Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Toffo

  1. Every photon starts to squeeze itself out from the container immediately when the small hole on the container wall is opened. For every photon in the container, the photon is completely out of the container when the container is completely empty. (We are not disturbing these photons by observations)
  2. So if we want to experiment with long waves, we don't use this atom, that produces a short wave. A way to produce a long wave: Use atoms with a long decay lifetime. Another way: A geiger-counter-short-pulse-laser combo device. This device emits a short laser pulse when it detects a radiation particle. Except that it is incapable of emitting a short pulse, although the laser part is built to emit a short pulse. So the device emits a long wave. Except that the firing time is very likely to be remembered by the device, so it emits short waves after all. I almost made an error! Another way: Short photon wave packets are stored in a photon container, which has a small leak, a hole in the container wall. A long photon wave is emitted from the hole.
  3. There was a precondition in my one photon-particle on a day -experiment: Nobody remembers the launch time of the photon-particle. If we do a photon-particle detection attempt just about anywhere, that changes the knowledge about the launch time. The rule about unitary evolution of a wave function says: If probabily goes up somewhere, then there is an equal drop of probability somewhere else. Photon-particle detection attempt may cause a collapse of a wave function, in which case there was a wave in the area in question. Photon-particle detection attempt may cause a change of a wave function, in which case there was a wave in the area in question. If wave is exactly the same after a photon particle detection attempt, then it was not a real honest photon-particle detection attempt. A photon-particle detection attempt in an area where there is no photon wave is not a real attempt. If a real detection attempt is possible, then there is a wave.
  4. Ok. We have wave-photons and we have particle-photons. I'll use those terms. There are at least two ways how a wave-photon can have a low amplitude: (1) wave-photon is very long (2) wave-photon is very wide If a wave-photon is both short and narrow, then that wave-photon does not have a low amplitude. So, when we are doing one particle-photon once a day type of experiments, we have either long wave-photons, or wide wave-photons. So the problem is with the wide and short wave-photons, and the possible wave-photon-less areas between those wave-photons. The solution to this problem must be that there are no such areas. Now I just have to think why there are no such areas. EDIT: Oh yes now I have thought something: If we make any area void of any photon-waves, by trying to find a particle-photon in said area, and not finding any, that will increase the probability of finding a particle-photon elsewhere. So therefore there was a wave-photon in that area, and said wave-photon moved from that are to other areas.
  5. It's a somewhat strange thing, that's why I brought it up. So let's see now. A quantum wave from laser1 is hitting a screen for a day. And another quantum wave from laser2 is hitting the screen for a day. Or maybe it's 100 quantum waves which each have 100 days average detection time. Anyway, those quantum waves interfere. About photons: It's hard for me to say anything those things, because I don't know what those things are or what the word means.
  6. It is impossible for an object, that is radiating thermal radiation, to remember what kind of radiation it has radiated, and when, and into what direction. The information content of a radiating object is decreasing, not increasing. That is why the radiations coming from two thermal radiation radiating objects interfere. We don't see any interference pattern when non-coherent radiations interfere, because there are many interference patterns on top of each other. About low intensity lasers, like for example such lasers whose intensity is one photon at random moment in a day: Two these kind of lasers produce a good visible interference pattern, unless information about photon emission time is stored somewhere. But if one laser produces only blue photons, while the other laser emits just red photons, then the information about which laser emitted a photon is in the photon, and therefore the red photon waves and blue photon waves do not interfere.
  7. Yes they do interfere. You need two lasers, you aim those at the same spot, where you will see an interference pattern. This experiment has been done. You can turn the other laser off too. That just makes that laser's photon wave really weak and non-coherent. The interference pattern is the interference pattern of one strong beam and very many really weak beams in very many different phases. (The turned off laser emits thermal radiation, you see) Here's a nice link: http://www.researchgate.net/post/The_interference_between_two_different_lasers_at_the_same_wavelength Of course not. Does the mirror think it has been hit by a small bullet? No. Does some quantum wave disappear? No. Is some part of a quantum wave teleported to another place? No. Let's say a quantum wave has been trapped in a small cavity for a long time, and it has been leaking out slowly. Let's say the cavity is inspected and found to be empty. This operation causes the quantum wave in the cavity to become teleported away from the cavity to everywhere where the leaked out quantum wave exists. This is a collapse of a quantum wave.
  8. Oh yes, as DParlevliet has has been pointing out, when moving away from the center of the interference pattern on the screen, the path length difference to that point increases. The path length difference approaches the distance between the slits, which may be arbitrarily large, in principle. Path1: Through slit A Path2: Through slit B
  9. How to do the adjustment of the length of one of the two paths: With two periscopes connected in series .... With mirrors in other words. If we want a simple proof that photon waves are not very short, we can cover one slit with thin sheet of glass, and observe that interference pattern does not disappear.
  10. To figure out the typical envelopes of photon waves in a light beam: 1: Set up double slit experiment were the path length difference is adjustable. 2: Start adjusting the path length difference. 2: Record the percentages of light that interfered and light that did not interfere at different path lengths. 3: The path length difference were half of photons did not interfere with itself is such a path length difference that makes half of the photon waves non-overlapping photon waves. Half of the photon waves are shorter than this length.
  11. The length is just a some fact I happen to remember very faintly. Maybe the length was actually couple of meters. Why that length? The length depends on how long time the emission process takes. Here's good information about this matter: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2004-04/1082128751.Ph.r.html An excited hydrogen atom, decaying spontaneously to the ground state from the 2p state decays in 1.6 x 10^-9 seconds, or 1.6 nanoseconds. 1.6 x 10^-9 seconds * speed of light = 0.48 meters 0.48 m is some kind of average length of these photon waves.
  12. What are the shape and the dimensions of a typical sunlight photon wave? Couple of centimeters long. Amplitude is largest at the middle, amplitude decreases towards the front and the rear. Wider than the earth, after travelling from sun to earth.
  13. Ok. But I must confess that I'm still confident that my simple reasoning is correct. Let's try something even more simple: First a clock is lovered into such a gravity well that it's frequency halves. Then the clock is accelerated to coordinate velocity 0.5 c. This velocity happens to be the coordinate velocity at which a light beam propagates at that altitude. So our clock is halted. Does GR say something different? Well, it sounds absurd that halving some rate in the bottom of a gravity well would be anything but halving said rate when observed from somewhere else. A guy is driving a car in a gravity well. The rmp meter reads 1000 rpm. The fift gear is being used. Speed meter reads 100 mph. Then said guy shifts to first gear. The rmp meter still reads 1000 rpm. Speed meter reads 10 mph. Seen from far above the ratio of the two speeds must be 10. The number of cogs in the cogwheels dictates the speed ratio. Now let's declare that the car is a clock. The shifting of gears caused a timedilation of the clock, by the factor of 0.1 , as observed from anywhere.
  14. For some reason I'm confident my simple idea is correct. Let's see now ... Oh yes, the instantaneous frequency of a clock can be deduced in my simple way. On the other hand the average ticking frequency during the whole watch malteatment episode would indeed be complicated thing to calculate.
  15. Let's say I hit my watch with a hammer, which causes the clock's ticking rate to increase to 1.1 times the correct rate. Then I descend into a gravity well wearing the watch, which causes the ticking rate to halve. Then I run around in a circle at speed 0.86 c, which causes the ticking rate of my wach to halve again. At what rate is the watch ticking now? Answer: 1.1 * 0.5 * 0.5 * the original rate
  16. Yes I left time dilation out. A galaxy receding at c is not time dilated, because it's not moving. To calculate the Doppler shift of the galaxy we need to know the increase of time delay in one minute for example. In univere whose expansion is not accelerating the Doppler shift will be less than z = 2 at velocity c, I guess.
  17. Let's calculate how much Doppler shift there is when a clock + light source combo is receding at velocity c: It takes one minute for a second hand of a clock to make one round around a clock face. In one minutes time the distance to the clock increases so that it takes one minute more time for light to travel from the clock to a still standing observer. So it takes one minute + one minute until a still standing observer has seen that a full circle has been completed by the second hand. So the Doppler shift is: 100 % increase of wave length, or 50% decrease of frequency.
  18. I don't buy that, because some lengths don't shrink. Lengths perpendicular to the motion don't shrink. Let's now compare linear motion and spinning motion: Spinning can be made to appear to become stopped by going into a frame where the spinning object has velocity c. Linear motion of an object can be made to appear to become stopped by going into a frame where the object has velocity 0. The conclusion: spinning and linear motion are fundamentally different kind of things.
  19. Ok I agree. Let's now go back to the spinning hoop. A non-spinning hoop at rest: O A non-spinning hoop that is moving to the right very fast: | A spinning hoop at rest: o A spinning hoop moving to the right very fast: a "|" as tall as a "o" is the correct picture here, I would guess. When a loop is spinned up, it shrinks. When the spinning loop is accelerated sideways, it shrinks sideways. Right? I propose a law: When speed change is caused by time dilation, then there is no contraction related to said speed change.
  20. What is your opinion about sawing? Sawing a log into two parts with a hand saw. Is sawing something else in some reference frames? If I think that I'm sawing, do people in some other frame think that I'm knitting?
  21. When vanes don't start turning what is the reason? Answer: Static friction is larger than the propelling force. Air resistance is not an answer. When air is being pumped away from the radiometer bulb, the propelling force increases. What changes when air is being pumped away from the radiometer bulb? Diffusion speed increases. Are there other ways to increase diffusion? 1: Make vanes porous. 2: Increase temperature. 3: Shaking. 4: Stirring.
  22. This is a hoop at rest: O This the same hoop spinning: o The smaller hoop has smaller area, therefore it emits and absorbs less radiation. Is the spin relative or is it absolute? Answer: Absolute.
  23. A red-hot cube moves left and right. (The cube is cube-shaped when at rest) The motion causes the brightness of the cube surface to decrease. (Time dilation of radiation process) The brightness of the surfaces of the sides of the cube that shrink stay constant though. That's because each square inch will contain an increased number of of atoms, which radiate at decreased rate. Do you guys agree?
  24. Why is the potential difference across a loop zero? Because electron gains no energy when making one round around the loop. Why does electron not gain any energy? Because the EMF pushes an electron, but friction force pushes an electron into the opposite direction. In this "abnormal" circuit that we are discussing here, at every point of the circuit EMF = friction force. In a "normal" circuit EMF is less homogeneously distributed.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.