Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
Henri Wilson
If a remote light source emits a pulse of light towards a target observer
moving relatively at v1, then, from the point of view of a third observer O3,
the 'closing speed' of that pulse towards the first observer is c+v1.
For another target observer moving at v2, the closing speed is seen as c+v2.
Here is the experimental setup:
S_._._._._._._.>p_._._._._._._.v1<T1_._._
v2<T2
O3
O3 sets up a line of equally separated clocks which measure the speed of a
light pulse emitted by S towards T1 and T2. O3 also measures the speed of T1
and T2 towards S. The readings enable him to calculate the different 'closing
speeds' between the pulse and T1 and the pulse and T2.
I understand that SRians agree on this.
The principle of relativity says it matters not whether the source or target is
considered as moving. Therefore, the above considerations hold just as well for
differently moving sources.
Thus, for a particular target, the 'closing speed' of light from relatively
moving sources is c+v3, c+v4, etc., as seen by O3.
Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit.
From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have
different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit
plane is normal).
For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical
pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend to
catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will detect
bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast pulses
will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes.
Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will receive
pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, in
reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) star in
orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that will
depend on the distance to the star.
There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular
brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my
variable star simulation program:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
Note: Einstein's unproven claim that the target observer will always MEASURE
the speed of the incoming pulses as being c is completely irrelevant to this
argument.
The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether frames'
may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light speeds.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Uncle Al
>
> Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".
Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>> Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".
>[snip crap]
>
>Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference.
Fuck off cretin!
The Ghost In The Machine
<H@>
wrote
on Sun, 03 Jul 2005 01:24:24 GMT
<qhfec11glgpela3sq...@4ax.com>:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:06:53 -0700, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".
>>[snip crap]
>>
>>Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference.
>
> Fuck off cretin!
Got any performed experiments that show lightspeed is other
than c in vacuo?
The only ones I'm aware of measure lightspeed at c plus or minus
about a few parts per billion -- in fact, that's why in 1983
the standards bodies decided to throw in the towel and *define*
the meter in terms of the length of the second, and lightspeed;
the old Kr-86 definition just wasn't accurate enough, apparently.
Of course, you can claim that all of the scientists on that body
were deluded, if you like.
BTW: 1 part per billion would be about 38.5 cm, relative to the Moon's
distance of 3.85 * 10^8 m.
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Bill Hobba
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:qhfec11glgpela3sq...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:06:53 -0700, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >> Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".
> >[snip crap]
> >
> >Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference.
>
> Fuck off cretin!
Translation - Henri does not like inconvienent facts - so much for the
facts. Three guesses who is the real cretin.
Bill
Sue...
"Light moves at c wrt interacting matter"
Here is the experimental setup:
e+
e-
e+e-
Sue...
George Dishman
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
> Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".
A claim that is known to be disproven by the
Sagnac effect.
> The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether
> frames'
> may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light
> speeds.
Snell's Law requires that any such "extinction"
(not the usual meaning of the term) must occur
over a short distance (consider a quarter-wave
plate) depending on the refractive index.
I suggest the speed of the light leaving a
distant star is therefore changed to be c almost
immediately and Henri's simulation results are
therefore spurious.
Do you understand what I'm saying Henri, unless
you have the equations for extinction and the
behaviour relative to your aether, you cannot
make a prediction. Your above definition does
not constitute a theory since the unknown parts
prevent you making any predictions.
Also as you have the word "may" in your text,
you don't have a theory. Replace it by "will"
and give the equations.
George
Henri Wilson
How about
hee, hee+
Hee,hee,heehee,hee.
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
>
>
>Sue...
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:qhfec11glgpela3sq...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:06:53 -0700, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
>wrote:
>>
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".
>> >[snip crap]
>> >
>> >Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference.
>>
>> Fuck off cretin!
>
>Translation - Henri does not like inconvienent facts - so much for the
>facts. Three guesses who is the real cretin.
>
>Bill
>
If I want Al Schwartz to contribute usefully to my posts I will ask him.
You too Hobba. You are no better.
Sue...
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2005 21:18:17 -0700, "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Light moves at c wrt interacting matter"
> >
> >Here is the experimental setup:
> >e+
> > e-
> >e+e-
>
> How about
> hee, hee+
> Hee,hee,heehee,hee.
> eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectricDipoleRadiation.html
http://www.snopes.com/weddings/graphics/shocked.jpg
T Wake
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 03:48:31 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> If I want Al Schwartz to contribute usefully to my posts I will ask him.
> You too Hobba. You are no better.
>
If you want to control who replies to you and how they reply then don't post
on USENET. Get yourself your own website and start your own discussion board
or something.
If you can post crap here then why cant anyone else post the same?
By the way, Al was correct - there are flaws in your theory. Feel free to
respond in any manner you wish. I don't mind.
Henri Wilson
Wake up, Wake!
Henri Wilson
>
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 2 Jul 2005 21:18:17 -0700, "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Light moves at c wrt interacting matter"
>> >
>> >Here is the experimental setup:
>> >e+
>> > e-
>> >e+e-
>>
>> How about
>> hee, hee+
>> Hee,hee,heehee,hee.
>> eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
>
>http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectricDipoleRadiation.html
Sure...but there has to be an easier way..
.
>http://www.snopes.com/weddings/graphics/shocked.jpg
Now that's more like it.
Sue...
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2005 02:46:04 -0700, "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 2 Jul 2005 21:18:17 -0700, "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Light moves at c wrt interacting matter"
> >> >
> >> >Here is the experimental setup:
> >> >e+
> >> > e-
> >> >e+e-
> >>
> >> How about
> >> hee, hee+
> >> Hee,hee,heehee,hee.
> >> eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
> >
> >http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectricDipoleRadiation.html
>
> Sure...but there has to be an easier way..
Yes... there was an easier way but the ole gal did'nt
want just every kind of riff-raff knowing how she had
things put together so she threw a few extra curves in
the plan. I notice the web page is "under
construction" so that probably means she is still
exercising her right as a woman to change her mind.
:o)
Sue...
Jerry
> Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit.
> From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have
> different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit
> plane is normal).
> For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical
> pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend to
> catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will detect
> bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast pulses
> will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes.
>
> Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will receive
> pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, in
> reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) star in
> orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that will
> depend on the distance to the star.
>
> There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular
> brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my
> variable star simulation program:
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
Except for a number of huge problems. Try "extinction".
You claim that -all- measurements of k in c'=c+kv from DeSitter
on which have consistently yielded k~0 are flawed because of
extinction.
If extinction effects prevented DeSitter etc. from measuring
k, extinction must work equally well to predict that BaT cannot
explain variable star light curves. Light being emitted adjusts
its speed to that imposed by the interstellar medium almost
instantly, and faster and slower light cannot add up as you
say it does.
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, HENRI! You can't have extinction
invalidating DeSitter's results and not invalidating yours.
Jerry
T Wake
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>
Very original. (Well it would be if Nick hadn't beaten you to it a while
back).
kenseto
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment.
Henri Wilson
>
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 3 Jul 2005 02:46:04 -0700, "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >> On 2 Jul 2005 21:18:17 -0700, "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Light moves at c wrt interacting matter"
>> >> >
>> >> >Here is the experimental setup:
>> >> >e+
>> >> > e-
>> >> >e+e-
>> >>
>> >> How about
>> >> hee, hee+
>> >> Hee,hee,heehee,hee.
>> >> eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
>> >
>> >http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectricDipoleRadiation.html
>>
>> Sure...but there has to be an easier way..
>
>Yes... there was an easier way but the ole gal did'nt
>want just every kind of riff-raff knowing how she had
>things put together so she threw a few extra curves in
>the plan. I notice the web page is "under
>construction" so that probably means she is still
>exercising her right as a woman to change her mind.
>:o)
>
>Sue...
>
.. anyway, she left out the decimal point.
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>> Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit.
>> From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have
>> different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit
>> plane is normal).
>> For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical
>> pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend to
>> catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will detect
>> bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast pulses
>> will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes.
>>
>> Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will receive
>> pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, in
>> reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) star in
>> orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that will
>> depend on the distance to the star.
>>
>> There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular
>> brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my
>> variable star simulation program:
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
>
>Except for a number of huge problems. Try "extinction".
>You claim that -all- measurements of k in c'=c+kv from DeSitter
>on which have consistently yielded k~0 are flawed because of
>extinction.
The extincr\tion argument was put forward by a gentleman called Fox, who
subsequently showed that DeSitter's argument against the BaT was wrong.
>
>If extinction effects prevented DeSitter etc. from measuring
>k, extinction must work equally well to predict that BaT cannot
>explain variable star light curves. Light being emitted adjusts
>its speed to that imposed by the interstellar medium almost
>instantly, and faster and slower light cannot add up as you
>say it does.
>
>YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, HENRI! You can't have extinction
>invalidating DeSitter's results and not invalidating yours.
Yes we can. In remote space, extinction takes place over very large
distances....but small enough to prevent multiple images from being observed.
I have a figure of about 10LYs for one cepheid, AT Aur. Beyond that distance,
the light from the star light is moving at about the same speed and its
observed brightness pattern doesn't change.
>
>Jerry
Henri Wilson
Why? photons have cross-sections.
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests change
or not?
Jerry
...and this very same Fox conducted an experiment specifically
designed to counter extinction arguments, the result of which
was ihnconsistent with BaT.
> >If extinction effects prevented DeSitter etc. from measuring
> >k, extinction must work equally well to predict that BaT cannot
> >explain variable star light curves. Light being emitted adjusts
> >its speed to that imposed by the interstellar medium almost
> >instantly, and faster and slower light cannot add up as you
> >say it does.
> >
> >YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, HENRI! You can't have extinction
> >invalidating DeSitter's results and not invalidating yours.
>
> Yes we can. In remote space, extinction takes place over very large
> distances....but small enough to prevent multiple images from being observed.
>
> I have a figure of about 10LYs for one cepheid, AT Aur. Beyond that distance,
> the light from the star light is moving at about the same speed and its
> observed brightness pattern doesn't change.
You turn on extinction only when you want to, and turn it off
when you don't.
Jerry
kenseto
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed the
interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have just
saw the images of the two slits.
Ken Seto
Henri Wilson
Different Fox.
>
>> >If extinction effects prevented DeSitter etc. from measuring
>> >k, extinction must work equally well to predict that BaT cannot
>> >explain variable star light curves. Light being emitted adjusts
>> >its speed to that imposed by the interstellar medium almost
>> >instantly, and faster and slower light cannot add up as you
>> >say it does.
>> >
>> >YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, HENRI! You can't have extinction
>> >invalidating DeSitter's results and not invalidating yours.
>>
>> Yes we can. In remote space, extinction takes place over very large
>> distances....but small enough to prevent multiple images from being observed.
>>
>> I have a figure of about 10LYs for one cepheid, AT Aur. Beyond that distance,
>> the light from the star light is moving at about the same speed and its
>> observed brightness pattern doesn't change.
>
>You turn on extinction only when you want to, and turn it off
>when you don't.
No. It happens naturally.
Henri Wilson
I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double slit
experiment.
How could it?
>
>Ken Seto
Schoenfeld
Uncle Al wrote:
> Henri Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".
> [snip crap]
>
> Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference.
Actually it fluctuates about a mean.
kenseto
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
> >news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >> >The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why? photons have cross-sections.
> >>
> >> The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
> >> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests
> >change
> >> or not?
> >
> >You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed the
> >interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have
just
> >saw the images of the two slits.
>
> I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double
slit
> experiment.
> How could it?
Sigh.....light speed got nothing to do with the experiment. If light is
bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference fringes.
yt56erd
could implode.
Henri Wilson
>
>
>Uncle Al wrote:
>> Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >
>> > Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".
>> [snip crap]
>>
>> Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference.
>
>Actually it fluctuates about a mean.
....and there ain't nothin much meaner than Al ...
>
>> --
>> Uncle Al
>> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
>> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
>> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:fmkjc1htvje39ccfb...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>> >news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Why? photons have cross-sections.
>> >>
>> >> The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
>> >> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests
>> >change
>> >> or not?
>> >
>> >You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed the
>> >interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have
>just
>> >saw the images of the two slits.
>>
>> I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double
>slit
>> experiment.
>> How could it?
>
>Sigh.....light speed got nothing to do with the experiment. If light is
>bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference fringes.
>
Ken, a photon is not like an ordinary bullet...
Let me try to explain.
Have you ever illustrated magnetic lines of force around a bar magnet with iron
filings? It you move the magnet, you can imagine those force lines moving along
with it. Now throw a way the magnet and consider that these field lines remain
and are stretched out in a long cigar shape. They are rapidly oscilating from
front to back and all the time, perpendicular to them is an associated E- field
that oscillates in synchrony. The two fields mutually reinforce each other and
will oscillate virtually forever in completely empty space.
Can you now imagine something like that coming up against a double slit?
kenseto
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
So now you admitted that BaT is dead.
The rest of your bull shit is trying to use the fact that light is a wave
phenomenon.
Ken Seto
Henri Wilson
You know Ken, I DO have a sneaking suspicion that some kind of periodicity IS
involved in light...be it spatially or time based.
>
>Ken Seto
Jerry
> On 4 Jul 2005 01:29:02 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> The extincr\tion argument was put forward by a gentleman called Fox, who
> >> subsequently showed that DeSitter's argument against the BaT was wrong.
> >
> >...and this very same Fox conducted an experiment specifically
> >designed to counter extinction arguments, the result of which
> >was ihnconsistent with BaT.
>
> Different Fox.
Can't you get even THIS simple matter right?
The same John G. Fox wrote
Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 30, 297(1962)
Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 33, 1(1964)
(critiqued DeSitter)
and also wrote
Filipas, T.A. and Fox, J.G. Phys. Rev. 135, B1071(1964)
(conducted experiment designed to counter extinction
arguments, obtained results inconsistent with BaT.)
Jerry
Henri Wilson
I know a fellow called Arnold Fox who reckoned DeSitter was wrong, too.
Jerry
> On 5 Jul 2005 21:27:04 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> Different Fox.
> >
> >Can't you get even THIS simple matter right?
> >
> >The same John G. Fox wrote
> >Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 30, 297(1962)
> >Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 33, 1(1964)
> >(critiqued DeSitter)
> >
> >and also wrote
> >Filipas, T.A. and Fox, J.G. Phys. Rev. 135, B1071(1964)
> >(conducted experiment designed to counter extinction
> >arguments, obtained results inconsistent with BaT.)
> >
> >Jerry
>
> I know a fellow called Arnold Fox who reckoned DeSitter was wrong, too.
You are attempting to muddy the waters.
The plain fact of the matter is that you are hopelessly
ignorant of the literature, and are likely to remain so for
eternity.
Jerry
George Dishman
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:wsmye.46998$7X1....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
> news:fmkjc1htvje39ccfb...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>> >You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed
>> >the
>> >interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have
>> >just
>> >saw the images of the two slits.
>>
>> I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double
>> slit
>> experiment.
>> How could it?
>
> Sigh.....light speed got nothing to do with the experiment. If light is
> bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference
> fringes.
The suggestion is that is it wave-like but
that the speed of the waves depends on the
speed of the source that emits them. I don't
agree (for many reasons, the most obvious
being the Sagnac effect) but you should try
to understand his suggestion if you want to
offer valid criticisms.
George
George Dishman
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
...
> The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
Not really, it's the distance between points
of equal phase measured in the directon of
propagation.
> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests
> change
> or not?
Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
need your "tick fairies" at every change of
refractive index. Think of light passing
through a sheet of glass, there must be the
same number of wavefronts passing a point
within the glass as points outside in any
given time.
George
Henri Wilson
Just read MY literature and you will learn considerably more than you will from
DeSitter.
>
>Jerry
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h...@4ax.com...
>...
>> The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
>
>Not really, it's the distance between points
>of equal phase measured in the directon of
>propagation.
You can say that about generated radio waves but not individual photons.
>
>> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests
>> change
>> or not?
>
>Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
>need your "tick fairies" at every change of
>refractive index. Think of light passing
>through a sheet of glass, there must be the
>same number of wavefronts passing a point
>within the glass as points outside in any
>given time.
No doubt about that one, George.
Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in his
frame?
>
>George
George Dishman
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman"
> <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>>news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h...@4ax.com...
>>...
>>> The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
>>
>>Not really, it's the distance between points
>>of equal phase measured in the directon of
>>propagation.
>
> You can say that about generated radio waves
> but not individual photons.
Another interesting subject.
Consider Young's slits illuminated by a laser.
If the setup is symmetrical you get a bright
line in the centre with fringes either side.
Conventionally the high brightness at a
location ten fringes to one side is due to the
signal interfering such that the peak through
one slit coincides with a peak ten wavelengths
later that has travelled a longer path having
come through the other slit.
If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
add a shutter, you can allow single photons
into the setup. At the same location as above,
you still get a peak of probability of photons
arriving while half a fringe either side, the
probability is zero because a peak through one
slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
wavelengths later. That must apply to each
photon individually.
>>> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
>>> wavecrests change or not?
>>
>>Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
>>need your "tick fairies" at every change of
>>refractive index. Think of light passing
>>through a sheet of glass, there must be the
>>same number of wavefronts passing a point
>>within the glass as points outside in any
>>given time.
>
> No doubt about that one, George.
>
> Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
> observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in
> his
> frame?
In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength
to change according to the classical formula
for a moving observer while if SR is right, it
should change according to the relativistic
formula.
George
sue jahn
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:dareqb$6d8$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
If you do this by reducing the brigtness of the
laser you allow a single *absorbed* photons to eject a
photoelectron.
Quantum dot emitters that will measure out a single
photon are now available.
<<The experiment and Results
This experiment proved that the following two things were possible in an
open photonic network environment such as the Internet.
1. A single photon can interfere...>>
http://www.physorg.com/news4536.html
IOW a single *emitted* photon goes through
both slits.
That doens't look favorable for BaT or
particle propagation models.
Sue...
Henri Wilson
wrote:
That is a pretty tricky operation.
>At the same location as above,
>you still get a peak of probability of photons
>arriving while half a fringe either side, the
>probability is zero because a peak through one
>slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
>wavelengths later. That must apply to each
>photon individually.
How about using parallel light from a very dim star instead of a laser.
If single photons reach the slits, the spacing should give an indication of
photon cross section.
>
>>>> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
>>>> wavecrests change or not?
>>>
>>>Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
>>>need your "tick fairies" at every change of
>>>refractive index. Think of light passing
>>>through a sheet of glass, there must be the
>>>same number of wavefronts passing a point
>>>within the glass as points outside in any
>>>given time.
>>
>> No doubt about that one, George.
>>
>> Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
>> observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in
>> his
>> frame?
>
>In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength
>to change according to the classical formula
>for a moving observer while if SR is right, it
>should change according to the relativistic
>formula.
I would not expect the wavelength to change at all.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
Why not?
Photons have an effective cross section that stretches to infinity. It does off
very rapidly with distance from the central axis, though.
geo...@briar.demon.co.uk
True but it is done.
> >At the same location as above,
> >you still get a peak of probability of photons
> >arriving while half a fringe either side, the
> >probability is zero because a peak through one
> >slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
> >wavelengths later. That must apply to each
> >photon individually.
>
> How about using parallel light from a very dim star instead of a laser.
A laser is monochromatic, a star isn't. The
linewidth is important in this case. A laser
will show interference with single photons
even if the difference in the path length
is many wavelengths. This abstract mentions
a choerence length of 50m for one laser and
is nothing special, just the first that came
out of Google:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/tmop/1998/00000045/00000008/art00003
> If single photons reach the slits, the spacing should give an indication of
> photon cross section.
That's a different subject, I was responding to
your comment on the applicability of wavelength
to single photons.
> >>>> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
> >>>> wavecrests change or not?
> >>>
> >>>Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
> >>>need your "tick fairies" at every change of
> >>>refractive index. Think of light passing
> >>>through a sheet of glass, there must be the
> >>>same number of wavefronts passing a point
> >>>within the glass as points outside in any
> >>>given time.
> >>
> >> No doubt about that one, George.
> >>
> >> Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
> >> observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in
> >> his
> >> frame?
> >
> >In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength
> >to change according to the classical formula
> >for a moving observer while if SR is right, it
> >should change according to the relativistic
> >formula.
>
> I would not expect the wavelength to change at all.
You are right, I was thinking it would be reduced
by the distance the observer had moved but that is
not correct. There is still a difference between
the two theories.
George
Henri Wilson
<geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
>> >add a shutter, you can allow single photons
>> >into the setup.
>>
>> That is a pretty tricky operation.
>
>True but it is done.
>
>> >At the same location as above,
>> >you still get a peak of probability of photons
>> >arriving while half a fringe either side, the
>> >probability is zero because a peak through one
>> >slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
>> >wavelengths later. That must apply to each
>> >photon individually.
>>
>> How about using parallel light from a very dim star instead of a laser.
>
>A laser is monochromatic, a star isn't. The
>linewidth is important in this case.
Single photons should be monochromatic, should they not?
A filter could be used anyway.
>A laser
>will show interference with single photons
>even if the difference in the path length
>is many wavelengths. This abstract mentions
>a coherence length of 50m for one laser and
>is nothing special, just the first that came
>out of Google:
>
>http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/tmop/1998/00000045/00000008/art00003
>
>> If single photons reach the slits, the spacing should give an indication of
>> photon cross section.
>
>That's a different subject, I was responding to
>your comment on the applicability of wavelength
>to single photons.
You know my 'sawblade model' of a photon. It has a spatial regularity that
shows up as 'frequency' when it passes an observer. The wavelength is fixed.
It is the nature of this 'spatial pattern' that is of interest.
One explanation is that the 'wave package' itself features a standing
oscillation from back to front as it travels along.
>> >>>> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between
>> >>>> wavecrests change or not?
>> >>>
>> >>>Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you
>> >>>need your "tick fairies" at every change of
>> >>>refractive index. Think of light passing
>> >>>through a sheet of glass, there must be the
>> >>>same number of wavefronts passing a point
>> >>>within the glass as points outside in any
>> >>>given time.
>> >>
>> >> No doubt about that one, George.
>> >>
>> >> Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the
>> >> observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in
>> >> his
>> >> frame?
>> >
>> >In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength
>> >to change according to the classical formula
>> >for a moving observer while if SR is right, it
>> >should change according to the relativistic
>> >formula.
>>
>> I would not expect the wavelength to change at all.
>
>You are right, I was thinking it would be reduced
>by the distance the observer had moved but that is
>not correct. There is still a difference between
>the two theories.
Under BaT, diffraction is explained in terms of frequency, not wavelength.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:gvh8d19d0qrhqhelj...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> >At the same location as above,
>>>> >you still get a peak of probability of photons
>>>> >arriving while half a fringe either side, the
>>>> >probability is zero because a peak through one
>>>> >slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
>>>> >wavelengths later. That must apply to each
>>>> >photon individually.
>>>>
>>>> How about using parallel light from a very dim star instead of a laser.
>>>
>>>A laser is monochromatic, a star isn't. The
>>>linewidth is important in this case.
>>
>> Single photons should be monochromatic, should they not?
>
>Frequency is a measure of momentum so an
>accurately known momentum implies a single
>frequency, but the bandwidth of a tone burst
>is inversely proportional to the duration.
>The uncertainty of the value of the momentum
>therefore relates inversely to the 'length'
>of the photon but it is hard to say where a
>'long' burst of sine wave is located. This
>is basically another way of looking at the
>uncertainty principle, dx * dp has a minimum
>value.
What if the intensity of a well filtered beam was so low that only single
photons were passing at any time?
>
>> A filter could be used anyway.
>>
>>>A laser
>>>will show interference with single photons
>>>even if the difference in the path length
>>>is many wavelengths. This abstract mentions
>>>a coherence length of 50m for one laser and
>>>is nothing special, just the first that came
>>>out of Google:
>>>
>>>http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/tmop/1998/00000045/00000008/art00003
>>>
>>>> If single photons reach the slits, the spacing should give an indication
>>>> of
>>>> photon cross section.
>>>
>>>That's a different subject, I was responding to
>>>your comment on the applicability of wavelength
>>>to single photons.
>>
>> You know my 'sawblade model' of a photon.
>
>No, I haven't seen you post that that.
>
>> It has a spatial regularity that
>> shows up as 'frequency' when it passes an observer. The wavelength is
>> fixed.
>> It is the nature of this 'spatial pattern' that is of interest.
>> One explanation is that the 'wave package' itself features a standing
>> oscillation from back to front as it travels along.
>
>What is it reflecting off at the ends?
Don't know.
The 'spinning +/- charge' model is easier.
A bit like Len Gaasenbeek's helical wave idea.
One thing is certain. Photons are not 'point particles with no structure or
properties other than 'energy'..
How could they be?
What would distinguish them from anything else?
>
>>>You are right, I was thinking it would be reduced
>>>by the distance the observer had moved but that is
>>>not correct. There is still a difference between
>>>the two theories.
>>
>> Under BaT, diffraction is explained in terms of frequency, not wavelength.
>
>I'm not quite sure what you mean, are you
>talking of a diffraction grating rather
>than diffraction itself?
George Dishman
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
> On 12 Jul 2005 05:10:05 -0700, "geo...@briar.demon.co.uk"
> <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>>> >If you reduce the brightness of the laser and
>>> >add a shutter, you can allow single photons
>>> >into the setup.
>>>
>>> That is a pretty tricky operation.
>>
>>True but it is done.
>>
>>> >At the same location as above,
>>> >you still get a peak of probability of photons
>>> >arriving while half a fringe either side, the
>>> >probability is zero because a peak through one
>>> >slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5
>>> >wavelengths later. That must apply to each
>>> >photon individually.
>>>
>>> How about using parallel light from a very dim star instead of a laser.
>>
>>A laser is monochromatic, a star isn't. The
>>linewidth is important in this case.
>
> Single photons should be monochromatic, should they not?
Frequency is a measure of momentum so an
accurately known momentum implies a single
frequency, but the bandwidth of a tone burst
is inversely proportional to the duration.
The uncertainty of the value of the momentum
therefore relates inversely to the 'length'
of the photon but it is hard to say where a
'long' burst of sine wave is located. This
is basically another way of looking at the
uncertainty principle, dx * dp has a minimum
value.
> A filter could be used anyway.
>
>>A laser
>>will show interference with single photons
>>even if the difference in the path length
>>is many wavelengths. This abstract mentions
>>a coherence length of 50m for one laser and
>>is nothing special, just the first that came
>>out of Google:
>>
>>http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/tmop/1998/00000045/00000008/art00003
>>
>>> If single photons reach the slits, the spacing should give an indication
>>> of
>>> photon cross section.
>>
>>That's a different subject, I was responding to
>>your comment on the applicability of wavelength
>>to single photons.
>
> You know my 'sawblade model' of a photon.
No, I haven't seen you post that that.
> It has a spatial regularity that
> shows up as 'frequency' when it passes an observer. The wavelength is
> fixed.
> It is the nature of this 'spatial pattern' that is of interest.
> One explanation is that the 'wave package' itself features a standing
> oscillation from back to front as it travels along.
What is it reflecting off at the ends?
>>You are right, I was thinking it would be reduced
>>by the distance the observer had moved but that is
>>not correct. There is still a difference between
>>the two theories.
>
> Under BaT, diffraction is explained in terms of frequency, not wavelength.
I'm not quite sure what you mean, are you
George Dishman
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
Everything I said in that paragraph was
meant to refer to a single photon.
>>> You know my 'sawblade model' of a photon.
>>
>>No, I haven't seen you post that that.
>>
>>> It has a spatial regularity that
>>> shows up as 'frequency' when it passes an observer. The wavelength is
>>> fixed.
>>> It is the nature of this 'spatial pattern' that is of interest.
>>> One explanation is that the 'wave package' itself features a standing
>>> oscillation from back to front as it travels along.
>>
>>What is it reflecting off at the ends?
>
> Don't know.
There's the rub - two point particles? ;-)
> The 'spinning +/- charge' model is easier.
> A bit like Len Gaasenbeek's helical wave idea.
I don't know how that differes from cirular
polarisation and to be honest I'm not that
interested, QED is entirely adequate.
> One thing is certain. Photons are not 'point particles with no structure
> or
> properties other than 'energy'..
> How could they be?
> What would distinguish them from anything else?
You would be better to ask someone more
knowledgeable about particle physics but
basically the set of properties (charge,
mass, spin) is unique. In fact zero mass
is probably the main factor.
George
bz
@news.freedom2surf.net:
> Frequency is a measure of momentum so an
> accurately known momentum implies a single
> frequency, but the bandwidth of a tone burst
> is inversely proportional to the duration.
> The uncertainty of the value of the momentum
> therefore relates inversely to the 'length'
> of the photon but it is hard to say where a
> 'long' burst of sine wave is located. This
> is basically another way of looking at the
> uncertainty principle, dx * dp has a minimum
> value.
>
Photons are not tone bursts.
That we might have difficulty accurately measuring the
frequency/wavelength/energy of a single photon would not seem to require
that those values are broadened by our uncertanty.
Femto and even atto second laser pulses have been produced that are less
than two periods of the wavelength involved.
This would seem to set an upper limit on the number of cycles in a photon.
Logic says that a pulse can not be shorter than the time it takes to create
a single photon. It would also seem to say that a single photon can not "be
longer" than the shortest laser pulse.
This review of techniques will give you a bit of an overview of the field.
<http://phys.strath.ac.uk/alpha-x/Assets/articles/Reid-time-resolved-
spectroscopy-2003.pdf>
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
George Dishman
"bz" <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9692372FE82F4WQ...@130.39.198.139...
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:db2e6u$f1u$1
> @news.freedom2surf.net:
>
>> Frequency is a measure of momentum so an
>> accurately known momentum implies a single
>> frequency, but the bandwidth of a tone burst
>> is inversely proportional to the duration.
>> The uncertainty of the value of the momentum
>> therefore relates inversely to the 'length'
>> of the photon but it is hard to say where a
>> 'long' burst of sine wave is located. This
>> is basically another way of looking at the
>> uncertainty principle, dx * dp has a minimum
>> value.
>>
>
> Photons are not tone bursts.
I'm not suggesting they are, AFAIK they
are point particles, but those particles
seem to be subject to Heisenberg and there
appear to be parallels.
> That we might have difficulty accurately measuring the
> frequency/wavelength/energy of a single photon would not seem to require
> that those values are broadened by our uncertanty.
QM seems to differ with that view, or you
are getting into 'hidden variable' territory.
I'm not sufficiently familiar with QM these
days to argue the point though.
> Femto and even atto second laser pulses have been produced that are less
> than two periods of the wavelength involved.
>
> This would seem to set an upper limit on the number of cycles in a photon.
Certainly, but from the paper you cite
"The large bandwidth of femtosecond pulses
causes experimental difficulties."
Chopping a pure sinewave creates sidebands
hence increases the bandwidth. Think of a
Fourier analysis of the chopping waveform.
Now I would think a single photon cannot have
a bandwidth but if you take a single photon
from a stream with a wide bandwidth, then
that would translate into uncertainty about
the energy of the particular photon.
> Logic says that a pulse can not be shorter than the time it takes to
> create
> a single photon. It would also seem to say that a single photon can not
> "be
> longer" than the shortest laser pulse.
I put length in quotes because IMHO a photon
is a particle, but I think this is another
aspect of duality.
> This review of techniques will give you a bit of an overview of the field.
> <http://phys.strath.ac.uk/alpha-x/Assets/articles/Reid-time-resolved-
> spectroscopy-2003.pdf>
Excellent stuff, it will take me some time
to read that but thanks!
George
bz
>
> "bz" <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns9692372FE82F4WQ...@130.39.198.139...
>> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:db2e6u$f1u$1
>> @news.freedom2surf.net:
>>
>>> Frequency is a measure of momentum so an
>>> accurately known momentum implies a single
>>> frequency, but the bandwidth of a tone burst
>>> is inversely proportional to the duration.
>>> The uncertainty of the value of the momentum
>>> therefore relates inversely to the 'length'
>>> of the photon but it is hard to say where a
>>> 'long' burst of sine wave is located. This
>>> is basically another way of looking at the
>>> uncertainty principle, dx * dp has a minimum
>>> value.
>>>
>>
>> Photons are not tone bursts.
>
> I'm not suggesting they are, AFAIK they
> are point particles, but those particles
> seem to be subject to Heisenberg and there
> appear to be parallels.
I agree.
>
>> That we might have difficulty accurately measuring the
>> frequency/wavelength/energy of a single photon would not seem to
>> require that those values are broadened by our uncertanty.
>
> QM seems to differ with that view, or you
> are getting into 'hidden variable' territory.
> I'm not sufficiently familiar with QM these
> days to argue the point though.
likewise.
>
>> Femto and even atto second laser pulses have been produced that are
>> less than two periods of the wavelength involved.
>>
>> This would seem to set an upper limit on the number of cycles in a
>> photon.
>
> Certainly, but from the paper you cite
>
> "The large bandwidth of femtosecond pulses
> causes experimental difficulties."
I am not surprised. Rapidly keying a radio transmitter also creates
difficulties. Part of the problem is that a high Q circuit element tends
to 'ring'.
>
> Chopping a pure sinewave creates sidebands
> hence increases the bandwidth.
Quite true.... especially if the chopping isn't done at the time of zero
crossing.
The antenna would also need to be low Q and non reactive so that current
and voltage would be in phase.
> Think of a
> Fourier analysis of the chopping waveform.
> Now I would think a single photon cannot have
> a bandwidth
I agree.
> but if you take a single photon
> from a stream with a wide bandwidth, then
> that would translate into uncertainty about
> the energy of the particular photon.
right.
On the other hand, if you have a narrow bandwidth beam of photons and you
'chop' it, into small slices, mechanically, I am NOT sure that we would
generate sidebands, like 'normal' modulation would. [how does one photon
know that those ahead of it or behind it have been absorbed?]
If we chopped it fine enough, we should have a single photon, of known
energy/wavelength/frequency. We would almost certainly NOT know its exact
position, however. I think time would be the expresion of uncertanty.
>> Logic says that a pulse can not be shorter than the time it takes to
>> create
>> a single photon. It would also seem to say that a single photon can not
>> "be
>> longer" than the shortest laser pulse.
>
> I put length in quotes because IMHO a photon
> is a particle, but I think this is another
> aspect of duality.
>
>> This review of techniques will give you a bit of an overview of the
>> field.
>> <http://phys.strath.ac.uk/alpha-x/Assets/articles/Reid-time-resolved-
>> spectroscopy-2003.pdf>
>
> Excellent stuff, it will take me some time
> to read that but thanks!
Quite welcome.
George Dishman
> I agree.
...
> likewise.
...
>> "The large bandwidth of femtosecond pulses
>> causes experimental difficulties."
>
> I am not surprised. Rapidly keying a radio transmitter also creates
> difficulties. Part of the problem is that a high Q circuit element tends
> to 'ring'.
See below.
>> Chopping a pure sinewave creates sidebands
>> hence increases the bandwidth.
>
> Quite true.... especially if the chopping isn't done at the time of zero
> crossing.
Chopping is a severe form of ampitude modulation
so you can think of the process as if you were
multiplying the sine wave with a digital waveform.
That is the same as heterodyning the Fourier
Transform of the chopping waveform with the sine
wave which acts as a carrier.
> The antenna would also need to be low Q and non reactive so that current
> and voltage would be in phase.
The chopping creates sidebands. The Q of the
circuit then acts as a filter which reduces
the sidebands. You might think you could get
arbitrarily narrow bandwidth and short bursts
but the ringing of the circuit will extend the
burst and the higher the Q, the longer it rings.
In fact you can imagine that the early part of
a burst starts the circuit ringing and the
interference between that and the latter part
of the pulse is what cancels it out and creates
the filter action.
>> Think of a
>> Fourier analysis of the chopping waveform.
>> Now I would think a single photon cannot have
>> a bandwidth
>
> I agree.
>
>> but if you take a single photon
>> from a stream with a wide bandwidth, then
>> that would translate into uncertainty about
>> the energy of the particular photon.
>
> right.
>
> On the other hand, if you have a narrow bandwidth beam of photons and you
> 'chop' it, into small slices, mechanically, I am NOT sure that we would
> generate sidebands, like 'normal' modulation would. [how does one photon
> know that those ahead of it or behind it have been absorbed?]
You were talking of pulse lengths of a couple
of cycles. Compared to laser coherence lengths
of metres, we are talking of letting through
a tiny sample of one photon :-)
OK, since they are particles, the way I expect
that to work is that you get a fractional
probability that the photon makes it through
the shutter.
> If we chopped it fine enough, we should have a single photon, of known
> energy/wavelength/frequency. We would almost certainly NOT know its exact
> position, however. I think time would be the expresion of uncertanty.
The relevant factors are dE*dt or dp*dx of course.
If a shutter is used and is open for a very short
time then you know t and x very accurately so dE
and dp become poorly defined. Of course both depend
on the frequency of the photon so I expect a side
effect of the shutter operation would be to scatter
the photons that get through in some way that adds
a random factor to the energy/momentum and hence
broadens the linewidth. However, I haven't used
lasers in thirty years and never worked with very
short pulses so I'm guessing. Perhaps the paper will
clue me in a bit when I get a chance to read it.
George
bz
@news.freedom2surf.net:
>> On the other hand, if you have a narrow bandwidth beam of photons and you
>> 'chop' it, into small slices, mechanically, I am NOT sure that we would
>> generate sidebands, like 'normal' modulation would. [how does one photon
>> know that those ahead of it or behind it have been absorbed?]
>
> You were talking of pulse lengths of a couple
> of cycles.
Of LESS than a couple of cycles.
> Compared to laser coherence lengths
> of metres, we are talking of letting through
> a tiny sample of one photon :-)
I see no reason for a photon to be longer than one cycle.
Coherence length isn't the length of the photons, it tells us how big a chunk
of light is 'phase, frequency, polarization, coherent'.
It is in some sense 'the length of the cavity' or at least it is clearly
related to the length of the laser cavity. The longer the cavity, the longer
the coherence length.
My impression is that it usually represents the stimulated emission from a
single pass through the laser cavity.
> OK, since they are particles, the way I expect
> that to work is that you get a fractional
> probability that the photon makes it through
> the shutter.
Why do you think that a single photon must be longer than one cycle?
>> If we chopped it fine enough, we should have a single photon, of known
>> energy/wavelength/frequency. We would almost certainly NOT know its
>> exact position, however. I think time would be the expresion of
>> uncertanty.
>
> The relevant factors are dE*dt or dp*dx of course.
>
> If a shutter is used and is open for a very short
> time then you know t and x very accurately
If I don't know, within a small fraction of a cycle, when the photon is, then
I don't know 't' very accurately.
> so dE
> and dp become poorly defined. Of course both depend
> on the frequency of the photon so I expect a side
> effect of the shutter operation would be to scatter
> the photons that get through in some way that adds
> a random factor to the energy/momentum and hence
> broadens the linewidth. However, I haven't used
> lasers in thirty years and never worked with very
> short pulses so I'm guessing. Perhaps the paper will
> clue me in a bit when I get a chance to read it.
In the work we did with the optogalvanic effect induced by dye laser pulses
in plasma, we were not working with single photons, nor with extremely short
pulses. That was in the early 90s. I also worked with YAG and CO2 lasers in
the early 70s, using them to cut aluminum oxide and to adjust resistors to
value. One CO2 laser was 50 W, CW, the other was 500 W, CW. The yags were
much lower average power and pulsed.
There is a paper
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html#ref16
That I disagree with. They appear to believe that photons consist of
wavetrains that are millions of cycles long.
I see no reason for Radio Frequency Photons to be any different from light
photons as to the number of cycles per photon.
If that is true, *and* IF they were right THEN there would be no way for me
to key a 1.8 MHz transmitter at 30 wpm [where keying rate is about 12 dots
per second]. I know for a fact that transmitters opperating at much lower
frequencies (in the long wave marine band between 200 and 500 kHz) have been
operated with keying speed much higher than 30 wpm.
Since transmitters operating at much lower frequencies are regularly keyed at
much higher switching rates, their claims of millions of cycles per photon
[if RF and Light photons are similar] are clearly false.
George Dishman
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:db93ro$ogf$1
> @news.freedom2surf.net:
>
>>> On the other hand, if you have a narrow bandwidth beam of photons and
>>> you
>>> 'chop' it, into small slices, mechanically, I am NOT sure that we would
>>> generate sidebands, like 'normal' modulation would. [how does one photon
>>> know that those ahead of it or behind it have been absorbed?]
>>
>> You were talking of pulse lengths of a couple
>> of cycles.
>
> Of LESS than a couple of cycles.
>
>> Compared to laser coherence lengths
>> of metres, we are talking of letting through
>> a tiny sample of one photon :-)
>
> I see no reason for a photon to be longer than one cycle.
That was my original point. Interference effects
still exist when the path length is many wavelengths
and they affect the probability of a single photon
arriving at a location.
> Coherence length isn't the length of the photons, it tells us how big a
> chunk
> of light is 'phase, frequency, polarization, coherent'.
Yes, but it also affects single photons.
> It is in some sense 'the length of the cavity' or at least it is clearly
> related to the length of the laser cavity. The longer the cavity, the
> longer
> the coherence length.
>
> My impression is that it usually represents the stimulated emission from a
> single pass through the laser cavity.
I don't think lasers with 50m coherence are
necessarily 25m long.
> > OK, since they are particles, the way I expect
>> that to work is that you get a fractional
>> probability that the photon makes it through
>> the shutter.
>
> Why do you think that a single photon must be longer than one cycle?
I think it is a 'point' particle (which might
be a string at the planck length).
However I also know that a single photon in
the double slit experiment has a negligible
probability of hitting a point where the
path difference is 10.5 wavelengths if the
coherence length is 1000 wavelengths.
>>> If we chopped it fine enough, we should have a single photon, of known
>>> energy/wavelength/frequency. We would almost certainly NOT know its
>>> exact position, however. I think time would be the expresion of
>>> uncertanty.
>>
>> The relevant factors are dE*dt or dp*dx of course.
>>
>> If a shutter is used and is open for a very short
>> time then you know t and x very accurately
>
> If I don't know, within a small fraction of a cycle, when the photon is,
> then
> I don't know 't' very accurately.
"very accurately" is not well defined ;-) The
smaller dt or dx, the larger dE or dp, but
Planck's Constant is very small.
>> so dE
>> and dp become poorly defined. Of course both depend
>> on the frequency of the photon so I expect a side
>> effect of the shutter operation would be to scatter
>> the photons that get through in some way that adds
>> a random factor to the energy/momentum and hence
>> broadens the linewidth. However, I haven't used
>> lasers in thirty years and never worked with very
>> short pulses so I'm guessing. Perhaps the paper will
>> clue me in a bit when I get a chance to read it.
>
> In the work we did with the optogalvanic effect induced by dye laser
> pulses
> in plasma, we were not working with single photons, nor with extremely
> short
> pulses. That was in the early 90s. I also worked with YAG and CO2 lasers
> in
> the early 70s, using them to cut aluminum oxide and to adjust resistors to
> value.
Neat, I used matched pairs of laser trimmed devices
in an instrumentation amp design many years ago.
> One CO2 laser was 50 W, CW, the other was 500 W, CW. The yags were
> much lower average power and pulsed.
>
> There is a paper
> http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html#ref16
> That I disagree with. They appear to believe that photons consist of
> wavetrains that are millions of cycles long.
Fascinating. It's something I'll have to study
a bit though. Thanks again!
> I see no reason for Radio Frequency Photons to be any different from light
> photons as to the number of cycles per photon.
>
> If that is true, *and* IF they were right THEN there would be no way for
> me
> to key a 1.8 MHz transmitter at 30 wpm [where keying rate is about 12 dots
> per second].
Pardon? Data at 12 dots per second is only 24Hz so
could be transmitted on a 30Hz carrier never mind
anything in the MHz. Have you lost a factor of 10^6?
> I know for a fact that transmitters opperating at much lower
> frequencies (in the long wave marine band between 200 and 500 kHz) have
> been
> operated with keying speed much higher than 30 wpm.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/scmp/part07.htm
"The ELF frequencies used, in the 40–80 Hz range, were
selected for their long range signal propagation (i.e.,
global) and ability to penetrate seawater to depths
several hundred feet below the surface."
It is keyed I believe fairly slowly but the
VLF systems are keyed at 50bps and in theory
so could the ELF although the BER would be
dreadful (25Hz modulation on a 40Hz carrier
giving a band from 15Hz to 65Hz).
> Since transmitters operating at much lower frequencies are regularly keyed
> at
> much higher switching rates, their claims of millions of cycles per photon
> [if RF and Light photons are similar] are clearly false.
Shannon's Theorem requires a certain bandwidth
to convey the data. Bandwidth translates to
uncertainty of the energy of any particular
photon so knowing 't' to the accuracy of a bit
duration (the photon is transmitted when the
key is on) limits knowledge of the energy but
roughly to the same as the bandwidth.
Basically I am saying Shannon's Theorem in
the classical view is related to Heisenberg's
Uncertainty in the quantum view, though that
sounds rather grandiose.
George
George Dishman
I don't know how, I only know it does for the
reason above, interference effects affect the
probability of photon distribution even with
multi-wavelength path differences.
>>> It is in some sense 'the length of the cavity' or at least it is
>>> clearly related to the length of the laser cavity. The longer the
>>> cavity, the longer
>>> the coherence length.
>>>
>>> My impression is that it usually represents the stimulated emission
>>> from a single pass through the laser cavity.
>>
>> I don't think lasers with 50m coherence are
>> necessarily 25m long.
>
> Of course not.
Then I misunderstood what you meant when you
said coherence length "usually represents the
stimulated emission from a single pass through
the laser cavity.". Even a two way pass would
need a cavity half the coherence length.
> The cavity with mirrors happens to be [is carefully adjusted
> to be] the right length so that photons can make several trips. Thermal
> instability, vibrations, and probably many other effects reduce the
> coherence length from infinity. I would imagine that whenever a
> spontainious decay takes place, throwing in a photon that is traveling in
> the right direction but out of coherence with the current crowd of
> photons,
> the odd photon starts picking up 'buddies'.
>
> The probability of this happening will determine the average coherence
> length.
I don't see a problem with that though my
knowledge is limited.
>>> > OK, since they are particles, the way I expect
>>>> that to work is that you get a fractional
>>>> probability that the photon makes it through
>>>> the shutter.
>>>
>>> Why do you think that a single photon must be longer than one cycle?
>>
>> I think it is a 'point' particle (which might
>> be a string at the planck length).
>>
>> However I also know that a single photon in
>> the double slit experiment has a negligible
>> probability of hitting a point where the
>> path difference is 10.5 wavelengths if the
>> coherence length is 1000 wavelengths.
>
> How do you define coherence length for a photon?
I'm not sure you can, but you can define the
average coherence length for a stream. It would
suggest be something like the path length
difference at which the probability function
was reduced by a certain amount. Think of the
point in an interference pattern where the
contrast ratio between light and dark fringes
is half the central value. It takes more than
one photon to produce a distribution of course.
> Is your statement from experimental data? I would like to read about the
> experiment.
Nothing special, this is the first hit I got
on Google:
> I think that there may be some effect due to the thermal phonons of the
> slits interacting with the electron clouds at the edge of the slit and
> deflecting photons passing close to the edge.
Could be, I'm not saying I know the mechanism
but experiments like that above tell us
something about single photons that seems to
contradict the idea that it can be a single
cycle or something close to that.
>>> I see no reason for Radio Frequency Photons to be any different from
>>> light photons as to the number of cycles per photon.
>>>
>>> If that is true, *and* IF they were right THEN there would be no way
>>> for me
>>> to key a 1.8 MHz transmitter at 30 wpm [where keying rate is about 12
>>> dots per second].
>>
>> Pardon? Data at 12 dots per second is only 24Hz so
>> could be transmitted on a 30Hz carrier
>
> Right. But look at the size of a 30 Hz photon!
>
> The idea was to falsify their thesis that photons were 'millions of cycles
> long'. At 1.8 MHz each dot is 74000 cycles long. Much less than
> 'millions'.
>
>> never mind anything in the MHz. Have you lost a factor of 10^6?
>
> No, just falsifying their thesis. Putting an upper bound on photon size,
> direct from my own 160 meter transmitter.
Ah, I get it. For my argument you would need
very large slits! However I agree with what
you say above, radio photons have to behave
the same as light so I think a pure CW signal
would give many fringes in the interference
pattern but keying it with a PRBS would
eliminate the fringes when the path length
difference to a receiving antenna via the
slits is comparable to the wavelength of
the keying rate.
>> Shannon's Theorem requires a certain bandwidth
>> to convey the data. Bandwidth translates to
>> uncertainty of the energy of any particular
>> photon so knowing 't' to the accuracy of a bit
>> duration (the photon is transmitted when the
>> key is on) limits knowledge of the energy but
>> roughly to the same as the bandwidth.
>>
>> Basically I am saying Shannon's Theorem in
>> the classical view is related to Heisenberg's
>> Uncertainty in the quantum view, though that
>> sounds rather grandiose.
>
> That sounds rather reasonable to me. I bet they have been compared before.
>
> We should be able to place a rather specific upper bound on photon length
> from ELF keying rate information. Of course, ELF communications might be
> considered as 'nearfield' and thus the creation of actual 3747 km long
> photons might not be very efficient.
I still think it's easier with a laser, doing
Young's Slits at ELF presents some interesting
engineering challenges if we are to observe the
contrast ratio from the centre to a million
fringes either side :-o
George
bz
I thought that the distribution of the double slit pattern depended on the
wavelength of the photon, not the coherence length of the laser. One can even
get a double slit pattern from an incoherent source, such as a lightbulb with
a band pass filter.
I know of one place that coherence length is important: laser holography. I
wanted to build a color holographic camera, using 3 laser diodes. During the
research I did on that project I found that it would be useless for taking
holographic pictures of anything at a distance greater than the coherence
length of the diodes. This ruled out a portable color camera.
I still am not sure that the coherence length effects interference patterns
for single photon experiments.
>>>> It is in some sense 'the length of the cavity' or at least it is
>>>> clearly related to the length of the laser cavity. The longer the
>>>> cavity, the longer
>>>> the coherence length.
>>>>
>>>> My impression is that it usually represents the stimulated emission
>>>> from a single pass through the laser cavity.
>>>
>>> I don't think lasers with 50m coherence are
>>> necessarily 25m long.
>>
>> Of course not.
>
> Then I misunderstood what you meant when you
> said coherence length "usually represents the
> stimulated emission from a single pass through
> the laser cavity.". Even a two way pass would
> need a cavity half the coherence length.
http://www.holo.com/holo/book/book6&7.html
>> The cavity with mirrors happens to be [is carefully adjusted
>> to be] the right length so that photons can make several trips. Thermal
>> instability, vibrations, and probably many other effects reduce the
>> coherence length from infinity. I would imagine that whenever a
>> spontainious decay takes place, throwing in a photon that is traveling
>> in the right direction but out of coherence with the current crowd of
>> photons,
>> the odd photon starts picking up 'buddies'.
>>
>> The probability of this happening will determine the average coherence
>> length.
>
> I don't see a problem with that though my
> knowledge is limited.
By the way, did you know that you [anyone] can build a lensless, laser that
uses the nitrogen in the air at atmospheric pressure?
http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/lasercn2.htm
>>>> > OK, since they are particles, the way I expect
>>>>> that to work is that you get a fractional
>>>>> probability that the photon makes it through
>>>>> the shutter.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think that a single photon must be longer than one cycle?
>>>
>>> I think it is a 'point' particle (which might
>>> be a string at the planck length).
>>>
>>> However I also know that a single photon in
>>> the double slit experiment has a negligible
>>> probability of hitting a point where the
>>> path difference is 10.5 wavelengths if the
>>> coherence length is 1000 wavelengths.
>>
>> How do you define coherence length for a photon?
>
> I'm not sure you can, but you can define the
> average coherence length for a stream.
right.
> It would
> suggest be something like the path length
> difference at which the probability function
> was reduced by a certain amount. Think of the
> point in an interference pattern where the
> contrast ratio between light and dark fringes
> is half the central value. It takes more than
> one photon to produce a distribution of course.
At least two? :) [quite a few more]
>> Is your statement from experimental data? I would like to read about
>> the experiment.
>
> Nothing special, this is the first hit I got
> on Google:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cknu7
a good dual slit, single photon experiment but I see nothing about coherence
length having an effect on the pattern.
>
>> I think that there may be some effect due to the thermal phonons of the
>> slits interacting with the electron clouds at the edge of the slit and
>> deflecting photons passing close to the edge.
>
> Could be, I'm not saying I know the mechanism
> but experiments like that above tell us
> something about single photons that seems to
> contradict the idea that it can be a single
> cycle or something close to that.
Unless, in passing through the slit, it influences the various vibrations in
the structures of the slits, kind of like seismic waves, passing through the
earth, cause measurable effects at a distance.
Single photon RF experiments should produce similar results to single photon
light experiments. A single photon, at say 100 GHz, is 0.3 cm in wavelength.
It has 6.6e-23 joules of energy (making it hard to detect one, but perhaps in
a cryogenic chamber, it could be done).
A 5 mW transmitter puts out 7.5e19 photons per second. In a single cycle,
7.54e8 photons are emitted at that power level.
Assuming we could switch the transmitter on and off (or switch antenna and
dummy load) at zero crossing, fast enough to pass only 1 cycle to the
antenna, we would need to switch at a 10 ps interval.
That should be possible. At 5 mW, it should give us 7.5e8 photons that are
frequency and phase coherent, and, I predict, no keying transients.
In any case, we should be able to determine the maximum length of a photon.
>>> Shannon's Theorem requires a certain bandwidth
>>> to convey the data. Bandwidth translates to
>>> uncertainty of the energy of any particular
>>> photon so knowing 't' to the accuracy of a bit
>>> duration (the photon is transmitted when the
>>> key is on) limits knowledge of the energy but
>>> roughly to the same as the bandwidth.
>>>
>>> Basically I am saying Shannon's Theorem in
>>> the classical view is related to Heisenberg's
>>> Uncertainty in the quantum view, though that
>>> sounds rather grandiose.
>>
>> That sounds rather reasonable to me. I bet they have been compared
>> before.
>>
>> We should be able to place a rather specific upper bound on photon
>> length from ELF keying rate information. Of course, ELF communications
>> might be considered as 'nearfield' and thus the creation of actual 3747
>> km long photons might not be very efficient.
>
> I still think it's easier with a laser, doing
> Young's Slits at ELF presents some interesting
> engineering challenges if we are to observe the
> contrast ratio from the centre to a million
> fringes either side :-o
Even if we lived on Jupiter, it would be difficult to do.
We need to do that one in interstellar space.
Even at a slightly more manageable size, like 3 millimeter microwaves, it
would present some problems. But it would be interesting to try.
:)
Paul B. Andersen
> Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".
>
> If a remote light source emits a pulse of light towards a target observer
> moving relatively at v1, then, from the point of view of a third observer O3,
> the 'closing speed' of that pulse towards the first observer is c+v1.
>
> For another target observer moving at v2, the closing speed is seen as c+v2.
> Here is the experimental setup:
>
> S_._._._._._._.>p_._._._._._._.v1<T1_._._
> v2<T2
>
>
>
> O3
>
> O3 sets up a line of equally separated clocks which measure the speed of a
> light pulse emitted by S towards T1 and T2. O3 also measures the speed of T1
> and T2 towards S. The readings enable him to calculate the different 'closing
> speeds' between the pulse and T1 and the pulse and T2.
>
> I understand that SRians agree on this.
>
> The principle of relativity says it matters not whether the source or target is
> considered as moving. Therefore, the above considerations hold just as well for
> differently moving sources.
>
> Thus, for a particular target, the 'closing speed' of light from relatively
> moving sources is c+v3, c+v4, etc., as seen by O3.
>
> Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit.
> From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have
> different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit
> plane is normal).
> For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical
> pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend to
> catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will detect
> bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast pulses
> will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes.
>
> Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will receive
> pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, in
> reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) star in
> orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that will
> depend on the distance to the star.
>
> There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular
> brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my
> variable star simulation program:
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
We both know that you have tested your program only once,
namely on HD80715.
What was the result, Henri?
Everybody, notice his answer. :-)
> Note: Einstein's unproven claim that the target observer will always MEASURE
> the speed of the incoming pulses as being c is completely irrelevant to this
> argument.
>
> The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether frames'
> may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light speeds.
>
>
>
>
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
No progress, then.
Paul
Henri Wilson
The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by
SR.
How COULD it be wrong?
Paul B. Andersen
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:44:08 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular
>>>brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my
>>>variable star simulation program:
>>>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
>>
>>We both know that you have tested your program only once,
>>namely on HD80715.
>>What was the result, Henri?
>>
>>Everybody, notice his answer. :-)
>
>
> The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by
> SR.
> How COULD it be wrong?
See? :-)
Henri Wilson won't tell us what the result was
the one time he tested his program with measured data
of a known binary.
Paul
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave.
Aristotle
>>> The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by
>>> SR.
>>> How COULD it be wrong?
>>
>>See? :-)
>>
>>Henri Wilson won't tell us what the result was
>>the one time he tested his program with measured data
>>of a known binary.
>
>All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave.
And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician?
You sure duck questions like one.
George Dishman
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:dbdc1o$4iu$1...@news.freedom2surf.net:
>> "bz" <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96955C8D67634WQ...@130.39.198.139...
>>> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>>> news:dbaq26$9sc$1...@news.freedom2surf.net:
>>>
>>>> Yes, but it also affects single photons.
>>>
>>> How?
>>
>> I don't know how, I only know it does for the
>> reason above, interference effects affect the
>> probability of photon distribution even with
>> multi-wavelength path differences.
>
> I thought that the distribution of the double slit pattern depended on the
> wavelength of the photon, not the coherence length of the laser.
The spacing between indiviual fringes depends
on the wavelength. The extent of the screen
over which the fringes have good contrast ratio
depends on the coherence length. I found this:
http://marcus.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/inter/inter.html
You might find the link to the presentation
interesting, but the red graph on that page
illustrates what I mean, the variation from
peak to trough reduces as you go further from
the zero difference point. Eventually, when
the path difference is much more than the
coherence length, the two beams are unrelated
and you get uniform illumination.
> One can even
> get a double slit pattern from an incoherent source, such as a lightbulb
> with
> a band pass filter.
Yes, and the narrower the filter, the wider
the region showing fringes.
> I know of one place that coherence length is important: laser holography.
> I
> wanted to build a color holographic camera, using 3 laser diodes. During
> the
> research I did on that project I found that it would be useless for taking
> holographic pictures of anything at a distance greater than the coherence
> length of the diodes. This ruled out a portable color camera.
The key factor is path length difference. If
you send the reference beam through a coil of
fibre, the coherence length would affect the
distance but the depth of field. You will get
good contrast if the difference betwen the coil
length and twice the distance to the subject is
less than the coherence length.
> I still am not sure that the coherence length effects interference
> patterns
> for single photon experiments.
See the link above.
> http://www.holo.com/holo/book/book6&7.html
Thanks, another useful link.
> By the way, did you know that you [anyone] can build a lensless, laser
> that
> uses the nitrogen in the air at atmospheric pressure?
> http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/lasercn2.htm
I haven't seen it done with N2 but the guys on the
next bench to me in my final year were doing the
same with CO2. They got the basics working by
breathing through a tube into the cavity :-)
[quote restored]
>>>> However I also know that a single photon in
>>>> the double slit experiment has a negligible
>>>> probability of hitting a point where the
>>>> path difference is 10.5 wavelengths if the
>>>> coherence length is 1000 wavelengths.
...
>>> Is your statement from experimental data? I would like to read about
>>> the experiment.
>>
>> Nothing special, this is the first hit I got
>> on Google:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/cknu7
>
> a good dual slit, single photon experiment but I see nothing about
> coherence
> length having an effect on the pattern.
No, I was just saying that a photon cannot be
considered to be like a small train of waves
(e.g. less than a few wavelengths) if it can
interfere with itself with a path difference
of many wavelengths. Coherence length only
creates an upper limit which is specific to
the experiemnt.
>>> I think that there may be some effect due to the thermal phonons of the
>>> slits interacting with the electron clouds at the edge of the slit and
>>> deflecting photons passing close to the edge.
>>
>> Could be, I'm not saying I know the mechanism
>> but experiments like that above tell us
>> something about single photons that seems to
>> contradict the idea that it can be a single
>> cycle or something close to that.
>
> Unless, in passing through the slit, it influences the various vibrations
> in
> the structures of the slits, kind of like seismic waves, passing through
> the
> earth, cause measurable effects at a distance.
Again, I will decline to speculate. I think
QED would provide an answer but I don't know
what it is.
> Single photon RF experiments should produce similar results to single
> photon
> light experiments. A single photon, at say 100 GHz, is 0.3 cm in
> wavelength.
> It has 6.6e-23 joules of energy (making it hard to detect one, but perhaps
> in
> a cryogenic chamber, it could be done).
>
> A 5 mW transmitter puts out 7.5e19 photons per second. In a single cycle,
> 7.54e8 photons are emitted at that power level.
>
> Assuming we could switch the transmitter on and off (or switch antenna and
> dummy load) at zero crossing, fast enough to pass only 1 cycle to the
> antenna, we would need to switch at a 10 ps interval.
>
> That should be possible. At 5 mW, it should give us 7.5e8 photons that are
> frequency and phase coherent, and, I predict, no keying transients.
>
> In any case, we should be able to determine the maximum length of a
> photon.
I think I would be tempted to switch a current
through a communications laser diode to do this
at reasonable cost. The higher energy reduces
the number of photons per mW and current can be
easily controlled. The harder part would be the
detector, PMT's are expensive.
George
bz
Interesting, for sure.
>
>> One can even
>> get a double slit pattern from an incoherent source, such as a
>> lightbulb with
>> a band pass filter.
>
> Yes, and the narrower the filter, the wider
> the region showing fringes.
Sounds like it should be related to information theory and s/n ratios
Narrower bandwidth, better signal to noise ratio.
>> I know of one place that coherence length is important: laser
>> holography. I
>> wanted to build a color holographic camera, using 3 laser diodes.
>> During the
>> research I did on that project I found that it would be useless for
>> taking holographic pictures of anything at a distance greater than the
>> coherence length of the diodes. This ruled out a portable color camera.
>
> The key factor is path length difference. If
> you send the reference beam through a coil of
> fibre, the coherence length would [not] affect the
> distance but the depth of field. You will get
> good contrast if the difference betwen the coil
> length and twice the distance to the subject is
> less than the coherence length.
hmmmm. Path length difference. Interesting.
Still, most laser diodes have rather short coherence lengths (on the order
of a few hundred micrometers), giving a rather shallow depth of field. In
1997 'Long coherence length Laser diodes' meant 'several centimeters'.
http://omlc.ogi.edu/news/dec97/pclaser.html
>> I still am not sure that the coherence length effects interference
>> patterns for single photon experiments.
>
> See the link above.
>
>> http://www.holo.com/holo/book/book6&7.html
>
> Thanks, another useful link.
>
>> By the way, did you know that you [anyone] can build a lensless, laser
>> that uses the nitrogen in the air at atmospheric pressure?
>> http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/lasercn2.htm
>
> I haven't seen it done with N2 but the guys on the
> next bench to me in my final year were doing the
> same with CO2. They got the basics working by
> breathing through a tube into the cavity :-)
I was in college in the mid 60's and tried to help a kid with his high
school science project, he built a HeNe laser but we never could get it to
lase. That was my first experience with lasers.
> [quote restored]
>>>>> However I also know that a single photon in
>>>>> the double slit experiment has a negligible
>>>>> probability of hitting a point where the
>>>>> path difference is 10.5 wavelengths if the
>>>>> coherence length is 1000 wavelengths.
> ...
>>>> Is your statement from experimental data? I would like to read about
>>>> the experiment.
>>>
>>> Nothing special, this is the first hit I got
>>> on Google:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/cknu7
>>
>> a good dual slit, single photon experiment but I see nothing about
>> coherence
>> length having an effect on the pattern.
>
> No, I was just saying that a photon cannot be
> considered to be like a small train of waves
> (e.g. less than a few wavelengths) if it can
> interfere with itself with a path difference
> of many wavelengths. Coherence length only
> creates an upper limit which is specific to
> the experiemnt.
Minimum pulse lengths of ~ 1 cycle and single photon, dual slot
interference patterns present an interesting challenge to the models for
photons.
>>>> I think that there may be some effect due to the thermal phonons of
>>>> the slits interacting with the electron clouds at the edge of the
>>>> slit and deflecting photons passing close to the edge.
>>>
>>> Could be, I'm not saying I know the mechanism
>>> but experiments like that above tell us
>>> something about single photons that seems to
>>> contradict the idea that it can be a single
>>> cycle or something close to that.
>>
>> Unless, in passing through the slit, it influences the various
>> vibrations in
>> the structures of the slits, kind of like seismic waves, passing
>> through the
>> earth, cause measurable effects at a distance.
>
> Again, I will decline to speculate. I think
> QED would provide an answer but I don't know
> what it is.
I have reservations about Feynman's multipath theory.
>> Single photon RF experiments should produce similar results to single
>> photon
>> light experiments. A single photon, at say 100 GHz, is 0.3 cm in
>> wavelength.
>> It has 6.6e-23 joules of energy (making it hard to detect one, but
>> perhaps in
>> a cryogenic chamber, it could be done).
>>
>> A 5 mW transmitter puts out 7.5e19 photons per second. In a single
>> cycle, 7.54e8 photons are emitted at that power level.
>>
>> Assuming we could switch the transmitter on and off (or switch antenna
>> and dummy load) at zero crossing, fast enough to pass only 1 cycle to
>> the antenna, we would need to switch at a 10 ps interval.
>>
>> That should be possible. At 5 mW, it should give us 7.5e8 photons that
>> are frequency and phase coherent, and, I predict, no keying transients.
>>
>> In any case, we should be able to determine the maximum length of a
>> photon.
> I think I would be tempted to switch a current
> through a communications laser diode to do this
> at reasonable cost.
But up in frequency mean the time resolution/switching speeds need to
increase.
> The higher energy reduces
> the number of photons per mW and current can be
> easily controlled. The harder part would be the
> detector, PMT's are expensive.
CCD detectors, such as in a video camera, are very sensitive now.
bz
How?
>
>> It is in some sense 'the length of the cavity' or at least it is
>> clearly related to the length of the laser cavity. The longer the
>> cavity, the longer
>> the coherence length.
>>
>> My impression is that it usually represents the stimulated emission
>> from a single pass through the laser cavity.
>
> I don't think lasers with 50m coherence are
> necessarily 25m long.
Of course not. The cavity with mirrors happens to be [is carefully adjusted
to be] the right length so that photons can make several trips. Thermal
instability, vibrations, and probably many other effects reduce the
coherence length from infinity. I would imagine that whenever a
spontainious decay takes place, throwing in a photon that is traveling in
the right direction but out of coherence with the current crowd of photons,
the odd photon starts picking up 'buddies'.
The probability of this happening will determine the average coherence
length.
>
>> > OK, since they are particles, the way I expect
>>> that to work is that you get a fractional
>>> probability that the photon makes it through
>>> the shutter.
>>
>> Why do you think that a single photon must be longer than one cycle?
>
> I think it is a 'point' particle (which might
> be a string at the planck length).
>
> However I also know that a single photon in
> the double slit experiment has a negligible
> probability of hitting a point where the
> path difference is 10.5 wavelengths if the
> coherence length is 1000 wavelengths.
How do you define coherence length for a photon?
Is your statement from experimental data? I would like to read about the
experiment.
I think that there may be some effect due to the thermal phonons of the
slits interacting with the electron clouds at the edge of the slit and
deflecting photons passing close to the edge.
>>>> If we chopped it fine enough, we should have a single photon, of
>>>> known energy/wavelength/frequency. We would almost certainly NOT know
>>>> its exact position, however. I think time would be the expresion of
>>>> uncertanty.
>>>
>>> The relevant factors are dE*dt or dp*dx of course.
>>>
>>> If a shutter is used and is open for a very short
>>> time then you know t and x very accurately
>>
>> If I don't know, within a small fraction of a cycle, when the photon
>> is, then
>> I don't know 't' very accurately.
>
> "very accurately" is not well defined ;-) The
> smaller dt or dx, the larger dE or dp, but
> Planck's Constant is very small.
Right. :)
>>> so dE
>>> and dp become poorly defined. Of course both depend
>>> on the frequency of the photon so I expect a side
>>> effect of the shutter operation would be to scatter
>>> the photons that get through in some way that adds
>>> a random factor to the energy/momentum and hence
>>> broadens the linewidth. However, I haven't used
>>> lasers in thirty years and never worked with very
>>> short pulses so I'm guessing. Perhaps the paper will
>>> clue me in a bit when I get a chance to read it.
>>
>> In the work we did with the optogalvanic effect induced by dye laser
>> pulses in plasma, we were not working with single photons, nor with
>> extremely short pulses. That was in the early 90s. I also worked with
>> YAG and CO2 lasers in the early 70s, using them to cut aluminum oxide
>> and to adjust resistors to value.
>
> Neat, I used matched pairs of laser trimmed devices
> in an instrumentation amp design many years ago.
We did active trimming of some of the resistors we made at Sprague,
trimming until the pulse width or gain or whatever was correct.
>> One CO2 laser was 50 W, CW, the other was 500 W, CW. The yags were
>> much lower average power and pulsed.
>>
>> There is a paper
>> http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html#ref16
>> That I disagree with. They appear to believe that photons consist of
>> wavetrains that are millions of cycles long.
>
> Fascinating. It's something I'll have to study
> a bit though. Thanks again!
>
>> I see no reason for Radio Frequency Photons to be any different from
>> light photons as to the number of cycles per photon.
>>
>> If that is true, *and* IF they were right THEN there would be no way
>> for me
>> to key a 1.8 MHz transmitter at 30 wpm [where keying rate is about 12
>> dots per second].
>
> Pardon? Data at 12 dots per second is only 24Hz so
> could be transmitted on a 30Hz carrier
Right. But look at the size of a 30 Hz photon!
The idea was to falsify their thesis that photons were 'millions of cycles
long'. At 1.8 MHz each dot is 74000 cycles long. Much less than 'millions'.
> never mind anything in the MHz. Have you lost a factor of 10^6?
No, just falsifying their thesis. Putting an upper bound on photon size,
direct from my own 160 meter transmitter.
>> I know for a fact that transmitters opperating at much lower
>> frequencies (in the long wave marine band between 200 and 500 kHz) have
>> been
>> operated with keying speed much higher than 30 wpm.
>
> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/scmp/part07.htm
>
> "The ELF frequencies used, in the 40–80 Hz range, were
> selected for their long range signal propagation (i.e.,
> global) and ability to penetrate seawater to depths
> several hundred feet below the surface."
>
> It is keyed I believe fairly slowly but the
> VLF systems are keyed at 50bps and in theory
> so could the ELF although the BER would be
> dreadful (25Hz modulation on a 40Hz carrier
> giving a band from 15Hz to 65Hz).
I have heard stories of what can happen when they try to key the ELF
transmitter at a high keying rate. The antenna swr goes up rapidly as you
get away from its design frequency. When you have millions of watts of
power, they have to carefully shape the keying waveform, or all hell breaks
loose.
>> Since transmitters operating at much lower frequencies are regularly
>> keyed at
>> much higher switching rates, their claims of millions of cycles per
>> photon [if RF and Light photons are similar] are clearly false.
>
> Shannon's Theorem requires a certain bandwidth
> to convey the data. Bandwidth translates to
> uncertainty of the energy of any particular
> photon so knowing 't' to the accuracy of a bit
> duration (the photon is transmitted when the
> key is on) limits knowledge of the energy but
> roughly to the same as the bandwidth.
>
> Basically I am saying Shannon's Theorem in
> the classical view is related to Heisenberg's
> Uncertainty in the quantum view, though that
> sounds rather grandiose.
That sounds rather reasonable to me. I bet they have been compared before.
We should be able to place a rather specific upper bound on photon length
from ELF keying rate information. Of course, ELF communications might be
considered as 'nearfield' and thus the creation of actual 3747 km long
photons might not be very efficient.
geo...@briar.demon.co.uk
bz wrote:
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:dbman7$372$1...@news.freedom2surf.net:
<much snipped>
> > The key factor is path length difference. If
> > you send the reference beam through a coil of
> > fibre, the coherence length would [not] affect the
> > distance but the depth of field. You will get
> > good contrast if the difference betwen the coil
> > length and twice the distance to the subject is
> > less than the coherence length.
>
> hmmmm. Path length difference. Interesting.
>
> Still, most laser diodes have rather short coherence lengths (on the order
> of a few hundred micrometers), giving a rather shallow depth of field. In
> 1997 'Long coherence length Laser diodes' meant 'several centimeters'.
> http://omlc.ogi.edu/news/dec97/pclaser.html
It doesn't seem to have improved much but it
would perhaps allow 3D filming of say insect
flight with a depth of field of a few cm at
a range of say 1m.
<more snpped>
> > Again, I will decline to speculate. I think
> > QED would provide an answer but I don't know
> > what it is.
>
> I have reservations about Feynman's multipath theory.
It illustrates well how science need not provide
understandable explanations. It works, just turn
the handle and get the numbers, but thinking about
the philosophical implications can be hazardous!
> > I think I would be tempted to switch a current
> > through a communications laser diode to do this
> > at reasonable cost.
>
> But up in frequency mean the time resolution/switching speeds need to
> increase.
Higher carrier frequency means a lower photon
rate for the same power hence lower switching
speeds to select a single photon. It would be
possible to measure the bandwidth of a laser
diode with coherence length in the cm range
going through a shutter which was open for say
1 microsecond at a repetition rate of 10 kHz
with a photon rate of a few hundred per second.
The chances of getting two photons during an
opening would be low but the shutter would be
open for a time much longer than the "duration"
of a single photon.
Then change to a shutter open time around 10ps
and see if the bandwidth increases. The photon
"length" should be 30ps per cm of coherence so
selecting only part of the photon should increase
the bandwidth if I am right.
> > The higher energy reduces
> > the number of photons per mW and current can be
> > easily controlled. The harder part would be the
> > detector, PMT's are expensive.
>
> CCD detectors, such as in a video camera, are very sensitive now.
That and a decent diffraction grating would do it
but I guess the CCD would need to be cooled.
George
bz
news:1121948586....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> bz wrote:
>> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:dbman7$372$1...@news.freedom2surf.net:
>
> <much snipped>
>> > The key factor is path length difference. If
>> > you send the reference beam through a coil of
>> > fibre, the coherence length would [not] affect the
>> > distance but the depth of field. You will get
>> > good contrast if the difference betwen the coil
>> > length and twice the distance to the subject is
>> > less than the coherence length.
>>
>> hmmmm. Path length difference. Interesting.
>>
>> Still, most laser diodes have rather short coherence lengths (on the
>> order of a few hundred micrometers), giving a rather shallow depth of
>> field. In 1997 'Long coherence length Laser diodes' meant 'several
>> centimeters'. http://omlc.ogi.edu/news/dec97/pclaser.html
>
> It doesn't seem to have improved much but it
> would perhaps allow 3D filming of say insect
> flight with a depth of field of a few cm at
> a range of say 1m.
That would be interesting, especially in color.
>
> <more snpped>
>> > Again, I will decline to speculate. I think
>> > QED would provide an answer but I don't know
>> > what it is.
>>
>> I have reservations about Feynman's multipath theory.
>
> It illustrates well how science need not provide
> understandable explanations. It works, just turn
> the handle and get the numbers, but thinking about
> the philosophical implications can be hazardous!
I have a hard time integrating it into my personality.
>> > I think I would be tempted to switch a current
>> > through a communications laser diode to do this
>> > at reasonable cost.
>>
>> But up in frequency mean the time resolution/switching speeds need to
>> increase.
>
> Higher carrier frequency means a lower photon
> rate for the same power hence lower switching
> speeds to select a single photon.
The way to test the photon 'length' is by switching times on the
order of the expected time for the expected number of cycles per photon.
> It would be
> possible to measure the bandwidth of a laser
> diode with coherence length in the cm range
> going through a shutter which was open for say
> 1 microsecond at a repetition rate of 10 kHz
> with a photon rate of a few hundred per second.
That would tell us nothing about the length of the photons.
We can already get single photons by attenuating the beam intensity.
Besides, spectrum analysis is done, every day, on fiber optical lasers.
We know that for switching speeds used for gigabit data rates, the
bandwidths needed are consistent with information theory.
We need to push the envelope, so to speak, and see what happens with VERY
narrow pulses, so narrow that they can only contain a single cycle.
> The chances of getting two photons during an
> opening would be low but the shutter would be
> open for a time much longer than the "duration"
> of a single photon.
>
> Then change to a shutter open time around 10ps
> and see if the bandwidth increases. The photon
> "length" should be 30ps per cm of coherence so
> selecting only part of the photon should increase
> the bandwidth if I am right.
Selecting only part of the photon should either (1) produce no output
or (2) produce a photon with less energy, since part of its energy has
been absorbed.
(1) is consistent with Einstein. (2) would blow all kinds of holes in
quantum electro dynamics unless it could be shown to be consistent with
the compton effect.
>> > The higher energy reduces
>> > the number of photons per mW and current can be
>> > easily controlled. The harder part would be the
>> > detector, PMT's are expensive.
>>
>> CCD detectors, such as in a video camera, are very sensitive now.
>
> That and a decent diffraction grating would do it
> but I guess the CCD would need to be cooled.
We used Peltier coolers to cool the PMTubes in our NOx monitors, back when
I did instrument repair for a division of Borg Warner.
On the other hand, liquid nitrogen is pretty cheap. Liquid He is a bit
pricy. But I could 'borrow a cup' of either as we use both in our
building.
[aside: when the new superconductor magnet for our new 700 MHz NMR was
being brought up to field, they had a quench incident that boiled off 2000
litres of liquid helium in a few seconds. The fog in the air set off the
fire alarms and cleared the building.]
Henri Wilson
I have answered Andersen's question so many times that he has even forgotten
what the question was.
Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical
'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish.
George Dishman
> "geo...@briar.demon.co.uk" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:1121948586....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>> It would be
>> possible to measure the bandwidth of a laser
>> diode with coherence length in the cm range
>> going through a shutter which was open for say
>> 1 microsecond at a repetition rate of 10 kHz
>> with a photon rate of a few hundred per second.
>
> That would tell us nothing about the length of the photons.
> We can already get single photons by attenuating the beam intensity.
>
> Besides, spectrum analysis is done, every day, on fiber optical lasers.
> We know that for switching speeds used for gigabit data rates, the
> bandwidths needed are consistent with information theory.
Indeed, I was outlining the control experiment.
> We need to push the envelope, so to speak, and see what happens with VERY
> narrow pulses, so narrow that they can only contain a single cycle.
Single cycle might be beyond the technology
but chopping within the coherence length is
achievable.
>> The chances of getting two photons during an
>> opening would be low but the shutter would be
>> open for a time much longer than the "duration"
>> of a single photon.
>>
>> Then change to a shutter open time around 10ps
>> and see if the bandwidth increases. The photon
>> "length" should be 30ps per cm of coherence so
>> selecting only part of the photon should increase
>> the bandwidth if I am right.
>
> Selecting only part of the photon should either (1) produce no output
> or (2) produce a photon with less energy, since part of its energy has
> been absorbed.
>
> (1) is consistent with Einstein. (2) would blow all kinds of holes in
> quantum electro dynamics unless it could be shown to be consistent with
> the compton effect.
(1) A gate of 10ps at 10kHz should allow through
100 photons per billion so the intensity would
be reduced by that factor. The laser intensity
could be increased to partly compensate as long
as the probability of two photons per gate
remains negligible.
(2) My expectation is that the mean photon energy
would not change but the spread would increase.
A coherence length of say 3cm is 100ps or a
bandwidth of 20 GHz (both sidebands). Chopping
it at 10ps would widen that to 200GHz creating
photons with energies farther from the mean if
I am right.
> [aside: when the new superconductor magnet for our new 700 MHz NMR was
> being brought up to field, they had a quench incident that boiled off 2000
> litres of liquid helium in a few seconds. The fog in the air set off the
> fire alarms and cleared the building.]
You guys sure have some fun :-)
George
bz
@news.freedom2surf.net:
>
> "bz" <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns969A5F2ED396EWQ...@130.39.198.139...
>> "geo...@briar.demon.co.uk" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:1121948586....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> <snip>
>>> It would be
>>> possible to measure the bandwidth of a laser
>>> diode with coherence length in the cm range
>>> going through a shutter which was open for say
>>> 1 microsecond at a repetition rate of 10 kHz
>>> with a photon rate of a few hundred per second.
>>
>> That would tell us nothing about the length of the photons.
>> We can already get single photons by attenuating the beam intensity.
>>
>> Besides, spectrum analysis is done, every day, on fiber optical lasers.
>> We know that for switching speeds used for gigabit data rates, the
>> bandwidths needed are consistent with information theory.
>
> Indeed, I was outlining the control experiment.
>
>> We need to push the envelope, so to speak, and see what happens with VERY
>> narrow pulses, so narrow that they can only contain a single cycle.
>
> Single cycle might be beyond the technology
> but chopping within the coherence length is
> achievable.
Single cycle is certainly not beyond the technology at lower frequencies.
>>> The chances of getting two photons during an
>>> opening would be low but the shutter would be
>>> open for a time much longer than the "duration"
>>> of a single photon.
>>>
>>> Then change to a shutter open time around 10ps
>>> and see if the bandwidth increases. The photon
>>> "length" should be 30ps per cm of coherence so
>>> selecting only part of the photon should increase
>>> the bandwidth if I am right.
>>
>> Selecting only part of the photon should either (1) produce no output
>> or (2) produce a photon with less energy, since part of its energy has
>> been absorbed.
>>
>> (1) is consistent with Einstein. (2) would blow all kinds of holes in
>> quantum electro dynamics unless it could be shown to be consistent with
>> the compton effect.
Looks like people are, or think they are, making single photons.
http://ipeqwww.epfl.ch/qd/html/singleqddevices.htm
http://www.quiprocone.org/report034.pdf
http://www.mqc2.it/MQC204/Stevenson.pdf
http://cua.mit.edu/8.422/PHYSICS-vuckovic-fattal-santori-solomon-yamamoto-
enhanced-single-photon-emission-from-a-quantum-dot-in-a-micropost-
microcavity-apl-v82-p3596-2003-single_photons_APL_May03-1.pdf
http://www.iota.u-psud.fr/~S4P/pdf%20files/APL02865.pdf
>
> (1) A gate of 10ps at 10kHz should allow through
> 100 photons per billion so the intensity would
> be reduced by that factor. The laser intensity
> could be increased to partly compensate as long
> as the probability of two photons per gate
> remains negligible.
>
> (2) My expectation is that the mean photon energy
> would not change but the spread would increase.
> A coherence length of say 3cm is 100ps or a
> bandwidth of 20 GHz (both sidebands). Chopping
> it at 10ps would widen that to 200GHz creating
> photons with energies farther from the mean if
> I am right.
>
>> [aside: when the new superconductor magnet for our new 700 MHz NMR was
>> being brought up to field, they had a quench incident that boiled off 2000
>> litres of liquid helium in a few seconds. The fog in the air set off the
>> fire alarms and cleared the building.]
>
> You guys sure have some fun :-)
>
> George
>
>
>
--
George Dishman
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dbr8pg$miv$1
> @news.freedom2surf.net:
>
>>
>> "bz" <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:Xns969A5F2ED396EWQ...@130.39.198.139...
>>> "geo...@briar.demon.co.uk" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>>> news:1121948586....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>> <snip>
>>> We need to push the envelope, so to speak, and see what happens with
>>> VERY
>>> narrow pulses, so narrow that they can only contain a single cycle.
>>
>> Single cycle might be beyond the technology
>> but chopping within the coherence length is
>> achievable.
>
> Single cycle is certainly not beyond the technology at lower frequencies.
No but I think measuring single photons
becomes harder.
> Looks like people are, or think they are, making single photons.
>
> http://ipeqwww.epfl.ch/qd/html/singleqddevices.htm
> http://www.quiprocone.org/report034.pdf
> http://www.mqc2.it/MQC204/Stevenson.pdf
> http://cua.mit.edu/8.422/PHYSICS-vuckovic-fattal-santori-solomon-yamamoto-
> enhanced-single-photon-emission-from-a-quantum-dot-in-a-micropost-
> microcavity-apl-v82-p3596-2003-single_photons_APL_May03-1.pdf
> http://www.iota.u-psud.fr/~S4P/pdf%20files/APL02865.pdf
We are certainly on the verge of moving to
verge of handling single photons routinely.
Thanks again for the links.
George
Androcles
Watch our for bz. He'll calculate 76.6c for the speed of an electron in
an accelerator and blame YOU for it.
Androcles.
Paul B. Andersen
Henri Wilson has tested his program only once with real
measured data of a binary, namely HD80715.
His program predicted that HD80715 should be a variable.
It isn't.
Henri Wilson has falsified the ballistic theory.
He don't like to be reminded, as you can see. :-)
Paul
George Dishman
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:06cEe.24050$yP3....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Well so far he has said nothing I disagree with and
provided some very useful links in an area where my
knowledge is decades out of date.
As for "76.6c", I suspect that would be the Newtonian
prediction. It certainly isn't relevant to our
discussion, maybe you saw it in some other thread?
George
bz
@news.freedom2surf.net:
> We are certainly on the verge of moving to
> verge of handling single photons routinely.
Yep
> Thanks again for the links.
quite welcome. I looked but I didn't see anything there that would tell me
the pulse width [photon length?].
The spectra seem to indicate that the single photons have very narrow
bandwidth [as I would expect].
Aristotle
>>
>>And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician?
>>You sure duck questions like one.
>
>I have answered Andersen's question so many times that he has even forgotten
>what the question was.
>
>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical
>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish.
Consistent and a pair of cajones.
No only do you still duck the questions you accuse others of doing it
as well.
George Dishman
"Aristotle" <wandering_philosopher@socratic_discipline.org> wrote in message
news:q123e1p7a4c3pfa05...@4ax.com...
Nor is it even true, I am still pointing out the
obvious error in his post and will continue to
do so. On the other hand, Henri said:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:vra0e1l2dnmc55eu4...@4ax.com...
...
> George, I am not interested in discucssing
> the sagna c any more.
George
Aristotle
>>>mythical
>>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish.
>>
>>
>> Consistent and a pair of cajones.
>> No only do you still duck the questions you accuse others of doing it
>> as well.
>
>Nor is it even true, I am still pointing out the
>obvious error in his post and will continue to
>do so. On the other hand, Henri said:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:vra0e1l2dnmc55eu4...@4ax.com...
>...
>> George, I am not interested in discucssing
>> the sagna c any more.
>
>George
Henri Wilson
Paul, I think your time would be better spent training those pet fairies to
catch GPS clock ticks.
>
>He don't like to be reminded, as you can see. :-)
YOU don't like to be reminded that I have explained many time why it SHOULD NOT
be a variable.
You can do it yourself if you like, using my program.
Aristotle
>>measured data of a binary, namely HD80715.
>>His program predicted that HD80715 should be a variable.
>>It isn't.
>>Henri Wilson has falsified the ballistic theory.
>
>Paul, I think your time would be better spent training those pet fairies to
>catch GPS clock ticks.
>
>>
>>He don't like to be reminded, as you can see. :-)
>
>YOU don't like to be reminded that I have explained many time why it SHOULD NOT
>be a variable.
>You can do it yourself if you like, using my program.
Use somethng that is based on nonsense to prove what?>
>>
>>
>>Paul
>
>
>HW.
>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
>Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
Well you should since you are.
>The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
And you haven't donr that.
Henri Wilson
Go away!
Paul B. Andersen
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:10:59 GMT, Aristotle
> <wandering_philosopher@socratic_discipline.org> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by
>>>>>SR.
>>>>>How COULD it be wrong?
>>>>
>>>>See? :-)
>>>>
>>>>Henri Wilson won't tell us what the result was
>>>>the one time he tested his program with measured data
>>>>of a known binary.
>>>
>>>All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave.
>>
>>And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician?
>>You sure duck questions like one.
>
>
> I have answered Andersen's question so many times that he has even forgotten
> what the question was.
Quite.
And here is your answer to the forgotten question.
Paul B. Andersen wrote in June 2004:
| I think we now can sum up what the ballistic theory
| predicts HD80715 should look like.
|
| "phase" is normalized, one period = 1.
| "brightness" is relative to the brightness of a stationary star
|
| phase brightness
|
| 0.0 1.22
| 0.1 1.21
| 0.17 1.97
| 0.18 2.45
| 0.19 5.90
| 0.1913 60.00
| 0.191310 infinite
| 0.2 0.66
| 0.3 0.64
| 0.4 0.63
| 0.5 0.62
| 0.6 0.63
| 0.7 0.64
| 0.8 0.67
| 0.808719 infinite
| 0.8089 21.6
| 0.809 11.80
| 0.81 3.90
| 0.9 1.34
| 1.0 1.22
|
| Note that the integral over one period is 1,
| that is the average brightness is 1.
|
| The above is for one of the stars, you can get
| the light curve for both stars by translating
| the above half a period and adding.
Henri Wilson responded:
| I can get these figures from my program.
|
| Surprisingly, they agree exactly with yours..... proves my program is
| correct.... not that I ever doubted it.
|
| So I could have saved you all that time and trouble.
| Just click your mouse a
| few times and...there is your curve.
But HD80715 is no variable.
So just by clicking his mouse a few times,
Henri Wilson falsified the ballistic theory.
> Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical
> 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish.
Indeed.
There is no way we can refute your world shattering proof.
"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave exactly as
predicted by GR, prove that the mythical
'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense
from start to finish."
That's why we all have ran for cover.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:21:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>
>
>>Aristotle wrote:
>>
>>>>>>The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by
>>>>>>SR.
>>>>>>How COULD it be wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>>See? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Henri Wilson won't tell us what the result was
>>>>>the one time he tested his program with measured data
>>>>>of a known binary.
>>>>
>>>>All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave.
>>>
>>>
>>>And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician?
>>>You sure duck questions like one.
>>
>>Henri Wilson has tested his program only once with real
>>measured data of a binary, namely HD80715.
>>His program predicted that HD80715 should be a variable.
>>It isn't.
>>Henri Wilson has falsified the ballistic theory.
See Henri diverting the attention:
>
> Paul, I think your time would be better spent training those pet fairies to
> catch GPS clock ticks.
Invoking fairies again, Henri?
Henri Wilson wrote October 15. 2004:
| OK Paul, I will never refer to PAUL ANDERSEN'S FAMOUS TICK FAIRIES again.......
|
| ....unless I have a justifiable reason.
Can you state your justifiable reason please?
Or would you like me to quote the conversation
that made you make the above remark?
I will do it with pleasure, you know.
>>He don't like to be reminded, as you can see. :-)
>
>
> YOU don't like to be reminded that I have explained many time why it SHOULD NOT
> be a variable.
Quite the contrary, Henri.
It gives me much pleasure to see your desperate attempts
to explain why your program doesn't work.
BTW, what DID you say the reason was?
I must have forgotten.
Was it something about gas which slows down photons
to explain why light from distant galaxies are red shifted,
but which OTOH adjust the speed of light from binaries to be c?
> You can do it yourself if you like, using my program.
Quite.
Just a few clicks on the mouse, and you have falsified
the ballistic theory.
Paul
Henri Wilson
After clicking my mouse a few times I can come up with RAW figures for a single
star or a binary pair.
My RAW figures for a single star, agree with yours.
When I include thermal source speeds and extinction effects, my adjucted
figures for the binary pair known as HD80715 show an almost constant
brightness. Each contributes a small sinelike variation in brightness. The
curves are 180 out of phase.
>
>
>> Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical
>> 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish.
>
>Indeed.
>There is no way we can refute your world shattering proof.
>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave exactly as
> predicted by GR, prove that the mythical
> 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense
> from start to finish."
>That's why we all have ran for cover.
The clocks rate change has never ben accurately measured. GPS clocks are
empirically software adjusted after being placed in orbit.
Why don't you give up Paul. The GR correction has been proven to be a myth.
>
>Paul
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
You are free.
>
>>>He don't like to be reminded, as you can see. :-)
>>
>>
>> YOU don't like to be reminded that I have explained many time why it SHOULD NOT
>> be a variable.
>
>Quite the contrary, Henri.
>It gives me much pleasure to see your desperate attempts
>to explain why your program doesn't work.
>
>BTW, what DID you say the reason was?
>I must have forgotten.
>Was it something about gas which slows down photons
>to explain why light from distant galaxies are red shifted,
>but which OTOH adjust the speed of light from binaries to be c?
Only relativists believe that all light from stars travels at exactly c wrt
little planet Earth.
.....and yes, molecules in rare space DO tend to unify the speed of all light
traveling in any particular direction. All light is redshifted in the process.
>
>> You can do it yourself if you like, using my program.
>
>Quite.
>Just a few clicks on the mouse, and you have falsified
>the ballistic theory.
no good joking Paul. Your faith has been proven wrong.
sue jahn
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dc0tdg$lp3$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
Newton would not have tho't it nonsense. He would have tho't
it plagarism.
<< The big difference between a standard clock in your home and
an atomic clock is that the oscillation in an atomic clock is between
the nucleus of an atom and the surrounding electrons. This oscillation
is not exactly a parallel to the balance wheel and hairspring of
a clockwork watch, but the fact is that both use oscillations to
keep track of passing time. The oscillation frequencies within the
atom are determined by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity
and electrostatic "spring" between the positive charge on the
nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it.>>
http://www.atomic-clock.galleon.eu.com/atomic-clock/atomic-clock.htm
<<Tuning fork watches are inherently far less affected by these
problems. The fork has no bearings. It is far easier to "build in"
temperature compensation into a Tuning Fork than into a circular
balance wheel and it's hairspring. Gravity affects Bulova tuning
forks in only 2 orientations (tines up and tines down) compared
with the usual 5 positions of good quality balance wheel watches.>>
http://members.iinet.net.au/~fotoplot/accspec.htm
<< Example: Problem 87P
A damped harmonic oscillator involves a block (m = 2 kg), a spring (k = 10 N/m), and a damping force F = - b v. Initially it
oscillates with an amplitude of 0.25 m; because of the damping, the amplitude falls to three-fourths of its initial value after four
complete cycles. (a) What is the value of b ? (b). How much energy is lost during these four cycles ?
The time dependence of the amplitude of the oscillation is given by:
The period of one oscillation is given by:
The amplitude after 4 oscillations is therefore given by:
The angular frequency [omega] is related to the spring constant k and mass m in the following manner:
Using this expression we obtain for b
The mechanical energy lost during these 4 oscillation can also be easily calculated. >>
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy121/LectureNotes/Chapter16/Chapter16.html
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/231.sc2k.fall00/chap13/chap13.html
Sue...
>
> Paul
sue jahn
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ic58e1pjat6ic3e7b...@4ax.com...
Bless your heart!
Have you just discoverd something that Maxwell and Einstein
prefered to ignore?::
<<Two charges of one coulomb each separated by a meter would
repel each other with a force of about a million tons! >>
http://www.physics.utoledo.edu/~alukasz/ralem/Lecture2.htm
That might make most EM coupling structures
sit up and take notice. Eh?
Sue...
Henri Wilson
wrote:
I'm not going to do your homework for you.
>
>http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy121/LectureNotes/Chapter16/Chapter16.html
>http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/231.sc2k.fall00/chap13/chap13.html
>
>Sue...
>
>
>>
>> Paul
>
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
There is a threshold density, Sue, a threshold!
Below that, everything changes.
>
><<Two charges of one coulomb each separated by a meter would
>repel each other with a force of about a million tons! >>
>
>http://www.physics.utoledo.edu/~alukasz/ralem/Lecture2.htm
>
>That might make most EM coupling structures
>sit up and take notice. Eh?
you have given me another bright idea.
Since I have discovered that the value of e decreases when a charge moves wrt
an applied field, the orbiting electrons in any atom will have a slightly lower
charge than the protons. (Assuming the Bohr model.)
Therefore all matter shoud be slightly positively charged and repel all other
matter.
Wait a minute....I think there is something wrong here.......
-.
>
>Sue...
>++
Aristotle
>>The period of one oscillation is given by:
>>The amplitude after 4 oscillations is therefore given by:
>>The angular frequency [omega] is related to the spring constant k and mass m in the following manner:
>>Using this expression we obtain for b
>>The mechanical energy lost during these 4 oscillation can also be easily calculated. >>
>
>I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Afraid of the challenge Henri?
Aristotle
>>>George
>>I have long given up any hope of hearing Henri speak the truth.
>
>Go away!
Answer questions instead of obfuscating the issue then running away.
Paul B. Andersen
Henri Wilson wrote:
| There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular
| brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my
| variable star simulation program:
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
Did you include thermal source speeds and extinction effects
in these cases, Henri? :-)
Maybe you can pick a concrete example an show us your inferred
parameters for your alleged binary?
>>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical
>>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish.
>>
>>Indeed.
>>There is no way we can refute your world shattering proof.
>>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave exactly as
>> predicted by GR, prove that the mythical
>> 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense
>> from start to finish."
>>That's why we all have ran for cover.
>
>
> The clocks rate change has never ben accurately measured. GPS clocks are
> empirically software adjusted after being placed in orbit.
Sure, Henri. Nothing is accurately measured.
The GPS clocks are only proven to run as predicted by GR
to within the precision of the clocks, which is a thousand
times better than the size of the "GR-correction".
So let me rephrase your proof:
"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as
predicted by GR within the precision of the clocks,
prove that the mythical 'GR correction' of GPS clocks
is plain nonsense from start to finish."
Satisfied now?
> Why don't you give up Paul. The GR correction has been proven to be a myth.
Of course Henri.
That was what I said, wasn't it?
Nobody can refute your genial proof.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dc0tdg$lp3$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical
>>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish.
>>
>>Indeed.
>>There is no way we can refute your world shattering proof.
>>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave exactly as
>> predicted by GR, prove that the mythical
>> 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense
>> from start to finish."
>>That's why we all have ran for cover.
>
>
> Newton would not have tho't it nonsense. He would have tho't
> it plagarism.
>
> << The big difference between a standard clock in your home and
> an atomic clock is that the oscillation in an atomic clock is between
> the nucleus of an atom and the surrounding electrons. This oscillation
> is not exactly a parallel to the balance wheel and hairspring of
> a clockwork watch, but the fact is that both use oscillations to
> keep track of passing time. The oscillation frequencies within the
> atom are determined by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity
> and electrostatic "spring" between the positive charge on the
> nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it.>>
> http://www.atomic-clock.galleon.eu.com/atomic-clock/atomic-clock.htm
You shouldn't believe everything you find on the net, Sue. :-)
Those who wrote that page have obviously no idea of how
an atomic clock works.
Statements like:
"The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined
by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity and electrostatic
"spring" between the positive charge on the nucleus and
the electron cloud surrounding it."
and:
"The single electron of a Caesium atom is known to
vibrate at a standard 9,162,613,770 times a second."
and:
"The second is defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of the caesium-133 atom."
are indeed very revealing.
If you don't understand why, the SI-definition of a second should
give you a hint:
The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of
the radiation corresponding to the transition between
the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
But don't be too sad.
Newton didn't have a clue about this either.
So you are in good company. :-)
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
Indeed.
So ?
> .....and yes, molecules in rare space DO tend to unify the speed of all light
> traveling in any particular direction. All light is redshifted in the process.
So we can conclude that all the light coming from any particular
direction is red shifted by the same amount? :-)
Does your foot hurt?
Paul
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
Give up Paul. You are starting to sound like a troll who is desperate to use
any tactic to prop up his faith,
The GR correction of GPS clocks is a myth and the BaT can produce observed
brightness variation curves for most stars.
Looks like you are running out of 'supporting evidence', eh?
>
>
>>>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical
>>>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish.
>>>
>>>Indeed.
>>>There is no way we can refute your world shattering proof.
>>>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave exactly as
>>> predicted by GR, prove that the mythical
>>> 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense
>>> from start to finish."
>>>That's why we all have ran for cover.
>>
>>
>> The clocks rate change has never ben accurately measured. GPS clocks are
>> empirically software adjusted after being placed in orbit.
>
>Sure, Henri. Nothing is accurately measured.
>The GPS clocks are only proven to run as predicted by GR
>to within the precision of the clocks, which is a thousand
>times better than the size of the "GR-correction".
Nonsense. You are making it up.
No experiment has ever verified this.
>So let me rephrase your proof:
>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as
> predicted by GR within the precision of the clocks,
> prove that the mythical 'GR correction' of GPS clocks
> is plain nonsense from start to finish."
>
>Satisfied now?
You are dreaming again.
>
>> Why don't you give up Paul. The GR correction has been proven to be a myth.
>
>Of course Henri.
>That was what I said, wasn't it?
>Nobody can refute your genial proof.
Clocks change when placed in orbit. Time doesn't.
The GR explanation is nonsensical anyway.
Plesae tell me again how GR explains the free fall clock rate change. I feel
like a good laugh.
Henri Wilson
Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time accurately.
However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to different physical
conditions.
This is borne out by GPS clocks which are observed to increase rates by around
1 in 10^10 when relieved of gravitational self-compression.
>
>But don't be too sad.
>Newton didn't have a clue about this either.
>So you are in good company. :-)
Newton predicts the gravitational blue shift perfectly.
Photons accelerate when they fall like anything else.
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:05:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>>>BTW, what DID you say the reason was?
>>>I must have forgotten.
>>>Was it something about gas which slows down photons
>>>to explain why light from distant galaxies are red shifted,
>>>but which OTOH adjust the speed of light from binaries to be c?
>>
>>
>> Only relativists believe that all light from stars travels at exactly c wrt
>> little planet Earth.
>
>Indeed.
>So ?
They are the only people stupid enough.
One would think physicists would be able to see beyond their own egocentric
desires......but relativists are apparently still under the impression that
they define the centre of the universe.
>
> > .....and yes, molecules in rare space DO tend to unify the speed of all light
> > traveling in any particular direction. All light is redshifted in the process.
>
>So we can conclude that all the light coming from any particular
>direction is red shifted by the same amount? :-)
That's the kind of ridiculous coment that makes me feel SO superior to you
Paul.
Think about it again and hide your head in shame.
>
>Does your foot hurt?
Does your face turn red?
bz
news:b2fde1d400qt6lek0...@4ax.com:
> Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time accurately.
> However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to different
> physical conditions.
> This is borne out by GPS clocks which are observed to increase rates by
> around 1 in 10^10 when relieved of gravitational self-compression.
It is pure coincidence that the amount of relief happens [for the GPS
orbital clocks] to equal the change predictable through the use of
SR/GR/EEP. Right?
What will you do when presented with the evidence that when a clock is sent
around the earth in a different altitude orbit, it STILL performs as
SR/GR/EEP predicts?
Will you will say that the gravitaional self-compression is different?
Or will you give SR/GR/EEP fair consideration?
Think about this: for satellites in free fall, how can different degrees of
gravitational self compression exist?
Sue...
bz wrote:
> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
> news:b2fde1d400qt6lek0...@4ax.com:
>
> > Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time accurately.
> > However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to different
> > physical conditions.
> > This is borne out by GPS clocks which are observed to increase rates by
> > around 1 in 10^10 when relieved of gravitational self-compression.
>
> It is pure coincidence that the amount of relief happens [for the GPS
> orbital clocks] to equal the change predictable through the use of
> SR/GR/EEP. Right?
Bz,
I trust you and Henri are keeping NPL and NIST apprised
of all these discoveries about atomic clocks.
http://www.npl.co.uk/quantum/qtm/freq.html
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/h/hy/hyperfine_structure.htm
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l3a.html
:-)
Sue...
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
>news:b2fde1d400qt6lek0...@4ax.com:
>
>> Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time accurately.
>> However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to different
>> physical conditions.
>> This is borne out by GPS clocks which are observed to increase rates by
>> around 1 in 10^10 when relieved of gravitational self-compression.
>
>It is pure coincidence that the amount of relief happens [for the GPS
>orbital clocks] to equal the change predictable through the use of
>SR/GR/EEP. Right?
Nobody has bothered to make an accurate comparison.
After launch, the GPS clocks are software synched with the ground clock reading
and rate anyway.
>
>What will you do when presented with the evidence that when a clock is sent
>around the earth in a different altitude orbit, it STILL performs as
>SR/GR/EEP predicts?
It will never happen.
It proves GR wrong...so the establishment will never allow such material to be
seen by anyone.
>
>Will you will say that the gravitaional self-compression is different?
>Or will you give SR/GR/EEP fair consideration?
If it ever DID happen, I would automatically assume that there is a natural
'aether frame' around the Earth. That's the only way 'contractions' can be
real.
>
>Think about this: for satellites in free fall, how can different degrees of
>gravitational self compression exist?
All similar clocks in free fall should change by the same amount.
However in the case of orbiting clocks, other factors are involved,
particularly the cutting of the Earth's fields.
Sue...
spoonbenders in this news group. :o)
> Those who wrote that page have obviously no idea of how
> an atomic clock works.
http://www.npl.co.uk/quantum/qtm/freq.html
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/5/8
<< Greater resolution and accuracy
might be more readily achieved using a different type
of transition, e.g., the weak hyperfine-induced electric dipole
transitions like those between the low-lying 1S0
and 3P0 states of the singly ionized species of the Group
IIIA elements of the periodic table [12,24,25], particularly
in cases where first-order magnetic-field independent
transitions are available (albeit at nonzero field )>>
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/general/pdf/1385.pdf
>
> Statements like:
> "The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined
> by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity and electrostatic
> "spring" between the positive charge on the nucleus and
> the electron cloud surrounding it."
> and:
> "The single electron of a Caesium atom is known to
> vibrate at a standard 9,162,613,770 times a second."
> and:
> "The second is defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of the caesium-133 atom."
> are indeed very revealing.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/h/hy/hyperfine_structure.htm
>
> If you don't understand why, the SI-definition of a second should
> give you a hint:
> The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of
> the radiation corresponding to the transition between
> the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
>
Your interpretation of the geiod computed by NIST seems a
pretty good lesson in interpreting science with hints.
> But don't be too sad.
> Newton didn't have a clue about this either.
Oh ?
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l3a.html
> So you are in good company. :-)
Better his shoulders than yours.
<<The principle of local Lorentz invariance states
that the outcome of any local non-gravitational
experiment carried out in a freely falling reference
frame is independent of the velocity of that frame,
while the principle of local position invariance
holds that the outcome of any local non-gravitational
experiment is also independent of where and when in
the universe it is performed. In this context
"local" means confined to a suitably small region
of space and time, while "freely falling" means
falling freely under gravity with no other forces
acting.
Although Einstein used it to derive general
relativity, his equivalence principle implies
only that gravitation must be described by a
"metric theory" - a theory in which matter
responds to the geometry of space-time and
nothing else. >><<
--Clifford M Will is in the McDonnell Center for the
Space Sciences and the Department of Physics,
Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, US.>>
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/1/5/1
So... Cliff knows that the SUMO has to do something
really unexpected or the violation of LPI indicated
by GPS, will be confirmed. Of course he probably
lacks the *faith* that motivates *true believers*.
http://www.bassirat.net/newspics/ASIE%20CENTRALE/normal_200309122253madrassa.jpg
Sue...
>
> Paul
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 01:06:43 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
> >news:b2fde1d400qt6lek0...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time accurately.
> >> However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to different
> >> physical conditions.
> >> This is borne out by GPS clocks which are observed to increase rates by
> >> around 1 in 10^10 when relieved of gravitational self-compression.
> >
> >It is pure coincidence that the amount of relief happens [for the GPS
> >orbital clocks] to equal the change predictable through the use of
> >SR/GR/EEP. Right?
>
> Nobody has bothered to make an accurate comparison.
> After launch, the GPS clocks are software synched with the ground clock reading
> and rate anyway.
[snip]
The adjustment is much smaller than the GR correction.
If you were paying attention the last time this was explained to you,
by Minor Crank, you would know this.