My question is simple can michelson-morley type experiment be able to detect a particle with an energy of 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J or a stream of such particles @ 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹

Discuss....My intake is NO.

They’d be massless (or some new particle with a vanishingly small mass)

So, what is the wavelength of such a photon?

hc/E is around 2 x 10^38 m

A LY is 10^16 m, so 2 x 10^22 LY

To get destructive interference you need a path length difference of half a wavelength. Seeing as this is much, much longer than the size of the visible universe, I’m guessing no. Plus the time it would take to run the experiment.

The contrast you get with a reasonable size interferometer would be vanishingly small

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

1×10⁻⁶⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹

Not sure of your units. J/Hz? Did you mean J/s?

On 8/12/2025 at 4:01 AM, swansont said:

Not sure of your units. J/Hz? Did you mean J/s?

I don't know how you are looking at it.

On 8/12/2025 at 2:50 AM, MJ kihara said:

1×10⁻⁶⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹

Hz^-1 equate to a second...then it will be 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J⋅s.

I can see your agreeing with my take regarding to OP

On 8/12/2025 at 4:01 AM, swansont said:

I’m guessing no.

3 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

I don't know how you are looking at it.

Hz^-1 equate to a second...then it will be 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J⋅s.

I can see your agreeing with my take regarding to OP

J.s has dimensions of action. How can a stream of particles have the dimensions of action? I can see how it could have dimension of J/s, i.e. the rate of energy flow past a given point, thereby defining the size of the stream. But action? How can that work?

I'm getting a clear whiff of already-seen nonsense.

A dimensional quantity can never be equated to a pure number.

6 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Hz^-1 equate to a second...then it will be 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J⋅s.

Which is not units of a rate.

In 1 sec, how much energy has been delivered? You multiply by time. You get the wrong units.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

J.s has dimensions of action. How can a stream of particles have the dimensions of action? I can see how it could have dimension of J/s, i.e. the rate of energy flow past a given point, thereby defining the size of the stream. But action? How can that work?

👍

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I'm getting a clear whiff of already-seen nonsense.

I have never forced you to follow my threads...fear mongering filled cocoon won't be allowed to hold everyone hostage.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

A dimensional quantity can never be equated to a pure number.

.''..never..''. according to your understanding ... Atleast you should have answered a simple Yes/No to the OP before unleashing your vitriol.

2 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

👍

I have never forced you to follow my threads...fear mongering filled cocoon won't be allowed to hold everyone hostage.

.''..never..''. according to your understanding ... Atleast you should have answered a simple Yes/No to the OP before unleashing your vitriol.

Again, a quantity with dimensions of J·Hz^-1 (or equivalently J·s) cannot be a cardinal (number of things). The other members active on this thread are calling you out on the same mistake.

And I am free to address your nonsense however many times necessary as long as I comply with the forum rules.

And nonsense it is. If you use ergs instead of Jules, or Planck units, it would produce a ridiculously different number of things. That's why:

When we study elementary physics, we are taught that physical equations and identities must always be homogeneous wrt the units used.

PS: I also recommend you look up "vitriol" in the dictionary.

On 8/12/2025 at 12:50 AM, MJ kihara said:

My question is simple can michelson-morley type experiment be able to detect a particle with an energy of 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J or a stream of such particles @ 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹

Please explain why you have chosen this particular energy and since it refers to a particle, which particle since that makes a differnce to how fast or slow the particle can be said to be moving.

10 minutes ago, joigus said:

Again, a quantity with dimensions of J·Hz^-1 (or equivalently J·s) cannot be a cardinal (number of things). The other members active on this thread are calling you out on the same mistake.

And I am free to address your nonsense however many times necessary as long as I comply with the forum rules.

And nonsense it is. If you use ergs instead of Jules, or Planck units, it would produce a ridiculously different number of things. That's why:

When we study elementary physics, we are taught that physical equations and identities must always be homogeneous wrt the units used.

PS: I also recommend you look up "vitriol" in the dictionary.

Can you answer the question in OP, otherwise I will feel entitled to ignore you nonsense littered queries....also again your "PS"...don't divert attention around by your obsession with language.

9 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Can you answer the question in OP, otherwise I will feel entitled to ignore you nonsense littered queries....also again your "PS"...don't divert attention around by your obsession with language.

Nobody can answer a nonsensical question. Example:

What is the colour of love?

Similarly, the question "how many particles of a certain type are in so-and-so many Joules per Hertz?" is a meaningless frigging question.

One can only hope that finally illuminates something.

On 8/12/2025 at 2:50 AM, MJ kihara said:

My question is simple can michelson-morley type experiment be able to detect a particle with an energy of 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J

Can we answer this question...we be in agreement before the fight begins about the other issues...exchemist and others.

1 minute ago, joigus said:

Nobody can answer a nonsensical question. Example:

What is the colour of love?

Similarly, the question "how many particles of a certain type are in so-and-so many Joules per Hertz?" is a meaningless frigging question.

One can only hope that finally illuminates something.

Are you okay? Or you need a psychiatrist?

15 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Are you okay? Or you need a psychiatrist?

I'm fine.

You need to address the questions.

10 minutes ago, joigus said:

I'm fine.

You need to address the questions.

Okay then. Can you answer this question

On 8/12/2025 at 2:50 AM, MJ kihara said:

My question is simple can michelson-morley type experiment be able to detect a particle with an energy of 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J

Upto that point?

M-M type experiments measure length differences using interference of light. What is the connection with the J.s or Joule/s or whatever of 'a' particle? As your question stands, it is either not specific enough, or nonsensical, as the previous reactions show.

5 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Okay then. Can you answer this question

Upto that point?

Ok. For that specific part...

Depends on the type of detector and particle. Can't you look up on the particle data group yourself? Here's a review as of 2019:

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2019-rev-particle-detectors-accel.pdf

You can estimate the energies from spatial resolutions by using HUP. But of course you can do that with no problem, considering your adroitness with units.

I'm afraid it's nowhere near what you propose. Keep in mind a typical CMB photon has an energy of roughly 10^-23 Joules. We're talking 10^-11 times that energy.

I'm not aware of the M-M experiments introducing any calorimetry, but only measuring times. Anyway...

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

👍

I have never forced you to follow my threads...fear mongering filled cocoon won't be allowed to hold everyone hostage.

.''..never..''. according to your understanding ... Atleast you should have answered a simple Yes/No to the OP before unleashing your vitriol.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, have you?

Edited August 15Aug 15 by exchemist

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

How can a stream of particles have the dimensions of action?

It's for each particular particle in the 'stream'....note the quotes.

On 8/12/2025 at 2:50 AM, MJ kihara said:

particles @ 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

But action? How can that work?

Definition of action from Wikipedia.."..equivalently, action is the difference between the particle's kinetic energy and its potential energy, times the duration for which it has that amount of energy."

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

I can see how it could have dimension of J/s, i.e. the rate of energy flow past a given point, thereby defining the size of the stream

If the particle consistently have that particular energy(it's K.E-P.E) as it free fall for a particular time...that is it's action...mmm...

18 minutes ago, Eise said:

M-M type experiments measure length differences using interference of light. What is the connection with the J.s or Joule/s or whatever of 'a' particle? As your question stands, it is either not specific enough, or nonsensical, as the previous reactions show

Look at this replies...

On 8/12/2025 at 4:01 AM, swansont said:

They’d be massless (or some new particle with a vanishingly small mass)

So, what is the wavelength of such a photon?

hc/E is around 2 x 10^38 m

A LY is 10^16 m, so 2 x 10^22 LY

To get destructive interference you need a path length difference of half a wavelength. Seeing as this is much, much longer than the size of the visible universe, I’m guessing no. Plus the time it would take to run the experiment.

The contrast you get with a reasonable size interferometer would be vanishingly small

20 minutes ago, joigus said:

I'm afraid it's nowhere near what you propose. Keep in mind a typical CMB photon has an energy of roughly 10^-23 Joules. We're talking 10^-11 times that energy.

I'm not aware of the M-M experiments introducing any calorimetry, but only measuring times. Anyway...

The initial answer should be just simple Yes/No followed by explanation.which one is which Yes or No?

22 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

It's for each particular particle in the 'stream'....note the quotes.

Definition of action from Wikipedia.."..equivalently, action is the difference between the particle's kinetic energy and its potential energy, times the duration for which it has that amount of energy."

If the particle consistently have that particular energy(it's K.E-P.E) as it free fall for a particular time...that is it's action...mmm...

But that's the point. To speak of action implies a duration. And it also implies potential energy. If you just talk about a stream of particles, you have specified neither. It's meaningless. Your post is just bullshitting.

Edited August 15Aug 15 by exchemist

17 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

The initial answer should be just simple Yes/No followed by explanation.which one is which Yes or No?

What do the words "I'm afraid it's nowhere near what you propose" mean to you? It means "no", of course.

Does detecting a photon with an energy a hundred thousandth of a millionth the average energy of a photon from the coldest black-body radiation source that's known to us sound feasible to you?

@swansont 's point about interferometry itself should be more than enough. My argument is more about calorimetry: No detector that we know of would "see" those photons.

And you have the question about dimensions still pending.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Your post is just bullshitting

You like bullshitting..not everyone like bullshitting neither do I...you need to update your understanding... don't paraphrase my statements then ask me nonsensical questions...can you have your own bullshitting post we see how it appears?

Action implies a constant energy which is a difference between kinetic energy and potential energy for a given duration.. what about if potential energy is zero?...it's energy will be in kinetic energy.

It seems you are hallucinating your own definition of action that we/am not aware of...your verbose is full of confusion.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

No detector that we know of would "see" those photons.

If you can't see them what are they?....mmmm...

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Keep in mind a typical CMB photon has an energy of roughly 10^-23 Joules. We're talking 10^-11 times that energy.

This are your numbers.

I talked about ;

On 8/12/2025 at 2:50 AM, MJ kihara said:

particles @ 1×10⁻⁶⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹

Meaning it's times 10^-41 the CMB photon energy your talking about.

Can someone tell me how my honest attempt to take the OP seriously and make a start on answering his question is offensive ?

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Can someone tell me how my honest attempt to take the OP seriously and make a start on answering his question is offensive ?

I get you...I have been ambushed am considering your question.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

And you have the question about dimensions still pending.

4 hours ago, joigus said:

Again, a quantity with dimensions of J·Hz^-1 (or equivalently J·s) cannot be a cardinal (number of things).

Can you precisely clarify what you mean by this?

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Please explain why you have chosen this particular energy and since it refers to a particle, which particle since that makes a differnce to how fast or slow the particle can be said to be moving.

I see you take what I have been doing with seriousness...from that energy calculate the mass of that particle and you will see...it's almost massless therefore,just use the speed of light...let me give you a clue, follow the other posts then beat the bush around yang-mill theory mass gap problem then see which rabbit comes out....I think 🤔 that million dollar I should get....I don't think the majority of people around get it.

51 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Meaning it's times 10^-41 the CMB photon energy your talking about.

(joules)x(seconds) is not an energy.

32 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Can you precisely clarify what you mean by this?

I have. Several times. Others have too. What's the use? It's obvious you don't understand elementary physics.

52 minutes ago, studiot said:

Can someone tell me how my honest attempt to take the OP seriously and make a start on answering his question is offensive ?

It simply isn't.

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

I see you take what I have been doing with seriousness...from that energy calculate the mass of that particle and you will see...it's almost massless therefore,just use the speed of light...let me give you a clue, follow the other posts then beat the bush around yang-mill theory mass gap problem then see which rabbit comes out....I think 🤔 that million dollar I should get....I don't think the majority of people around get it.

I have no interest in playing childish games.

It is actually impossible to calculate the mass of this particle since you have omitted some information, that I asked for.

If and when you are ready to discuss the calculation like an adult I am happy to explain further.