Theoretical

The questions may vary depending on the data they provide. First, they need enough equipment. If their PMT doesn't provide sufficient graphical data in the datasheet then I would need to have them do some tests using an oscilloscope to find the reaction time of the PMT and to verify its indeed not in avalanche mode. Also I would need to know how linear the PMT is. I would need to need to know the light source efficiency and spread angle in order to calculate how far the detector needs to be from the source. If by chance they detect "single photons" with such a setup (doubt it very much), then I would ask them to move the detector farther away from the source to see if the detector results matches the predicted results. If it doesn't, then it's likely they're not seeing single photons, but rather they're seeing an effect in the detector. An example is certain types of Polaroid film that show what appears as single photons in low light levels. Now of course we're talking about low light levels that consist of millions of photons. The film is merely acting like a digital switch. When one studies PMTs they learn just how high of an amplification is required to see the so-called single photons. In electrical engineering it's insanely difficult to create an amp with such gains beyond DC without causing self oscillations and avalache effects, which would give the impression of particles. Ah that reminds me, I would also need to see a graph of the detectors light range. I would rather people reply in the discussion here rather than private message, but some people may want to keep it private for whatever reasons. We can do whatever they want.

I've read plenty of science experiments that include details in a PDF. Trust me, they're lacking in way too much detail. Again, I need to speak with someone who has access to such equipment so I can ask them question. Questions they've probably never thought about. So this is about finding the truth. If someone out there wants to know, please contact me. Private message is fine.

No I was not aware frogs could see that low. In a matter about 15 minutes of eye adjustment in a dark room I was able to see an LED that was producing 10pA by placing the LED a few millimeters away from my eye, which allowed me to see ~ 1/1000th of the red LED plate, which means I was able to see light that was emitting ~10 pA. Multiply that times 1V (ultra low at such levels) and a gracious 1% efficiency (that's magnitudes higher than every graph I've seen for LED efficiency at such levels) and we get 100fW. Of course that's no where near a frogs vision considering I can detect maybe 1/30th of a second pulse. Lol now that's funny. No, the video is lacking in details.

No takers? I'm guessing nobody has a light detector capable of detecting the "single photon" using the method detailed in this discussion. Okay, so I'll settle for ***any*** type of experiment that indicates single photons. Please, anyone??? There are a few experiments online that claim to show single photons. The problem is they're always lacking in detail, and I have far too many possible issues with them. So if anyone has access to equipment which seems indicates the existence of the so-called photon, then ***please*** by all means forward the details to me. I will then ask you some specific detailed questions, which may require you to do some basic tests. When complete, I'm confident we'll see the reason why you're seeing what appears to be individual photons. BTW, all of the double slit, quantum eraser, etc. experiments that claim to be emitting single photons, I would strongly suggest you take a detailed spectrum analysis of it. A pulse that is close to one wavelength has a bandwidth that is approximately equal to the frequency. For example, green light that is close to one wavelength per pulse will not be a specific frequency. It will have nearly as much red and blue as it has green. A prime example of this is the Scarcelli QM delayed choice quantum eraser experiment where they placed a narrow bandwidth filter before the double slit, thereby making the experiment flawed. Again, you cannot simultaneously have a short pulse and narrow BW. Another example: on YouTube a school lab shows the dimly lite blue light from a spontaneous parametric downconversion crystal. Unfortunately if your source emits what's even remotely blue in appearance then it's no where near a single wavelength. One should take a spectrum shot of the light. All of my research indicates the reason we can't see the photon path in properly designed double slit experiments is because light is always a wave and travels through both slits. If you think otherwise, then please by all means forward the details of your equipment and experiment that are showing individual photon events. UsIng 50ps(50000fs) pulses is insufficient. Red light wavelength is ~2fs. Your pulse is 25000 wavelengths. And besides, that's forcing light to appear like a particle, especially when such PMTs avalanche. Thats why I propose to allow light to show you the individual photon, if it exists, by allowing light to spread out. You can do that by distancing the detector far away form the light source. This method allows you to source to emit light at normal levels to prevent any appreciable "photon bunching." IOW, if you analyze such light, you'll see the light intensity varies by a very slight amount. If you emit ultra low light, you end up with packet bursts. So when we emit at say one photon per wavelength (on average), we have a relatively smooth light source that spreads out (no laser focusing please) that according to the standard model should eventually at some distance show up on the detector as individual photons. My radio wavelength experiments and some visible light experiments show that will not happen, given a proper detector. I'm confident it show the same results for 660nm light as it did in my 7.3m (41MHz). BTW the GHz superconducting experiments I've read about use atoms as a detector in such a way that makes me uncomfortable. The problem I have with that is the atomic world behaves like a digital world. My 41MHz radiowave experiment receiver and amplifier are linear, and have no avalanche effect. I suspects that's the reason they show a classical wave at sub hf levels. I'm using the free electrons in copper wire at normal room temperatures as a receiving antenna, which is well known to be linear down to at least one atto (1e-18) amp. Additionally, modern transistor amplifiers are exceptionally linear. Here's one of my visible light (660nm) experiment. Take a typical 90% efficient low power LED, no focusing lens, clear plastic. Calculate the photons per wavelength. Go far far away or bounce it off metal surface mirrors. In my experiment the detector was receiving h*f / 1.5e+9 amount of light per wavelength, with no noticeable spectrum broadening down to a few nanometers. Spectrum broadening is where you find pulse width, if any exists. When time permits I'd like to detect down to at least one picometer change in spectrum broadening. So far this means that if the single photon exist, it must be at least a thousand wavelengths long, and I'm confident more accurate experiment will show the so-called single photon is *at least* a billion wavelengths long. That's far beyond one wavelength. Someone was asking for details of my radio experiment. This is a related topic, but still different. So this is not the thread to discuss it, but I'll outline it. All of the details will be in a video and eventually pdf, but that requires a lot of work and time. Since the radio experiment is a small fraction of the work, I'd like to complete one of the final challenges: What **exactly** is Gravity and the electric field. So far I've narrowed it down to a few options-- almost done lol. The theory is making some interesting predictions. Anyhow, it would be nice to include one large video that should capture the attention of everyone, rather than one radio experiment. Off the top of my head, here's a rough list of what's complete so far, and these are clearcut simple derived from well established macro scale classical equations: * Mathematical derivation showing that mass inertia is caused by the same electromagnetism that causes induction in wires. * Mathematical derivation showing that photon momentum is caused by classical electromagnetism. * Mathematical derivation showing that compton scattering is caused by classical electromagnetism. Yes it shows how the emr frequency changes. * Mathematical derivation showing how and why light traverses at twice the angle toward a massive object as compared to matter. * Mathematical derivation showing Einsteins relativity using a classical approach, without the Twin paradox issue. Although presently I'm in the process of building an experiment to see if my approach is correct. If it's incorrect, then this will be left out of the video and pdf. * Mathematical derivation showing that E=mc^2 in matter is the sum total of the electric & magnetic fields. Scientists were working on this, but they had problems arriving at the full mc^2. Not sure if they ever solved the problem, but my derivation immediately got the correct full mc^2 value. * Can't forget the terrifying details that clearly shows "Bell's inequality experiment" are precisely predicted by classical mechanics. Yes I will use well known detailed scholarly peer review Bell's inequality experiments. * And a lot more. Hopefully there will be time to show how well established classical equations clearly predict the atom and it's wave nature. One example will show the hydrogen atom and give the correct mass energy. An outline of my radio wavelength experiment: 40MHz to 49MHz. Transmitting antenna is appreciably away from the the receiving unit, usually greater than 1 wavelength. Simple amplifier is connected to receiving antenna. Precise amp input impedance is know, and therefore the amount of energy per wavelength is known. Yes modern electronics is fully capable of detecting such levels and far far far less. Of course amp noise at RT is greater than the signal, so you have to be clever. I have a design that will allow me to actually see the emr signal, which I was eventually going to build, but it's now unnecessary due to a much simpler method I finally thought of. It's so simple is embarrassing to have taken so long to think of it. Rather than trying to see the time domain signal, you can tell what's happening through the spectrum. No, this is not the method of actually seeing the signal. That method is complex. This method is simple. You take thousands of spectrum snapshots, which allows you to easily see the signal over noise through the spectrum. So the receiving antenna was definitely picking up sub hf energy per wavelength. The received signal was a sine wave void of pulses or packets. The experiment shows that the amount of electromagnetic energy per wavelength is not in quantum levels of hf. A future radio wave experiment will consist of detecting sub-photon pulses (less than hf per entire pulse) from two detectors simultaneously. The great thing about working with radio frequencies is the precise control you have over the signal. So the transmitter will do one wavelength pulse. Of course there will be higher frequency harmonics, but fortunately we have a spectrum so we can focus on the exact frequency and ignore the higher frequency harmonics. As stated, the experiment will consist of thousands runs. Each run consists of two spectrums, one spectrum for each receiver since we trying to detect the sub-photon in both detectors ***simultaneously***. The software will then multiply the amplitude of the two spectrums. Actually it will only be one frequency per spectrum since we're only interested in one frequency. So if only one of the detectors receives the photon at a time, then one of the detectors will always be zero. So zero times anything equals zero. Remember the noise is not coherent, and will be low compared to the signal. If the signal equals the predicted value, then this shows the single photon does not exists. After seeing the experimental results of hundreds of first radio wavelength experiment I can safely predict this experiment too will show the same results. Again, let's not get off topic. This thread is not about proving anything. Please, if you have access to equipment that indicates single photons, then please contact me.

Visible gives more energy. Radio gives more time per wavelength.

Please, if you have access to equipment that can detect single photons in ***non-avalanche mode***, then I would greatly appreciate it if you could do this quick experiment for me. This experiment is for some extremely important research. See the last paragraph for details. Experiment Equipment: Photomultiplier tube with appropriate circuitry operating in non-avalanche mode, common inexpensive efficient LED (or laser diode if you wish), oscilloscope. Experiment outline: Place LED as far away as you can from a sensitive photomultiplier tube. Decrease LED DC current till you can barely detect the light with the PMT. The maximum allowable LED current for this experiment depends on the LED viewing angle, the *effective* separation distance, and the PMT's response rate. Please contact me in private if you wish. There are various ways to increase the effective separation distance. For example, reflecting the LED light back and forth between mirrors. An example is to shine the light through a small pinhole, which then shines on a rough metal surface which diffuses the light. The goal is to operate the LED at a normal efficient DC current level (usually over 2mA), place the PMT far enough away from the LED so that, according to calculations, should show the single photon spikes on the oscilloscope. Some history regarding this experiment: I found a simple clear cut method of detecting single photons at radio frequencies. It took a long time redesigning this experiment over and over to eliminate alternative explanations. The experimental results were shocking. There are absolutely no quantum properties to radio waves. The experiment showed classical waves. Since the radio experiments I've been racking my brains trying to figure it out. It's led to numerous math equations. Note: this thread is not about proving anything. This thread discussion is only for the above experiment. In due time I will produce a YouTube video detailing the radio wave experiments, along with some important breakthroughs. Lets just say that the days of Quantum Mechanics are coming to an end.

You have it backwards. The equation only works when you know the polarization angle difference between the polarizer and photon, which is should be obvious to you due to the "angle" in cos(angle)^2. And like the sim code shows, both polarities are know before the photon enters the polarizer. Just admit the obvious that you're wrong. Furthermore, I've seen this in the NEC antenna engine. It's very simple. The antenna emits a specific known polarization. An array of elements acts as a polarizer. This exactly how my sim is setup. The NEC engine is in agreement with the cos(angle)^2 equation, which is no surprise. So this part of the sim is not up for debate. It's a fact that the sim is using the correct equation. And who knows what equation you're using to get 33% with 120 degrees. Crazy lol.

You would get a F in physics because the correct equation to use for light through a polarizer regardless if they're non entangled is cos(angle)^2 cos(0)^2*100% = 100% cos(120)^2*100% = 25% cos(240)^2*100% = 25% That is why you're getting the wrong results because you don't know the basic physics of light and polarizer. God knows what equation you're using but nobody who knows what they're doing would use. And of course the above is degrees. MFC math library uses radians which is why the code uses variables such as TWO_PI. So you're saying that 33% of photons that are at 0 degrees polarization go through a polarizer that's at 120 degrees. Everyone here who knows how to calculate this knows you're wrong. No big deal. People make mistakes. Looks like my sim gets the correct answer.

No. Using a photon at 0 deg polarization: When polarizer is at 0deg there's 100% chance of going through. At 120deg its 25%. At 240deg its 25%. Do you get it yet? (100% + 25% + 25%) / 3 = 50%

Of course it is. I never said its not. Look at the code. It's at the point when the photons are at the polarizer and need to know if the photon goes through or reflected. Nobody's addressed my code until now. But it's questionable if you're addressing the code.

Lol you're talking to a child. Look, the photon polarization is known. So the sim needs to know if the photon goes through the polarizer or is reflected. The cos(angle)^2 works on non entangled photons by the way. I have no idea where you're getting at with cheating because it's a sim, and the sim needs to know where the NON-entangled photons go. If I don't use the cos(angle)^2 equation then the sim will have to simulate countless atoms that make up the polarizer. That's absurd. Any sincere person reading this thread knows I use the correct equation. Again, this sim is about simulating NON-entangled photons. There's no cheating. I used the correct equation that any professor would have their students use in order to find what percentage of photons go through the polarizer. The sim shows that when this experiment is done with non-entangled photons that it gets the same results.

It's I* cos(angle)^2 where I is intensity and it is used when you KNOW the polarizations. This does not work if you don't know the polarizations. This proves the sim already knew the polarizations. Cheating? Come on. This isn't preschool. I used the correct equation.

No. The cos(angle)^2 determines the light intensity through the polarizer when you know the difference in angle between the polarizer and photons polarity. It's the only equation to use.

I agree about him, but I never said photons accelerate. I said that I didn't know the correct wording and to replace accelerate with the correct word. Just wanted to clarify.

The top two sites I cited were: physics.stackexchange.com physicsforums.com Truth is you knew exactly what my question was. In fact the physicists at physicsforums.com even used the same word I used to describe it. But you didn't know the correct answer. So your big ego tried to turn it on me. Save your words. I'm not interested in what you say.

My post was very clear. I'm no longer interested in anything you have to say.

Nope. "In fact, if you work it through with Einstein's theory of gravity, you find that light bends by exactly twice as much as Newton predicted - and this agrees with experiment." http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122003/light-and-gravity-bending-of-light-around-a-massive-body "This means that a photon is effectively accelerated by twice as much as a slow-moving object." https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/bending-of-light-due-to-gravity.770226/ "Basically a horizontal photon will fall twice as fast in a gravitational field as a dropped object." http://www.researchgate.net/post/Did_Einstein_show_that_Galileos_Falling_Bodies_experiment_and_his_own_theories_of_Relativity_both_Special_and_General_have_deficiencies "Over a century later, in the early 20th century, Einstein developed his theory of general relativity. Einstein calculated that the deflection predicted by his theory would be twice the Newtonian value." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/light_deflection "Curiously, however, Einsteins theory predicts that the path of light will be bent by twice as much as does Newtons theory, due to a kind of positive feedback. " http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_general.html "Einstein's general relativity (the speed of falling light varies twice as fast as the speed of ordinary falling objects): " http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1409005811/last-1409232873/HOW+DOES+THE+SPEED+OF+LIGHT+VARY+IN+GRAVITY,+EINSTEINIANS+- "Thus, the deflection predicted by GR is twice the deflection predicted by Newtonian gravity." http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1nkc8m/why_does_einsteins_theory_predict_that_light/

If I understand this correctly, gravity acting on a photon is not acceleration? What is it called? Since I don't know what else to call it, I'll refer to it as acceleration for now. Just substitute it for the correct word. Anyhow, I read that a photon experiences twice the acceleration(?) as objects such as atoms. Is that correct?

Not sure why I'm wasting my time doing this but here are the variables that are used to control the polarizer increment. 2pi/3, which in units of degrees comes to 120. long double total_polarizer_incs = 3.0L; long double polarizer_angle2_inc = TWO_PI / total_polarizer_incs; That's true a sim or paper written math is no replacement for an actual experiment. It is sufficiently valid for me because I know how simple the code is and that it uses well established equations. Please close the thread lol! It's a waste of time, but perhaps someday someone will use the code to come to the same conclusion I came to: No spooky action at a distance. Einstein was correct as far as I'm concerned, in terms of spooky action. As for what modern physicists consider hidden variables, that's a matter of opinion, and I'm certain Einstein would have agreed. I was never interested in other hidden variable theories.

I would agree since nothing's happening. In that case here's my final statement: To date my sim stands error free, as nobody has been able to find any math errors in it. The sim is extraordinarily simple, and uses the correct equation, Malus' law, which is a well tested equation founded in the 1700's, an equation that works with entangled or non-entangled photons. The sim proves what is commonly called Bell's experiment gets the same results with non-entangled photons by producing two photons with the same polarity. Again, when non-entangled photons are used in a "Bell's experiment," the results are the same as a "Bell's experiment" that uses entangled photons. The reason I wrote the sim is to see if there was evidence of spooky action at a distance. I conclude there is no evidence of spooky action at a distance in the "Bell's experiment" since the experiment can show no distinction between entangled and non-entangled photons. Close the thread. Incorrect. You obviously don't know how to code. The code has three polarizer angles: 0, 120, and 240 degrees as shown in the video.

I keep telling you the sim does NOT use non entangled photons. And I keep telling you why it does not. Enough already.

I already said that the first version used random numbers. It gets the same results as scanning through, but scanning is more accurate and faster.

I no longer will respond to posts that make claims such as "that's not what you're doing" without clear evidence. It's a waste of time. I modeled the sim after the video except I used photons as the particle.

It's called ad hominem. Look it up to see why people use it in debates. I could care a less about reporting people. The video I referenced goes over the experiment. It's not my problem if you discriminate agaists videos. If that's the case then prove the error in the experiment I used. You referred to the three angles but I'm not going to study a paper to do a sim for you. I said if you want I would run a sim with whatever angles you want, but because of your ad hominem has wasted more of my time I'm expiring that offer. So you have the code for my sim. You can run it yourself.