?
> something compact ??of wichj
> all the wave lengths hit the target at the same
> **point** of time ??!!
You are confusing the wave and particle descritpions. Bohr noted 80
years ago that you can show EITHER the wave OR the particle
attributes, not BOTH in the same experiment.
Try to keep up.
>
> because as you know
> a photon is not a mathematical artifact
> it is natures 'artifact'
> with a very fefinit stuctre
Yes - energy=hf and angular momentum=sqrt(2) h bar, and momentum= h /
lambda
> while E=hf
> cannot give the whole information about it !!
>
> there is some mising inforamtion in it
> if you thing you know anything about the photon
> you are deluing youself and worst of that
> deluding the others !!
I like "diluting" people - maybe because I am a chemist. ("If you are
not part of the solution, you are partof the precipitate.")
>
> TIA to PD (and not to the little gangsters
Yo! Yo! Yo! I be a gansta, sheeeeeeeeeet.
>
> Gisse My Hyde etc that PD should not hide
> behind their gangsterism )
> Y.Porat
> --------------
> ----------- Hide quoted text -
Y.Porat
your questions as i remember are misleading question
if i remeber you compaired wave lenths
of deffernt photons right??
so i tell yiou again :
befor eleaning to dance
learn first to walk??
you admit you ahve no idea about photon structure
beside the mathmatical presentation!!
if so yo uare not in aposition to answer
even your questions
waht we ahve to do first is to try
and zoom into the photon itself
i think that zoominginto the photon
is actually by definition our of question for you
because for you the photon is jsut
an abstract amtrhematical creatuere
than canot be zoomed into
and let me tel you myhumble view about it
if you dont bother to zoon into it
you will not go far with it
you will remain all your life with your
and others old aprrotings
now i still didnt tell you a bit more about how i see it it is not
jsut a 'train
of vagons linearily
it is actually some basic particle
unknown yet tha tmakwes a double movement
one is the linear forwards movement
andon top of it it makes a circualr movement
all together a hellix!!
btw i am not the first one with it
there are many who think like me
and if you dont mind the circular movement is because the mbasic
particle there
in that ' long train is a Circlon'
and that is why it makes the complex
two fold movement
you see PD we are a bit born differnt withcreative immagination
one of the principles of it
is
not to be afraid to make guesses!!
1000 of them willbe wrong
one will hit closer to the target !!
so
if we ahve actually a long train'
there is a distance of 'stride' of that hellix
which is called the wave length !!
and our task is tofind whther
that stride is the same for all of them
whichwe actually do know to be thesame
the next qiestion is
how many such basi c particles are ther
in that one stride
so that is an answer to 'The man
who actually remided me of my hellix
if a hellix is actually mosetly empthy
than
8there is room for many of theose basicaprticles (Circlons) in that
space of that
one step of a hellix
another conclusion and obvious prediction is
that even there is room to many of them
on the same path
there is still an upper limit about how
many of them can be condenced in it
now a second resulting guess outofthat
that comes in my mind jsut now
that hellix can have a big radius or a small one
for along stride (wave length)
**therr eis more room fo rmore particles
to akner aheavier Bosson ) of the same wave length)
in that same step of stride **
can it be approved or refuted ??
i have no idea !! it is jsut a resuly
of my above guess
so Mr PD
just start thinking about
how mauch we dont know
and how much is still ahred of us
and why i am so disappointed with you
while you deny the need for
betetr understanding !!
ps 'The man' please see it as an answer for you as well !!
(iwas born lazy to repeat myself twice (:-)
9and tospellcheck as well ...)
and to corerct the 9 above as well (:-)
and
PD
the content of a single stride of myhellix
is the same as one before it and one before it
and it is
h times 1/timeunit eenrgy !!allways
not for a boson
in a boson it is prportinal to th enumber
of the same particle in that single wave length !!
ps
dont tell me i am boring you .....
with me you will never be bored
may be with Jekyle (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
Jeckyl
> On Jun 1, 1:53 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 2:12 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> your questions as i remember are misleading question
You just have no idea, poor rat
[snip enormous load of incoherent crap with helixes and trains etc from the
poor rat who has no idea what he is rambling on about]
PD
> On Jun 1, 1:53 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You haven't answered the three little numerical questions.
>
> --------
> your questions as i remember are misleading question
> if i remeber you compaired wave lenths
> of deffernt photons right??
No. Here, let me refresh your feeble memory. Here are the three
questions.
Let me ask you some basic questions.
Let's suppose we have light of frequency 10^6 Hz.
1. How many wavelengths long do you imagine that photon is?
2. Given the speed of light, how long does it take each wavelength to
deposit its energy?
3. Given the speed of light, how long do you think it takes the entire
single photon to deposit all of its energy?
You'll note that I'm referring to a *single* photon.
Please answer the questions. Note that numbers are expected for
answers.
>
> so i tell yiou again :
> befor eleaning to dance
> learn first to walk??
>
> you admit you ahve no idea about photon structure
> beside the mathmatical presentation!!
I didn't say that. I said a geometric mental image is not the place to
start. I also said that your own geometric mental images are
demonstrably wrong, which if you will answer the questions, I can help
you see.
> ----------------------- Hide quoted text -
Y.Porat
> On Jun 1, 8:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 1:53 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You haven't answered the three little numerical questions.
>
> > --------
> > your questions as i remember are misleading question
> > if i remeber you compaired wave lenths
> > of deffernt photons right??
>
> No. Here, let me refresh your feeble memory. Here are the three
> questions.
> Let me ask you some basic questions.
> Let's suppose we have light of frequency 10^6 Hz.
> 1. How many wavelengths long do you imagine that photon is?
c/f
> 2. Given the speed of light, how long does it take each wavelength to
> deposit its energy?
Lambda/c seconds
> 3. Given the speed of light, how long do you think it takes the entire
> single photon to deposit all of its energy?
>
the same as the tinme needed for one wave lenght
> You'll note that I'm referring to a *single* photon.
> Please answer the questions. Note that numbers are expected for
a single photon for me is a single wave length
fo r you it is what?
do you know how long it takes 10^6 wavelength to depositenthier
energy ??!!
and how can youknow it experiemntally !!
i dont know
> answers.
------------
>
Y.Porat
------------
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
PD
> On Jun 1, 4:57 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 8:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 1:53 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You haven't answered the three little numerical questions.
>
> > > --------
> > > your questions as i remember are misleading question
> > > if i remeber you compaired wave lenths
> > > of deffernt photons right??
>
> > No. Here, let me refresh your feeble memory. Here are the three
> > questions.
> > Let me ask you some basic questions.
> > Let's suppose we have light of frequency 10^6 Hz.
> > 1. How many wavelengths long do you imagine that photon is?
>
> each wave length is iirc
>
> c/f
I didn't ask you what the wavelength of the light is. I asked you how
many wavelengths long the photon is. Are you saying a photon is 1
wavelength long, and that there is 1 and only 1 wavelength in a
photon? You are given a number for the frequency. I'd like a number
for the answer.
>
> > 2. Given the speed of light, how long does it take each wavelength to
> > deposit its energy?
>
> Lambda/c seconds
You are given the frequency, so you can calculate on a napkin what the
wavelength is. Since you know what c is, you can calculate on the back
side of that napkin what the time is. I'd like a number.
>
> > 3. Given the speed of light, how long do you think it takes the entire
> > single photon to deposit all of its energy?
>
> the same as the tinme needed for one wave lenght
OK, so a photon is NOT a chain of successive wavelengths, and it
doesn't need to deposit its energy one wavelength's worth at a time?
If you calculate it for (2) then you have a numerical answer for here.
>
> > You'll note that I'm referring to a *single* photon.
> > Please answer the questions. Note that numbers are expected for
>
> a single photon for me is a single wave length
>
> fo r you it is what?
> do you know how long it takes 10^6 wavelength
Why 10^6 wavelengths? You've just said that it takes only the time for
ONE wavelength to pass for a photon to deposit all of its energy, not
10^6 wavelengths.
> to depositenthier
> energy ??!!
> and how can youknow it experiemntally !!
> i dont know
> > answers.
If you don't know the answers, how on earth are you going to tell
whether your ideas have any connection to reality? Science is all
about making these calculations (some easy, like these; some much more
laborious but just as precise) and confronting with precise
experimental measurements.
>
> ------------
>
> Y.Porat
> ------------
>
Puppet_Sock
> We know that Plank
Do you mean Planck?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck
> and Einstein found that photon and photon energy is
> emitted by Quanta of energy
Do you mean emitted in quanta of energy?
> if it i s a 'Quanta'
Do you mean a quantum?
> so there must be the smallest quanta
Do you mean a smallest quantum?
> so what is it ??
Since the work you cite involved a continuous energy
spectrum, your question seems to be right in line with
not being able to spell the man's name.
Socks
Y.Porat
> On Jun 1, 9:34 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 4:57 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 8:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 1, 1:53 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You haven't answered the three little numerical questions.
>
> > > > --------
> > > > your questions as i remember are misleading question
> > > > if i remeber you compaired wave lenths
> > > > of deffernt photons right??
>
> > > No. Here, let me refresh your feeble memory. Here are the three
> > > questions.
> > > Let me ask you some basic questions.
> > > Let's suppose we have light of frequency 10^6 Hz.
> > > 1. How many wavelengths long do you imagine that photon is?
>
> > each wave length is iirc
>
> > c/f
>
> I didn't ask you what the wavelength of the light is. I asked you how
> many wavelengths long the photon is. Are you saying a photon is 1
> wavelength long, and that there is 1 and only 1 wavelength in a
> photon?
yes
while we say 10^6 per second it is
10 ^6 units per second
waht is your answer instead ??
You are given a number for the frequency. I'd like a number
10^6 per second it i stime deopendant ....
-
> for the answer.
>
>
>
> > > 2. Given the speed of light, how long does it take each wavelength to
> > > deposit its energy?
>
> > Lambda/c seconds
> -------
in your example of frequency 10^6
it is
1/10^6 seconds
---
> You are given the frequency, so you can calculate on a napkin what the
> wavelength is. Since you know what c is, you can calculate on the back
> side of that napkin what the time is. I'd like a number.
>
>
>
> > > 3. Given the speed of light, how long do you think it takes the entire
> > > single photon to deposit all of its energy?
-------
your photon is arbitarrily defined os lasting
1 second it is a human definitin
it is not the definition of nature
for a single samllest photon
--------
>
> > the same as the tinme needed for one wave lenght
!!!!!
>
> OK, so a photon is NOT a chain of successive wavelengths,
yetin practice we have a chain of them
a very long chain of them !!
(we have a problem of definition
hf is for one second but it does not tell us
what is the real duration of a ...
SPECIFIC PHOTON EMMITION CASE !!
------
and it
> doesn'
t need to deposit its energy one wavelength's worth at a time?
it is a chin of depositins
in parctice it is many of them
one after the other
indeed in a very short time
if you atke a sun beam during a whole day
it takes * a whole day * (:-)
so ????
---------
> If you calculate it for (2) then you have a numerical answer for here.
i think i answered it
for 10^6 per second
it takes
1/10^6 second for each wave lenght
so ????
---------
>
>
>
> > > You'll note that I'm referring to a *single* photon.
> > > Please answer the questions. Note that numbers are expected for
>
> > a single photon for me is a single wave length
>
> > fo r you it is what?
> > do you know how long it takes 10^6 wavelength
>
> Why 10^6 wavelengths? You've just said that it takes only the time for
> ONE wavelength to pass for a photon to deposit all of its energy, not
> 10^6 wavelengths.
---------
i was meaning that you dont have
a special clock and!!
a super microscope
TO ZOON INTO THE MATETR THAT ABSORBES
THE PHOTON AND ** SEE EXACTLY **ALL **
REPEAT **ALL**
AND HOW LONG EACH STEP OF IT ABOUT
WAHT IS HAPPENING THERE*!!!
do you ??
----
DO YOU ?????!!!!
------------->
> > to depositenthier
> > energy ??!!
> > and how can youknow it experiemntally !!
> > i dont know
> > > answers.
>
> If you don't know the answers, how on earth are you going to tell
so lets hear waht do you know
that i dont know !!!
and save us your preaching
about things you dont know
lets hear about what** you *do know
(and i dont know i am ready always tolearn)
and examin eit if it is in contradiction tomy
claimes
and we hAve AS USUAL
to make a distiction between
exparinetal data and
INTERPRETATIONS OF IT
so please go on shoot
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
Y.Porat
> On May 30, 11:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We know that Plank
>
> Do you mean Planck?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck
>
> > and Einstein found that photon and photon energy is
> > emitted by Quanta of energy
>
> Do you mean emitted in quanta of energy?
>
> > if it i s a 'Quanta'
>
> Do you mean a quantum?
>
> > so there must be the smallest quanta
>
> Do you mean a smallest quantum?
>
> > so what is it ??
>
> Since the work you cite
i didn't cite any work
now since you are very picky about spelling details
why are you not picky about facts ?? (:-)
where do you see any citation of mine ??
so what i more important in physics
to spell accurately quanta or quantum
or write right facts ?? (:-)
involved a continuous energy
> spectrum, your question seems to be right
i didn't mention continuous spectrum
you did it
i was speaking about the smallest
possible amount of photon energy
do you have an answer for that ??
do you agree with me that the term
quantum .... (:-)
denotes a quantity of complete units that are indivisible
or may be actually the quantum itself is indivisible ??!!
(how is my spelling now ?? (:-)
big deal ... i did a spell checking (:-)
and corrected a lot of mistakes (:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------
Jeckyl
> so lets hear waht do you know
> that i dont know !!!
Have we got room for that?
> and save us your preaching
> about things you dont know
> lets hear about what** you *do know
> (and i dont know i am ready always tolearn)
> and examin eit if it is in contradiction tomy
> claimes
> and we hAve AS USUAL
> to make a distiction between
> exparinetal data and
> INTERPRETATIONS OF IT
> so please go on shoot
If you took your own advice we'd hear nothing more from you .. you have NO
idea what you're talking about here .. you think that the number of photons
is related to the frequency of the light .. hahahahah.
Jeckyl
> On Jun 1, 8:25 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 30, 11:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > We know that Plank
>>
>> Do you mean Planck?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck
>>
>> > and Einstein found that photon and photon energy is
>> > emitted by Quanta of energy
>>
>> Do you mean emitted in quanta of energy?
>>
>> > if it i s a 'Quanta'
>>
>> Do you mean a quantum?
>>
>> > so there must be the smallest quanta
>>
>> Do you mean a smallest quantum?
>>
>> > so what is it ??
>>
>> Since the work you cite
> ---------
> i didn't cite any work
You cited Planck's and Einstein's work, poor rat. Of course, it wasn't a
formal reference as you'd put in a thesis, but you still cited what they had
found.
> now since you are very picky about spelling details
> why are you not picky about facts ?? (:-)
> where do you see any citation of mine ??
> so what i more important in physics
> to spell accurately quanta or quantum
> or write right facts ?? (:-)
Spelling well enough so that others can read your ranting would help. On
second thoughts, maybe some of your posts are best left unintelligible.
>> involved a continuous energy
>> spectrum, your question seems to be right
>
> i didn't mention continuous spectrum
> you did it
You are using E = hf .. in fact, you try to use it as a proof the photons
have mass. That shows the there is a continuous relationship between
frequency and the energy in a single photon.
> i was speaking about the smallest
> possible amount of photon energy
There is no smallest amount. No matter what frequency you get, you can
always get a lower frequency, and hence less photon energy.
> do you have an answer for that ??
We've all told you the answer, but in usual poor rat style, you just don't
get it.
> do you agree with me that the term
> quantum .... (:-)
> denotes a quantity of complete units that are indivisible
> or may be actually the quantum itself is indivisible ??!!
Yes .. each photon is a quantum, and each photon of a given frequency has a
given amount of energy .. so light (made up of multiple photons, more
photons for higher intensity light) has energy in multiples of the
particular photon energy for that light frequency.
> (how is my spelling now ?? (:-)
> big deal ... i did a spell checking (:-)
> and corrected a lot of mistakes (:-)
Good .. make it a habit
Eric Gisse
[...]
As soon as you can tell me what the smallest real number is, you will
know the smallest photon energy.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
-----------
(:-)
------------
Y.Porat
-------
fo rmew itis one (1)
h/c^2 times 1/time unit
--------------
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
----------
disturbed idot
we are lalking about
th e samllest photon unit
got it idiot
**THE SMALLEST **
it is soemthing *specific*
a special case
not a general formula (a genralcase !)
let PD answer
you are not a partner for discussion
Y.P
----------------
PD
> On Jun 1, 7:12 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > You haven't answered the three little numerical questions.
>
> > > > > --------
> > > > > your questions as i remember are misleading question
> > > > > if i remeber you compaired wave lenths
> > > > > of deffernt photons right??
>
> > > > No. Here, let me refresh your feeble memory. Here are the three
> > > > questions.
> > > > Let me ask you some basic questions.
> > > > Let's suppose we have light of frequency 10^6 Hz.
> > > > 1. How many wavelengths long do you imagine that photon is?
>
> > > each wave length is iirc
>
> > > c/f
>
> > I didn't ask you what the wavelength of the light is. I asked you how
> > many wavelengths long the photon is. Are you saying a photon is 1
> > wavelength long, and that there is 1 and only 1 wavelength in a
> > photon?
>
> -----------
> yes
> while we say 10^6 per second it is
> 10 ^6 units per second
You're still not understanding the question. Since you think of
photons as trains of wavelengths, let's talk about a train. Suppose
I'm standing by the tracks and I see cars go by at a frequency of 3
cars per second, or in your terms, 3 units per second. Now I ask how
how many cars are in the train. You are not going to tell me the train
is 3 cars per second, are you?
You've said a photon is a train of wavelengths. I want to know how
many wavelengths are in that train.
>
> waht is your answer instead ??
>
> You are given a number for the frequency. I'd like a number
>
> 10^6 per second it i stime deopendant ....
> -> for the answer.
>
> > > > 2. Given the speed of light, how long does it take each wavelength to
> > > > deposit its energy?
>
> > > Lambda/c seconds
> > -------
>
> in your example of frequency 10^6
>
> it is
> 1/10^6 seconds
> ---
OK, so in your scheme, all the energy of the photon is delivered in
10^(-6) seconds, right?
>
> > You are given the frequency, so you can calculate on a napkin what the
> > wavelength is. Since you know what c is, you can calculate on the back
> > side of that napkin what the time is. I'd like a number.
>
> > > > 3. Given the speed of light, how long do you think it takes the entire
> > > > single photon to deposit all of its energy?
>
> -------
> your photon is arbitarrily defined os lasting
> 1 second
It is? So it takes 1 second for a photon to deposit its energy? Just a
moment ago you told me it takes 1/10^6 seconds for a photon of one
wavelength long to deposit its energy. That's a measurable difference.
Is it one second or a millionth of a second?
> it is a human definitin
> it is not the definition of nature
> for a single samllest photon
I'm not interested in any "human definition". I'm interested in a
*measurable* time that it takes a single photon of frequency 10^6 Hz
to deposit all of its energy. Because that I can compare with
experimental results.
> --------
>
> > > the same as the tinme needed for one wave lenght
>
> !!!!!
>
>
>
> > OK, so a photon is NOT a chain of successive wavelengths,
>
> yetin practice we have a chain of them
A chain of what? I asked for the time for ONE photon to deposit its
energy, not a chain of photons.
> a very long chain of them !!
> (we have a problem of definition
>
> hf is for one second but it does not tell us
> what is the real duration of a ...
> SPECIFIC PHOTON EMMITION CASE !!
That's what I want to know.
> ------
> and it> doesn'
>
> t need to deposit its energy one wavelength's worth at a time?
> it is a chin of depositins
> in parctice it is many of them
> one after the other
In practice, I can emit a *single* photon (it's done all the time in
labs), and I can watch its energy being absorbed by a *single* atom. I
want to know what you think the duration of that *single* photon is.
> indeed in a very short time
> if you atke a sun beam during a whole day
> it takes * a whole day * (:-)
> so ????
> ---------
>
> > If you calculate it for (2) then you have a numerical answer for here.
>
> i think i answered it
>
> for 10^6 per second
> it takes
> 1/10^6 second for each wave lenght
>
> so ????
OK, according to you, a SINGLE photon of frequency 10^6 Hz consists of
a SINGLE wavelength, and it takes 1/10^6 seconds (one microsecond) to
deposit all the energy for that SINGLE photon?
> ---------
>
> > > > You'll note that I'm referring to a *single* photon.
> > > > Please answer the questions. Note that numbers are expected for
>
> > > a single photon for me is a single wave length
>
> > > fo r you it is what?
> > > do you know how long it takes 10^6 wavelength
>
> > Why 10^6 wavelengths? You've just said that it takes only the time for
> > ONE wavelength to pass for a photon to deposit all of its energy, not
> > 10^6 wavelengths.
>
> ---------
> i was meaning that you dont have
> a special clock and!!
> a super microscope
> TO ZOON INTO THE MATETR THAT ABSORBES
> THE PHOTON AND ** SEE EXACTLY **ALL **
> REPEAT **ALL**
> AND HOW LONG EACH STEP OF IT ABOUT
> WAHT IS HAPPENING THERE*!!!
> do you ??
Sure. You're talking about a time of 0.000001 seconds. That's EASY.
There are clocks that measure times of 0.0000000002 seconds, 5000
times smaller, without difficulty. Where have you been?
> ----
>
> DO YOU ?????!!!!
Yup. No sweat. I can measure a pulse of width 0.0000001 seconds with a
30-year-old Navy surplus oscilloscope. You didn't know that?
>
> ------------->
>
> > > to depositenthier
> > > energy ??!!
> > > and how can youknow it experiemntally !!
> > > i dont know
> > > > answers.
>
> > If you don't know the answers, how on earth are you going to tell
>
> so lets hear waht do you know
> that i dont know !!!
> and save us your preaching
> about things you dont know
>
> lets hear about what** you *do know
> (and i dont know i am ready always tolearn)
> and examin eit if it is in contradiction tomy
> claimes
> and we hAve AS USUAL
> to make a distiction between
> exparinetal data and
> INTERPRETATIONS OF IT
That's where we're headed, as long as you can provide consistent
numerical answers that correspond to your mental pictures.
Autymn D. C.
> On May 31, 2:36 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 3:20 am, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > i have another very BTW less important question:
>
> > > > from when is that information of vikipedia
> > > > ie the date of its last unpdate ??
>
> > > Wikipedia is complete and total shit. Does this remind you of anything
> > > (or anyone)????
>
> > No, you are.http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
> From the psycho who obsesses about how to mispell English words. If
misspell
> you think wikipedia is the equivalent of a science journal, go fuck
> yourself.
Autymn D. C.
> On May 31, 10:27 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1180619267....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Now, let me ask you this question, Porat: What is the smallest nonzero
> > > fraction? When you can answer this, then you understand what the
> > > smallest photon is.
>
> > Nicely put.
>
> Nicely put, yes, but Porat will never get it.
Neither will ye, as nice is short for nescient.
Eric Gisse
[snip idiocy]
Nobody cares, pedantic cunt.
Autymn D. C.
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180761016....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > so lets hear waht do you know
> > that i dont know !!!
>
> Have we got room for that?
One has got nothing, illiterate.
Y.Porat
>
> > -----------
> > yes
> > while we say 10^6 per second it is
> > 10 ^6 units per second
>
> You're still not understanding the question. Since you think of
> photons as trains of wavelengths, let's talk about a train. Suppose
> I'm standing by the tracks and I see cars go by at a frequency of 3
> cars per second, or in your terms, 3 units per second. Now I ask how
> how many cars are in the train. You are not going to tell me the train
> is 3 cars per second, are you?
3 cars (units according to me ) per second
is not all the description of the photon
'train'
such a 'train can pass nest to you all day
wihtthe same rate of 'vagons'passing next to you
(so acording to you a sun beam that lasts for one day is a single
photon ?? )
we take a section of that lng 'train'
and examine its content
th ecommon way is to define one second of its duration AS
REPRESENTATIVE of its features !!
sort of jsut a sample of it !
of if youlike
just a 'label' on that sample
the same as youd efing for instance
gass of a car as to be
95 octan ..
it is not the physical right definition
of the real phtons smallest unit
please not the title of that thread
we are askingouself waht is the
SMALLEST UNIT
do you understand waht is the meaning of
'quasntum '
(thnaks for ther ananymous reder that
cprrected me to say quantum and not quanta
he probably knoes Greek .)
so Mr PD what is that concept QUANTUM
FOR YOU ??
is it not somethingthat is *indivisible *?
sort of the ancient concept of the Atom ??it is certainly not 3 vagons
but
just one of them .
----------
>
> You've said a photon is a train of wavelengths. I want to know how
> many wavelengths are in that train.
see above
it can be all day long emmition.
uless you ahve a technique
to veryfy that you ahve jsut
a single of them
(as i defined it and not just per one second
do we have trecnical aparats
to define a physical entity that its energy is
1.000 h (PLANCK) energy ??acurately and as a *private case **
and not jasut statistically ??!!
------------
>
> > waht is your answer instead ??
yes
i still didnt hear your anser Mr PD !!waht is your answer to your
questions .
---
>
> > You are given a number for the frequency. I'd like a number
>
> > 10^6 per second it i stime deopendant ....
> > -> for the answer.
>
> > > > > 2. Given the speed of light, how long does it take each wavelength to
> > > > > deposit its energy?
>
> > > > Lambda/c seconds
> > > -------
>
> > in your example of frequency 10^6
>
> > it is
> > 1/10^6 seconds
> > ---
>
> OK, so in your scheme, all the energy of the photon is delivered in
> 10^(-6) seconds, right?
th eenergy of one single 'vagon' of that
'train'
---------
>
>
>
> > > You are given the frequency, so you can calculate on a napkin
----------
just give me a break with your napkin
because i can do cheap demagogic trickes
not least than you
lest satay with physics
and leave a side psychologic propaganda !
it does not work on real intelligent
serious people !!
----------
what the
> > > wavelength is. Since you know what c is, you can calculate on the back
> > > side of that napkin what the time is. I'd like a number.
>
> > > > > 3. Given the speed of light, how long do you think it takes the entire
> > > > > single photon to deposit all of its energy?
> -----------
i alreadt sayed
it it is a train of single photons that is defined as f=10^6
it shoulod take 1/10^ second
for a one wave length
to pass a detector
yet i cant tell you
AND YOU CANT TELL ME AS WELL
WAHT ARE ALL THE PHYSICAL PROCESSES
THAT T AKE PLACE IN THAT DETECTOR
that detector is composed of some material
of Atoms *not a single Atom
iot must be a whole mesh of Atonms
and electronic devices that have their
physical behaviur of theit own and eror margines of ther own etc
is is not the case of a 100 meter ash
of witch you satnand next to it
with a 'Sieko' stop watch
see your runner with your eayes
and while you think he passed the target
you press your finger on the watch
and there you have your result!!
it is not even the oloympic modern device
to define the 100 dash of human beings
running
i am sure you satrt to know the different !!
------------
> > -------
> > your photon is arbitarrily defined os lasting
> > 1 second
>
> It is? So it takes 1 second for a photon to deposit its energy? Just a
> moment ago you told me it takes 1/10^6 seconds for a photon of one
> wavelength long to deposit its energy. That's a measurable difference.
> Is it one second or a millionth of a second?
it is 1/10^6 seconds
but not as simple as on our paper -
ie much more complicated thechnically
-thechnologically to meausre it
----
see above !!
>
> > it is a human definitin
> > it is not the definition of nature
> > for a single samllest photon
>
> I'm not interested in any "human definition". I'm interested in a
> *measurable* time that it takes a single photon of frequency 10^6 Hz
me the same as you
that is waht i am interested
and if you are wiser than me
or more knowledgable that me
lets have it from you
------
> to deposit all of its energy. Because that I can compare with
> experimental results.
> --------
ok
what ar ethe experimental results
for a photon that lasts 1/10^^ seconds
in a detector or wahtever is happening in that detecting system ??
----------
----
> > --------
>
> > > > the same as the tinme needed for one wave lenght
>
> > !!!!!
>
> > > OK, so a photon is NOT a chain of successive wavelengths,
>
> > yetin practice we have a chain of them
>
> A chain of what? I asked for the time for ONE photon to deposit its
> energy, not a chain of photons.
>
> > a very long chain of them !!
> > (we have a problem of definition
>
> > hf is for one second but it does not tell us
> > what is the real duration of a ...
> > SPECIFIC PHOTON EMMITION CASE !!
>
> That's what I want to know.
see above
-----
>
> > ------
> > and it> doesn'
>
> > t need to deposit its energy one wavelength's worth at a time?
> > it is a chin of depositins
> > in parctice it is many of them
> > one after the other
>
> In practice, I can emit a *single* photon (it's done all the time in
> labs),
provided we ahve the right definition of a single photon
do we have it ?
waht is the definition of a 'single photon' for those labes
is it f ?? ie what is happening during one second ?? or something
else ??
----------
and I can watch its energy being absorbed by a *single* atom.
in a single Atom ???
you must be joking!
how do you hold a sibgle photon?
do you have a 'pinzeta' to old a single photon
or may be it is apart of a big mesh pf Atoms ??
do you ahve a super microscope to hold
a single Atom and see a single photon unit
as i define it ??
> want to know what you think the duration of that *single* photon is.
and i want to know what is that
deposition duration of a single wave of a photon of a wave length
c/10^6 meter
according to YOU MR PD !!!
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------
>
Jeckyl
> On Jun 2, 12:09 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 1:39 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> As soon as you can tell me what the smallest real number is, you will
>> know the smallest photon energy.
>
> -------
> fo rmew itis one (1)
You're kidding .. the smallest real nubmer is one !! That's got to be a
joke
Jeckyl
> On Jun 2, 11:50 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1180761016....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > so lets hear waht do you know
>> > that i dont know !!!
>>
>> Have we got room for that?
>>
>> > and save us your preaching
>> > about things you dont know
>> > lets hear about what** you *do know
>> > (and i dont know i am ready always tolearn)
>> > and examin eit if it is in contradiction tomy
>> > claimes
>> > and we hAve AS USUAL
>> > to make a distiction between
>> > exparinetal data and
>> > INTERPRETATIONS OF IT
>> > so please go on shoot
>>
>> If you took your own advice we'd hear nothing more from you .. you have
>> NO
>> idea what you're talking about here .. you think that the number of
>> photons
>> is related to the frequency of the light .. hahahahah.
>
> ----------
> disturbed idot
I'm neither
> we are lalking about
> th e samllest photon unit
> got it idiot
> **THE SMALLEST **
There isn't one
> it is soemthing *specific*
No .. its nothing
> a special case
> not a general formula (a genralcase !)
> let PD answer
> you are not a partner for discussion
You're not capable of discussion.
Jeckyl
> On Jun 2, 6:16 pm, PD > > photon?
>>
>> > -----------
>> > yes
>> > while we say 10^6 per second it is
>> > 10 ^6 units per second
>>
>> You're still not understanding the question. Since you think of
>> photons as trains of wavelengths, let's talk about a train. Suppose
>> I'm standing by the tracks and I see cars go by at a frequency of 3
>> cars per second, or in your terms, 3 units per second. Now I ask how
>> how many cars are in the train. You are not going to tell me the train
>> is 3 cars per second, are you?
> ----------------
>
> 3 cars (units according to me ) per second
> is not all the description of the photon
> 'train'
> such a 'train can pass nest to you all day
> wihtthe same rate of 'vagons'passing next to you
> (so acording to you a sun beam that lasts for one day is a single
> photon ?? )
No .. that's what YOUseem to be saying .. you don't seem very clear about
what you think a photon is
> we take a section of that lng 'train'
> and examine its content
> th ecommon way is to define one second of its duration AS
> REPRESENTATIVE of its features !!
> sort of jsut a sample of it !
> of if youlike
> just a 'label' on that sample
> the same as youd efing for instance
> gass of a car as to be
> 95 octan ..
You've still avoided answering the question
> it is not the physical right definition
> of the real phtons smallest unit
> please not the title of that thread
> we are askingouself waht is the
> SMALLEST UNIT
That's been answered .. there is no smallest unit of photon. A photon is
the smallest unit of light though, and each photon of a given frequency of
light has the same energy as given by E = hf.
> do you understand waht is the meaning of
> 'quasntum '
Do you?
> (thnaks for ther ananymous reder that
> cprrected me to say quantum and not quanta
> he probably knoes Greek .)
> so Mr PD what is that concept QUANTUM
> FOR YOU ??
> is it not somethingthat is *indivisible *?
> sort of the ancient concept of the Atom ??it is certainly not 3 vagons
> but
> just one of them .
Ok .. so you are saying one completely wavelength in some light is the same
as a photon ??
So the frequency of light is the same as the number of photons per second
>> You've said a photon is a train of wavelengths. I want to know how
>> many wavelengths are in that train.
> see above
Above you seem to be saying that one wavelength is one photon
> it can be all day long emmition.
Are you talking about a 'beam' of light or a photon?
> uless you ahve a technique
> to veryfy that you ahve jsut
> a single of them
> (as i defined it and not just per one second
> do we have trecnical aparats
> to define a physical entity that its energy is
> 1.000 h (PLANCK) energy ??acurately and as a *private case **
> and not jasut statistically ??!!
WTF are you on about there?
>> > waht is your answer instead ??
> yes
> i still didnt hear your anser Mr PD !!waht is your answer to your
> questions .
He is the asker .. you are supposed to answer .. Notthing is elart if he
answers his own question.
[snip]
>> OK, so in your scheme, all the energy of the photon is delivered in
>> 10^(-6) seconds, right?
> th eenergy of one single 'vagon' of that
> 'train'
Is that what you think a photon is .. a single wavelength (peak to peak,
say)?
>> > > You are given the frequency, so you can calculate on a napkin
> just give me a break with your napkin
> because i can do cheap demagogic trickes
More nosense insults
> not least than you
> lest satay with physics
How do yo usatay with physics?
> and leave a side psychologic propaganda !
> it does not work on real intelligent
> serious people !!
How is that related to you?
So, in other words, you can't do the simple calculations yourself.
>> > > what the
>> > > wavelength is. Since you know what c is, you can calculate on the
>> > > back
>> > > side of that napkin what the time is. I'd like a number.
>>
>> > > > > 3. Given the speed of light, how long do you think it takes the
>> > > > > entire
>> > > > > single photon to deposit all of its energy?
>> -----------
> i alreadt sayed
> it it is a train of single photons that is defined as f=10^6
> it shoulod take 1/10^ second
> for a one wave length
> to pass a detector
So you are saying one wavelength is one photon ?
> yet i cant tell you
> AND YOU CANT TELL ME AS WELL
> WAHT ARE ALL THE PHYSICAL PROCESSES
> THAT T AKE PLACE IN THAT DETECTOR
> that detector is composed of some material
> of Atoms *not a single Atom
> iot must be a whole mesh of Atonms
> and electronic devices that have their
> physical behaviur of theit own and eror margines of ther own etc
> is is not the case of a 100 meter ash
> of witch you satnand next to it
> with a 'Sieko' stop watch
> see your runner with your eayes
> and while you think he passed the target
> you press your finger on the watch
> and there you have your result!!
> it is not even the oloympic modern device
> to define the 100 dash of human beings
> running
> i am sure you satrt to know the different !!
More nonsense gibberish
[snip]
>> I'm not interested in any "human definition". I'm interested in a
>> *measurable* time that it takes a single photon of frequency 10^6 Hz
>
> me the same as you
> that is waht i am interested
> and if you are wiser than me
> or more knowledgable that me
I don't think there is any question about THAT.
> lets have it from you
> ------
>> to deposit all of its energy. Because that I can compare with
>> experimental results.
>> --------
> ok
> what ar ethe experimental results
> for a photon that lasts 1/10^^ seconds
> in a detector or wahtever is happening in that detecting system ??
[sip]
>> In practice, I can emit a *single* photon (it's done all the time in
>> labs),
> provided we ahve the right definition of a single photon
> do we have it ?
> waht is the definition of a 'single photon' for those labes
> is it f ??
f is a frequency dummy
> ie what is happening during one second ?? or something
> else ??
> and I can watch its energy being absorbed by a *single* atom.
Not unless you have exceptional eyesight
> in a single Atom ???
> you must be joking!
> how do you hold a sibgle photon?
> do you have a 'pinzeta' to old a single photon
> or may be it is apart of a big mesh pf Atoms ??
> do you ahve a super microscope to hold
> a single Atom and see a single photon unit
> as i define it ??
I think you trying to be ridiculous here.
>> want to know what you think the duration of that *single* photon is.
> and i want to know what is that
> deposition duration of a single wave of a photon of a wave length
> c/10^6 meter
> according to YOU MR PD !!!
You really have no idea.
Eric Gisse
Really?
The smallest real number is "1"?
Do you even know what a real number is?
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On Jun 2, 6:01 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 2, 12:09 pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 2, 1:39 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
>
> > > As soon as you can tell me what the smallest real number is, you will
> > > know the smallest photon energy.
>
Planck's hypothesis is that 'each spectral line originates fron an
electron oscillator of specific energy hv. This means that light is
packets of energy from an oscillator. This oscillator does not radiate
continously, but radiates it's energy, absorbs energy, radiates it's
energy.
Therefore the distribution function, is the probability for the
oscillator to be at any specific energy level for a particular
temperature. Over a suffecient interval of time, the oscillator will
be in these energy levels, at the time of it's emission, according to
the statistics of the distribution function. Therefore in any sample
of this energy, this relative distribution of energy will also exist.
The energy of the oscillator must always be in integral multiples of
hv. Or ergs per second, times cycles per second. It's emissions are
also of these whole values of h.
This means that quantities of this energy are always sums of hv.
If there are no intermediate values between the succesive energy
levels of hv as whole values of h, then h is the smallest energy
level. This energy level cannot be divided either. Since wavelength
has no actual physical relevance to light energy, the lowest energy of
a photon is the value of h. And 2.99E10 cm is longest 'wavelength'. A
longer wavelength would require dividing h which is not possible.
This idea of only whole values of h is not so extroidinary. The
oscilator carries vibrations at c. It's energy must be similar to the
linear harmonic oscillator, with lamba n = 2 pi v. At the small size
of the molecular oscillator and the high velocity of light, only whole
values of h exist in the system of standing waves that develop in the
oscillator at the time of emission.
The oscillator must increase it's mass according to m = E c^2, in
order to produce and emit the packet of energy which is the photon of
energy E = mc^2. This relationship of the mass of energy is
fundamental with the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter. Energy
in all forms has mass according to E = mc^2.
KD
Y.Porat
> On Jun 3, 10:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 5:04 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > > G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
> > > > The instant a photon leaves the core of the Sun it has the shortest wave
> > > > length It is gamma,but even a gamma photon weakens with distance.
>
> > > Photon don't get very far (in a star) before being absorbed. New photons
> > > are emitted with less energy (on average) and hence, longer wavelengths.
>
> > -----
> > Sam
> > unwilligly you raised up a right and
> > a very relevant poit !!
>
> > phtons that pass throu matetr
> > are 1 cganging
>
> No, they aren't. Once they are absorbed, "they're not pinin'! They've
> passed on! This photon is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired
> and gone to meet its maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in
> peace! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off
> its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir
> invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PHOTON!! "
>
>
>
> > 2
> > replaced by other ones
>
> > only now you and PD might satrt to understand
> > why i say thet PD only
> > IMMAGINES he knows the answers he was puting to me
> > abaut the absorbtiontime of photons in general
>
> > AND THE SMALLEST PHOTON SPECIFICALLY !!!!!
>
> The smallest photon would be one exactly the same size as your brain.
>
> > and that is exactly one of my arguments
> > aginst PD with his demand to me
> > (and not to himself !!! )
> > to define the *absorbtion time of a single photon*!!
>
> Essentially the absorption time is zero. As un upper limit on the
> time, the duration of an electronic transition is 10^-15 s and for a
> vibrational transition is about 10^-12 or 10^-13 s.
-----------
so idiot
why do you say the absorbtion time is zero??!!
does an idiot physicist already learned that
there is no physics process
which is insatntous'
any movement ned time!1
got to crook??
do you really know what is the absorbtion
time of a single photon
CRROK !!!
does a crook like you knowd what is a single photon?? parrot crook ??
if not go fart soemwher else may be soem other suckes will buy your
stupid crooked parroting physics .
Y.Porat
------------------
>
>
>
> > Keep well and go on contributing
> > thinking ,instead of PARROTING !!
>
> "THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!"
>
Y.Porat
-------------
Good for you Kdth!!
so we ahve multiples of h !!
and photons has mass as you say
but you forgot to say that
**there is just one kind of mass
(NO RELATYIVISTIC MASS)
so the photon has invariant mass
and i proved it independantly
fronm the simension anaylsis of
E=hf !! (for cleaver people......
INVARIANT MASS ** !!!!!!
y.pORAT
-----------------
Eric Gisse
He didn't, dumbshit. Reading is fundamental.
[snip froth]
Jeckyl
> Good for you Kdth!!
> so we ahve multiples of h !!
No ., .we don't. H is not a unit of energy.
> no
> and photons has mass as you say
No .. it doesn't
> but you forgot to say that
> **there is just one kind of mass
> (NO RELATYIVISTIC MASS)
> so the photon has invariant mass
> and i proved it independantly
> fronm the simension anaylsis of
> E=hf !! (for cleaver people......
> INVARIANT MASS ** !!!!!!
You've proved nothing .. you just keep posting the same nonsense non-proof
over and over.
Learn some physics, before you die.
Jeckyl
> so idiot
> why do you say the absorbtion time is zero??!!
>
> does an idiot physicist already learned that
> there is no physics process
> which is insatntous'
> any movement ned time!1
> got to crook??
>
> do you really know what is the absorbtion
> time of a single photon
> CRROK !!!
>
> does a crook like you knowd what is a single photon?? parrot crook ??
> if not go fart soemwher else may be soem other suckes will buy your
> stupid crooked parroting physics .
Another charming post from the poor rat.
The_Man
Because it is. The "upper limits" I gave are the approximate time for
1 cycle of the necessary photon.
>
> does an idiot physicist already learned that
> there is no physics process
> which is insatntous'
> any movement ned time!1
Transition times for electron movement from one lobe of a p orbital to
the other lobe is essentially instantaneous. Since the electron can
NEVER be at the node (since that is the definition of a node), the
electron must move instanteously past it.
> got to crook??
Got milk? Got kook?
>
> do you really know what is the absorbtion
> time of a single photon
> CRROK !!!
Yes, I do. I'll tell you for 1 234 Euros.
>
> does a crook like you knowd what is a single photon?? parrot crook ??
> if not go fart soemwher else may be soem other suckes will buy your
> stupid crooked parroting physics .
Porat = Parat = Parot = Parrot
>
> Y.Porat
Why pee?
> ------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Keep well and go on contributing
> > > thinking ,instead of PARROTING !!
>
> > "THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
----------
hi disturbed littl Nazi shit go fuck yousself
with Josef Goebeless ..
Y.P
-----------------
Y.Porat
so zero or upper limit??
does a pompus zerop like you know aht is trhe meaning of a physical
process??
a physical process is by definition
soemthing that takes time
if you dont know it
you learned soemthing form crackpot Porat
this minute
whether youwill admit it or not
(now i am sure a crook will never admit
being wrong that is one of the syptoms of a crook )
and where from you took those figuers
from your right sleeve
or from your left sleeve ??
do you think that you can cheat the wole world forever ??
-------
>
> > does an idiot physicist already learned that
> > there is no physics process
> > which is insatntous'
> > any movement ned time!1
>
> Transition times for electron movement from one lobe of a p orbital to
> the other lobe is essentially instantaneous.
how do you know it parrot ???
i thought it takes
3.46859 10 -30 seconds !! (:-)
do think you can cheat the wole world forever ??
------
Since the electron can
> NEVER be at the node
which node parrot ??
how did you see those nodes
what i s their couler ??
do you think you can parrot forever ??
---------
(since that is the definition of a node), the
> electron must move instanteously past it.
idot
insatntous is only you shitting here
if you dont know
just say
*i dont know*
that is how decent people shoud behave !!
it is no shame not to know
it is a big shame to cheat
and crooks do no thave shame !!
--------
>
> > got to crook??
>
> Got milk? Got kook?
>
>
>
> > do you really know what is the absorbtion
> > time of a single photon
> > CRROK !!!
>
> Yes, I do. I'll tell you for 1 234 Euros.
i dont buy your anser for a penny!!
th only right thing i got drom you
that i didnt know (because i didnt bother toget
into the above site)
is that it was dealing with eye sight
range of photons
thank s for that !!
anyway i twa snot relevant to my op question
about the smallest photon energy
bu t the rest is shit parroting
instead tha tou wil stsrt atke interset
of some further undersatanding
of unsolved problems
and realizing that we (all of us ) has still a lot
to learn and not pose a stupid pose
as if you knoww everything
(and others know and understand nothingthat si only for cheap
demasgogues )
and there is nothing more to learn
----------
Y.Porat
-----------
Jeckyl
Yet another charming reply for the poor rat .. No sign of any physics at
all. You must be such a joy to know, your family must be so proud .. do you
show them the foul language and insults you post here? .. Maybe they're used
to it.
The_Man
Zero.
>
> does a pompus zerop like you know aht is trhe meaning of a physical
> process??
I know much more than you. If I smoked a whole gram of the best
Amsterdam Super Skunk, and I was busy with the three of the hottest
hookers there, I would STILL be a million light years ahead of you.
> a physical process is by definition
> soemthing that takes time
No, it isn't.
> if you dont know it
> you learned soemthing form crackpot Porat
> this minute
> whether youwill admit it or not
> (now i am sure a crook will never admit
> being wrong that is one of the syptoms of a crook )
I admitted I was wrong in a post with Autymn D.C. So, there, YOU'RE
wrong.
> and where from you took those figuers
> from your right sleeve
> or from your left sleeve ??
> do you think that you can cheat the wole world forever ??
> -------
>
>
>
> > > does an idiot physicist already learned that
> > > there is no physics process
> > > which is insatntous'
> > > any movement ned time!1
>
> > Transition times for electron movement from one lobe of a p orbital to
> > the other lobe is essentially instantaneous.
>
> how do you know it parrot ???
I know it 'cause I know QM.
> i thought it takes
> 3.46859 10 -30 seconds !! (:-)
No, that's how long you last in bed.
> do think you can cheat the wole world forever ??
> ------
>
> Since the electron can
>
> > NEVER be at the node
>
> which node parrot ??
Hmmm.... I was talking about p orbitals, so.... how about a fucking
ANGULAR node! Or take 2s, 3s, 4s, which have radial nodes! Of 3p, 4p,
5p, which have BOTH angular and radial nodes. Who cares?
> how did you see those nodes
> what i s their couler ??
ORANGE
> do you think you can parrot forever ??
"Porat want's a cracker; Porat want's a crackerpot. Porat IS a
crackpot."
> ---------
>
> (since that is the definition of a node), the
>
> > electron must move instanteously past it.
>
> idot
> insatntous is only you shitting here
> if you dont know
> just say
> *i dont know*
> that is how decent people shoud behave !!
>
> it is no shame not to know
As you so amply prove.
> it is a big shame to cheat
> and crooks do no thave shame !!
> --------
>
>
>
> > > got to crook??
>
> > Got milk? Got kook?
>
> > > do you really know what is the absorbtion
> > > time of a single photon
> > > CRROK !!!
>
> > Yes, I do. I'll tell you for 1 234 Euros.
>
> i dont buy your anser for a penny!!
You didn;t "waste" any money on books or an education, either.
>
> th only right thing i got drom you
> that i didnt know (because i didnt bother toget
> into the above site)
> is that it was dealing with eye sight
> range of photons
> thank s for that !!
> anyway i twa snot relevant to my op question
> about the smallest photon energy
Yes, it was, since you had the mistaken belief that ALL photons have
energies on the order of 10^-19 J, which is ONLY true of visible
light.
>
> bu t the rest is shit parroting
> instead tha tou wil stsrt atke interset
> of some further undersatanding
> of unsolved problems
> and realizing that we (all of us ) has still a lot
> to learn and not pose a stupid pose
> as if you knoww everything
> (and others know and understand nothingthat si only for cheap
> demasgogues )
> and there is nothing more to learn
A wise man might suspect that if I knew more than him about vision, I
might know a lot more than him about things OTHER than vision, too.
>
> ----------
> Y.Porat
> ------------ Hide quoted text -
Y.Porat
but the question that PD asked was about
photon absorbtion
do you know soemthing supported by experiemntrs
toamke you know about the absorotion of
(kisten carefully ) of the samllest photon??
if yes waht is that experinet
did you folow that expariment all the way
or you jst parrot ?
youdont seeem even to know waht is the
samllest photon!!
--------
>
>
>
> > does a pompus zerop like you know aht is trhe meaning of a physical
> > process??
>
> I know much more than you. If I smoked a whole gram of the best
> Amsterdam Super Skunk, and I was busy with the three of the hottest
> hookers there, I would STILL be a million light years ahead of you.
> ----------
of couesr yo uare a bully spending with hookers
so that is how your physics look like !!
a process is changing one situation from one condition
to another condition
and that change canno tbe without movement
movement is by definition built in
th econcept procces
so amy be you undersatnd about hookers
but you understand a shit about the meaning
of a physical process
there si no physical PEOCESS without movenment
of something
and there i snot movement with notime
if you dont know it ask your hookeres
they take mony for action andit takes time
may be your sex does not take time !!! (:-)
--------
-------
> > a physical process is by definition
> > soemthing that takes time
>
> No, it isn't.
idiot !!
----------
>
> > if you dont know it
> > you learned soemthing form crackpot Porat
> > this minute
> > whether youwill admit it or not
> > (now i am sure a crook will never admit
> > being wrong that is one of the syptoms of a crook )
>
> I admitted I was wrong in a post with Autymn D.C. So, there, YOU'RE
> wrong.
> ----------
crook a crook will never admit a mistake
and by that proves he is a xcrook !!
--------
> >
> > and where from you took those figuers
> > from your right sleeve
> > or from your left sleeve ??
> > do you think that you can cheat the wole world forever ??
> > -------
>
> > > > does an idiot physicist already learned that
> > > > there is no physics process
> > > > which is insatntous'
> > > > any movement ned time!1
>
> > > Transition times for electron movement from one lobe of a p orbital to
> > > the other lobe is essentially instantaneous.
>
> > how do you know it parrot ???
>
> I know it 'cause I know QM.
so go fuck youself with such QM !!
th eeelctron is generally not jumping in orbits
it is not a fucken amthematical model
it is natures creation not amthematics creation
go see my model about the Atom and NUc
and maty be get a bit wiser!!
electrons there vibrate
they do not jump from orbit to orbit
you might speak about energy levels
that is fine but to abstarct to make real adavnce
QM is stuck in the mudd for too long
because of too litle real connection toreality
and because being too abstact
while yo uare more abstract you have less chance
to be wrong
but at the same time you are less usefull.
and somesurprise for you
there is still alot unknown that known
and still a lot of real adavnce ahred of us
that parrots lkike you prevent
by their pomous pose of 'knowing' !
-------
---
> >
> > Since the electron can
>
> > > NEVER be at the node
>
> > which node parrot ??
>
> Hmmm.... I was talking about p orbitals, so.... how about a fucking
> ANGULAR node! Or take 2s, 3s, 4s, which have radial nodes! Of 3p, 4p,
> 5p, which have BOTH angular and radial nodes. Who cares?
-----------
please show us expwerinental data
that fo r insatnce Lead' (as a representative of a heavy Atom i am
not speaking about light Atoms )
has 82
electrons around it
with all your stupid shels around the nuc !!
---------
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
>
>
Jeckyl
> On Jun 4, 8:14 am, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Because it is. The "upper limits" I gave are the approximate time for
>> 1 cycle of the necessary photon.
>
> so zero or upper limit??
>
> does a pompus zerop like you know aht is trhe meaning of a physical
> process??
More insults for the poor rat .. you are getting a bit upset by all this,
aren't you
> a physical process is by definition
> soemthing that takes time
> if you dont know it
> you learned soemthing form crackpot Porat
That'll be the day .. first you've got to say something that is a) new and
b) correct.
> this minute
> whether youwill admit it or not
> (now i am sure a crook will never admit
> being wrong that is one of the syptoms of a crook )
Ergo .. you re a crook
> and where from you took those figuers
> from your right sleeve
> or from your left sleeve ??
> do you think that you can cheat the wole world forever ??
You're trying to .. mind you , as an old man, you haven't got man years left
for your cheating .. no wonder you're so keen on it.
[snip more insults and insane ramblings of a senile old man]
You're really a sad and nasty person
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
----------
(:-)
Y.P
------------
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -
----------
but at least they know i am a creative
man a useful one in many aspects
that is solving problems creatively
and useful tomy envirinment
not like you littl aprrot siting all day
on the ng
that never innovated anything in his life
in short
a bump parasite that his only skillis to
try and disturbe others
a grate deal of it i s from .....
jealousy !!
Y.P
---------------
It's a Miracle
knows that
--
My kaleidoscope art webpage:
http://community-2.webtv.net/Amused_2_Death_/Kaleidoscope/
Keep spam illegitimate, Report spam to:
http://spamcop.net/
It's a Miracle
next door.
It's a Miracle
Hurry up and diee WILL YA
I want to play man whats up with that?
It's a Miracle
and thought it was a coicidence so FESS UP
DUDE!
Which one?
It's a Miracle
bowling ball particle or something/
Have Ya HOID of it?
It's a Miracle
other car had its lights on
WONDER
It's a Miracle
wwhy did his elephant throw traffic paint all over and get stolen?Maybe
KJohn Hye got some answeres or Joe charland?
It's a Miracle
wondered why they weny under and discover is still around wonder what I
did there or many did?