swansont

yup! what he said

 

a mg of Lithium will contain more parts than a mg of Lead.

Right. You need to divide the mass by the atomic (or molecular) weight' date=' which gets you the number of moles. And there are 6.02 x 10[sup']23[/sup] per mole (Avogadro's number)

OK' date=' swansont will you read these yourselves and explain how this has to do with single photon.

a beam of single photon pulses (as in one link) does not = a single photon

I dont want to discuss this stupid experiment anymore its geting boring.[/quote']

 

And this would be your professional opinion, that I should take over all of the textbooks and journal articles I've read, and lectures and discussions with people who have experience and training in the field in question?

 

You were wrong about this stuff. Get over it already.

Naw, the funniest joke ever is this one

Actually, the "make sure he's dead joke" was tested. "Funniest joke ever" isn't the interpretation I'd give - it was a joke that was most widely recognized as being funny, not the joke that got the biggest guffaw.

42/M/US

I guess that makes me the old man 'round these parts.

OK Tess.

Pick these apart.

I gave you the first two. There's only about 1900 more to go.

basically it would be eliminating that which is out of focus, instead of using a lens to correct it. elimination instead of refraction..

To expand on this: a pinhole forces the light to have a one-to-one mapping of object and image - each point on the object has only one ray that goes through the pinhole and forms the image. So there is no way for multiple rays to focus at different depths or places and cause blurring. It's why you can make a pinhole camera. You just lose a lot of light in doing things this way.

This is also why smaller apertures have larger depth-of field.

Its not about the curvature of the mirror its about the curvature of the surface of the mirror (there isnt a perfectly flat mirror) .Besides there is not 100% reflective surface in existense the photon would be absorbed on the second or third bounce...

Here is a link to a CalTech group doing cavity QED. Note the 0.9999984 reflectivity of their mirrors. Photons will bounce more than 2 or 3 times.

Here is a Stanford group. Note the link to the "Quantum Dot Turnstile" and one of the refernces: "An efficient source of single photons: a single quantum dot in a micropost microcavity"

Hint: "single" isn't referring to its marital status

Your very credible swansont.

Given your other responses I have to assume this is sarcasm. Also unable to use Google very well.

A very wealthy man is on his death bed. He calls for his doctor, priest, and lawyer.

When the three of them arrive, he says to them: "I know they say you can't take it with you, but I want to try. There are three bags over there. Each has $100,000 in it. I want each of you to take a bag, and at my funeral, throw the bag in my coffin just before they close it."

The next day, the man dies. At the funeral, just before the coffin is closed, the three men each drop their bag in the coffin.

After the funeral, the three are talking. The priest says, "I feel so terrible, I have to confess: We are building a new church, and the building fund was $10,000 short, so I took that much out of my bag before placing it in the coffin."

The doctor says, "I feel bad, too. My hospital is building a new wing, and we are also short on funds. I took $15,000 from my bag to help complete the new wing."

The lawyer smugly says, "I can't believe you two! I enclosed a check for the full amount!"

There are two reasons why the experiment in this thread is impossible:

 

1)Statistiaclly its impossible to measure out or have one photon' date=' you can never do it even wiht a beam splitter you would have less and less accuracy as the amount of photons became less, it would be unmeasureable.

 

2)You could never make a 100% secure device (for the experiment) that didnt let in any radiation or particles or light from the outside and you could never have a 100% flat mirror that would reflect the photons exactly back because the photons are smaller that the atoms in the mirror.Also you couldnt have a device to constantly see the photon in the chamber everytime it would hit something (its moving always at light speed) it would lose energy until it disappears.

 

So how would you do it? [/quote']

 

It's been done, so all of this is crap.

 

In cavity QED a single photon in a high-finesse cavity has very profound effects. You can tell if the cavity has a photon in it or not. So not only is it possible, but they were doing it 10 years ago and have moved on.

yes it can' date=' a beam splitter is a simple peice of optics, it`s a partial mirror, you can see through it but it`s also reflective. they use them in CD players and laser printers

 

[/quote']

 

They aren't half-silvered like most bathroom-type mirrors. Good optical beam splitters are often two prisms glued together, with the proper indices of refraction to split off the desired fraction of the incident light. Or to reflect one polarization while letting the other orientation to be transmitted - you can then control the ratio with a wave plate, if the incident light is already polarized.

I dont see how anyone is able to remove a photon from light' date=' its half wave and half particle..

Even if so the experiment wouldnt work, the photon wouldnt stay in the right place, you couldnt even see where it is.You would need a 100% dark space to do this.So that no other photons can enter.And the mirrors would have to be 100% straight as to not bounce the photon somewhere else.How can you measure something thats moving at the speed of light?[/quote']

 

You would use curved mirrors. You are correct in thinking that flat mirrors don't make a stable cavity, but stable cavity designs do exist. They just don't use flat mirrors.

I'll second the mention of astronomy. Lots of amateur input. The universe is a big place, and there always seems to be room for more astronomers, as it were.

You could get started soon - there's a transit of Venus on June 8. Hasn't happened since 1882!

I think there may be a difficult experiment that I don't know' date=' I want to ask it.

We know if the angle of incidence is greater than 0 degree , we can actual see the light beams reflected in the same degree. However, if the angle of incidence is 0 degree, they said it will reflect at 0 degree also. I'd like to know what experiment did they carry out? [/quote']

 

Lasers wouldn't work as advertised if that wasn't true.

It has to do with the density of the water/ice' date=' not their temperatures (in reply to #2-#6).

 

Like Sky said, ice has a less efficient bonding structure than water, which is why the same mass of water is smaller in a liquid state than it is in a solid state.

 

Increased volume with fixed mass = lower density.

 

Lower density water floats on higher density water.[/quote']

 

Plus water's density does have a temperature dependence, so the assumption that the coldest water sinks isn't valid - water at 4 C is densest. (for fresh water, anyway.)

I wonder if the OP is confused about one of Einstein's thought experiments? It sounds just like the classic light clock to me.

Or possibly a slight mangling of the rotating mirror method of calculating c.

Myabe I'm thinking of a different aether' date=' but I thought that the eather through which light was thought to travel was shown not to exist around the year 1900. Everyone thought that it did exist and these two guys set up an experiment to show that it did. The results were negative... I'll have to check who they were some time.

 

Or has there been new evidence to show that it might exist?[/quote']

 

Michelson and Morley showed we were not moving with respect to the ether. The observation of stellar aberration had already established we could not be stationary with repect to it.

 

But, as Sayonara said, people use the term "ether" for new discoveries, adding further confusion - like relativity isn't confusing enough to the average person in the street.

Let me cut to the chase...do you believe that UFO's exist?

Yes, I believe UFOs exist. I don't believe that they are alien visitors.

You might want to read The Man Who Tasted Shapes by Richard E. Cytowic

so, what i said was incorrect?

An ideal solenoid has no field outside of it, so that part of it was incorrect, and thus anything derived from that notion is incorrect. Of course, a real (i.e. non-infinite) solenoid will have a field outside, since the divergence of B is zero - but the field is much stronger inside.

The velocity with respect to what?

 

What do you mean.

You said that you can measure if the velocity changes. Velocity is measured with respect to something else - my point was: how do you know if you are accelerating or if that "something else" is accelerating?

That measurement is insufficient to tell who is accelerating.

Although I can't work out the exact math...

This is the first hurdle to overcome, not a much later one.

I think acceleration is being confused with velocity.Acceleration is a=v/t so you can tell is something is accelerating by measuring the speed at which velocity is increasing.

The velocity with respect to what?

Basically, if Newton's laws work, you are not being accelerated.

do you need energy in the same way to create gas?

Depends on the gas. Some atoms or molecules are gases at room temperature and pressure. Some need to be heated. Depends on the boiling point.

(Technically, everything has a vapor pressure, so you will find some gas of even a metal at room temperature - but it's a very, very small amount compared to the other constituents.)