| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Huang Xien Chen" |
| Date: |
04 May 2007 10:48:05 PM |
| Object: |
Photomultiplier question - |
I'm wondering if there is such a thing as a linear photomultiplier. I'm
thinking of something which would have a very wide input window, maybe 4 or
5 inches wide or possibly wider. Something that would detect interference
patterns from wave interference and not just single particle hits.
Anybody ever seen a photomultiplier like that ?
.
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Photomultiplier question - |
05 May 2007 05:17:50 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Fri, 4 May 2007 22:48:05 -0500) it happened "Huang Xien Chen"
<huangxienchen@yahoo.com> wrote in
<z46dnY0y7u0ZYqbbnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@comcast.com>:
I'm wondering if there is such a thing as a linear photomultiplier. I'm
thinking of something which would have a very wide input window, maybe 4 or
5 inches wide or possibly wider. Something that would detect interference
patterns from wave interference and not just single particle hits.
Anybody ever seen a photomultiplier like that ?
Well big window photo multipliers exist.
As to the width: has to do with particle SIZE????
When a light wave (God here we go again) 'hits' the photo multiplier target
an electron is knocked out.
My opinion and Albert The OneStonian(1) differ in the fact the OneStone says
'photon'(2), and even worse: anytime an electron is knocked free electronics
dummies scientist say 'I HAVE DETECTED A PHOTON", so
2100 age science, ask Wormly, he will parrot the status quo for you.
In reality due to thermal and other effects the light wave only needs to supply the difference
energy needed to knock lose an electron and cause an output pulse.
All those experiments are statistically void.
Hell, even Planck(3) did say that OneStone should look more at what happened on the border
of EM waves and matter, than do fancy math in the vast void of his grey matter space ,
Certified
(1) OneStonian: groupie of Ein(One) Stein(Stone) who only did thought experiments.
(2) Fragment of OnStonian imagination.
(3) Somebody who actually DID an experiment.
Note:
OneStone had a long (he is dead) record of disagreeing with real experimenters, rejecting
mostly what did not fit his second religion (his first was Jewish) of disgrace above light
speed, and everywhere lights peed is the same to an observer.
He 'solved' the 'light speed the same' problem by taking wavelength = propagation_speed / frequency,
by mumbling that if propagation speed was the same, then the observers clock must have
been running at a different speed, because his clock would then show the right speed for the
right frequency if you see what I mean.
LOL
There are a few problems with that, one is that for an observer faster then his max speed, time would
go negative, and indeed even today some physics alchemist try to go back in time to before OneStone
to get rid of his ideas.
All have failed so far, no time travel, and not backwards.
So OneStone sort of expected this and came up with: 'An so nobody shall move faster then c
in my theories'.
After years of accelerating particles with EM waves indeed it now seems the surfer cannot be made to move
to go faster then the waves, no matter how big a machine so how much energy you put in.
But wait, we will prove it again with an even bigger one soon.
When the Muon was discovered, time-deletion was immediately called to the rescue to explain how
it could still exist after being created in the upper atmosphere, travelling at <c, as Muon
normally lives 2.2 us...
But did they also explain how it, the Muon, a charged particle, can be found 600 meters
underground, while the big accelerators have not even shot an electron with the same charge
through even a few mm of iron?
So, perhaps Muon was faster then c after all.... the EM effect could not stop it.....
Like walking on a field of bear traps (atoms here), if you are fast enough (I mean _really_
fast) they will snap closed when you are already gone, like James Bond walking over alligators.
But OneSTone did not like 'mechanisms' other then the wild firing of neurons in the grey
matter in the vast void of his grey matter space.
Thank you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Huang Xien Chen" |
|
| Title: Re: Photomultiplier question - |
05 May 2007 07:08:59 AM |
|
|
I was kind of thinking that maybe you could have some type of detector that
would show interference fringes directly, instead of building them up over
time.
Seems make maybe I am pissing in the wind because people have obviously been
looking for this for 100 years.
But it does seem that instead of cascades of particle multiplying signal
amplification, there "should" be some similar way to amplify waves.
If you built a photomultiplier tube with elongated troughs instead of the
usual dynode configuration. And then instead of an anode you install
something like a CMOS. Your dynodes could be replaced by something which
emits more light than was incident upon it somehow.
I think that TI has a chip with millions of little mirros on it. You could
use that as your dynode for wave ampllification. Yeah - thats the ticket -
here's what you do.
Hope this displays properly -
cmos(2)
wires(2) DLP chip(2)
________
========///////////////////////
/
/
amplified wave
source /
light wav brighter light /
\ \ /
\ \ /
__\__ ========= ////////////////////
cmos wires DLP chip
and so on .........
Would that show interference fringes, or wold it just count discrete
particle hits ???
What would happen here ???
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f1hlkh$n3v$1@news.datemas.de...
On a sunny day (Fri, 4 May 2007 22:48:05 -0500) it happened "Huang Xien
Chen"
<huangxienchen@yahoo.com> wrote in
<z46dnY0y7u0ZYqbbnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@comcast.com>:
I'm wondering if there is such a thing as a linear photomultiplier. I'm
thinking of something which would have a very wide input window, maybe 4
or
5 inches wide or possibly wider. Something that would detect interference
patterns from wave interference and not just single particle hits.
Anybody ever seen a photomultiplier like that ?
Well big window photo multipliers exist.
As to the width: has to do with particle SIZE????
When a light wave (God here we go again) 'hits' the photo multiplier
target
an electron is knocked out.
My opinion and Albert The OneStonian(1) differ in the fact the OneStone
says
'photon'(2), and even worse: anytime an electron is knocked free
electronics
dummies scientist say 'I HAVE DETECTED A PHOTON", so
2100 age science, ask Wormly, he will parrot the status quo for you.
In reality due to thermal and other effects the light wave only needs to
supply the difference
energy needed to knock lose an electron and cause an output pulse.
All those experiments are statistically void.
Hell, even Planck(3) did say that OneStone should look more at what
happened on the border
of EM waves and matter, than do fancy math in the vast void of his grey
matter space ,
Certified
(1) OneStonian: groupie of Ein(One) Stein(Stone) who only did thought
experiments.
(2) Fragment of OnStonian imagination.
(3) Somebody who actually DID an experiment.
Note:
OneStone had a long (he is dead) record of disagreeing with real
experimenters, rejecting
mostly what did not fit his second religion (his first was Jewish) of
disgrace above light
speed, and everywhere lights peed is the same to an observer.
He 'solved' the 'light speed the same' problem by taking wavelength =
propagation_speed / frequency,
by mumbling that if propagation speed was the same, then the observers
clock must have
been running at a different speed, because his clock would then show the
right speed for the
right frequency if you see what I mean.
LOL
There are a few problems with that, one is that for an observer faster
then his max speed, time would
go negative, and indeed even today some physics alchemist try to go back
in time to before OneStone
to get rid of his ideas.
All have failed so far, no time travel, and not backwards.
So OneStone sort of expected this and came up with: 'An so nobody shall
move faster then c
in my theories'.
After years of accelerating particles with EM waves indeed it now seems
the surfer cannot be made to move
to go faster then the waves, no matter how big a machine so how much
energy you put in.
But wait, we will prove it again with an even bigger one soon.
When the Muon was discovered, time-deletion was immediately called to the
rescue to explain how
it could still exist after being created in the upper atmosphere,
travelling at <c, as Muon
normally lives 2.2 us...
But did they also explain how it, the Muon, a charged particle, can be
found 600 meters
underground, while the big accelerators have not even shot an electron
with the same charge
through even a few mm of iron?
So, perhaps Muon was faster then c after all.... the EM effect could not
stop it.....
Like walking on a field of bear traps (atoms here), if you are fast enough
(I mean _really_
fast) they will snap closed when you are already gone, like James Bond
walking over alligators.
But OneSTone did not like 'mechanisms' other then the wild firing of
neurons in the grey
matter in the vast void of his grey matter space.
Thank you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Photomultiplier question - |
05 May 2007 09:07:20 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Sat, 5 May 2007 07:08:59 -0500) it happened "Huang Xien Chen"
<huangxienchen@yahoo.com> wrote in
<Ps-dnSinrJR36aHbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@comcast.com>:
Hope this displays properly -
cmos(2)
wires(2) DLP chip(2)
________
========///////////////////////
/
/
amplified wave
source /
light wav brighter light /
\ \ /
\ \ /
__\__ ========= ////////////////////
cmos wires DLP chip
and so on .........
Would that show interference fringes, or wold it just count discrete
particle hits ???
What would happen here ???
PS do not forget that in case of the first detector, the CCD, you face exactly the
same problem.
If you managed to detect _one_ "photon" in one pixel, then even if you amplify
the signal electronically or by any other means, you would still get one lit pixel
out.
For a CCD it is possible to have it collect EM energy for long periods of time.
For a shorter and shorter 'shutter opening' you get less and less info, and are
limited by the noise floor.
Cooling the CCD to very low temperatures helps to reduce noise.
This cooling is done in astronomy for example.
I have read there are CCDs that are close to 1 photon sensitivity.... IIRC, whatever
they mean by that :-)
Shutter times can be microseconds to several minutes....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Huang Xien Chen" |
|
| Title: Re: Photomultiplier question - |
05 May 2007 01:08:54 PM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f1i32t$j31$1@news.datemas.de...
On a sunny day (Sat, 5 May 2007 07:08:59 -0500) it happened "Huang Xien
Chen"
<huangxienchen@yahoo.com> wrote in
<Ps-dnSinrJR36aHbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@comcast.com>:
Hope this displays properly -
cmos(2)
wires(2) DLP chip(2)
________
========///////////////////////
/
/
amplified wave
source /
light wav brighter light /
\ \ /
\ \ /
__\__ ========= ////////////////////
cmos wires DLP chip
and so on .........
Would that show interference fringes, or wold it just count discrete
particle hits ???
What would happen here ???
PS do not forget that in case of the first detector, the CCD, you face
exactly the
same problem.
If you managed to detect _one_ "photon" in one pixel, then even if you
amplify
the signal electronically or by any other means, you would still get one
lit pixel
out.
For a CCD it is possible to have it collect EM energy for long periods of
time.
For a shorter and shorter 'shutter opening' you get less and less info,
and are
limited by the noise floor.
Cooling the CCD to very low temperatures helps to reduce noise.
This cooling is done in astronomy for example.
I have read there are CCDs that are close to 1 photon sensitivity....
IIRC, whatever
they mean by that :-)
Shutter times can be microseconds to several minutes....
Yes - it seems that any such approach would be plagued by these issues. Very
weird. Must be a way to detect waves directly. Hmmmm.
I think that in the case of "one pohton" hitting the first CCD, this might
be the same thing as getting whichway information. But, you are actually
getting "which pixel information". I wonder - can this be circumvented ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Photomultiplier question - |
05 May 2007 01:55:26 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Sat, 5 May 2007 13:08:54 -0500) it happened "Huang Xien Chen"
<huangxienchen@yahoo.com> wrote in
<UbidnZHAheHYVKHbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com>:
Would that show interference fringes, or wold it just count discrete
particle hits ???
What would happen here ???
PS do not forget that in case of the first detector, the CCD, you face
exactly the
same problem.
If you managed to detect _one_ "photon" in one pixel, then even if you
amplify
the signal electronically or by any other means, you would still get one
lit pixel
out.
For a CCD it is possible to have it collect EM energy for long periods of
time.
For a shorter and shorter 'shutter opening' you get less and less info,
and are
limited by the noise floor.
Cooling the CCD to very low temperatures helps to reduce noise.
This cooling is done in astronomy for example.
I have read there are CCDs that are close to 1 photon sensitivity....
IIRC, whatever
they mean by that :-)
Shutter times can be microseconds to several minutes....
Yes - it seems that any such approach would be plagued by these issues. Very
weird. Must be a way to detect waves directly. Hmmmm.
I think that in the case of "one pohton" hitting the first CCD, this might
be the same thing as getting whichway information. But, you are actually
getting "which pixel information". I wonder - can this be circumvented ?
If they state 'CD sensitive to one photon' they _could_ mean:
an energy amount equal to the frequency of the light used x Planck's constant can be detected...
I'd love to see the day somebody claims: 'half photon' sensitivity ;-).
This is in fact not so strange if you think about it.
If indeed there are thermal and other noise issues (or QM says 'probability')
then sometimes an electron would be knocked out with less energy (only the
difference energy would be needed as I posted before), and you can reason this difference
can approach zero.
Or would they call it noise?
At low enough levels I sort of expect the < 1 photon detector to be announced....
Maybe pre-radiating with the right frequency would help.
Some relativity parrots will choke on that.....
But no, they will not stop repeating...
QM gave us many things, OneStonians only dogma (well I cannot think of anything of practical
use anyways, least of all anti gravity).
LOL
It is late here, just watched a nice movie, not so coherent....
But some may get the point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Photomultiplier question - |
05 May 2007 02:08:49 PM |
|
|
In article <f1ijv1$ipg$1@news.datemas.de>,
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Some relativity parrots will choke on that.....
But no, they will not stop repeating...
QM gave us many things, OneStonians only dogma (well I cannot think of
anything of practical
use anyways, least of all anti gravity).
LOL
It is late here, just watched a nice movie, not so coherent....
But some may get the point.
You don't have one, save to attack that which you don't understand.
--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Photomultiplier question - |
05 May 2007 03:46:43 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Sat, 05 May 2007 20:08:49 +0100) it happened Phineas T
Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@gmail.com> wrote in
<phineaspuddleduck-7A654A.20084905052007@news.octanews.com>:
In article <f1ijv1$ipg$1@news.datemas.de>,
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Some relativity parrots will choke on that.....
But no, they will not stop repeating...
QM gave us many things, OneStonians only dogma (well I cannot think of
anything of practical
use anyways, least of all anti gravity).
LOL
It is late here, just watched a nice movie, not so coherent....
But some may get the point.
You don't have one, save to attack that which you don't understand.
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere,
Your head?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Huang Xien Chen" |
|
| Title: Re: Photomultiplier question - |
05 May 2007 04:08:00 PM |
|
|
Some relativity parrots will choke on that.....
But no, they will not stop repeating...
QM gave us many things, OneStonians only dogma (well I cannot think of
anything of practical
use anyways, least of all anti gravity).
LOL
It is late here, just watched a nice movie, not so coherent....
But some may get the point.
You don't have one, save to attack that which you don't understand.
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere,
Your head?
Hey Jan - where are you located ? Norway ? Germany ?
Phinneas - where you at ? Somewhere in the US ? Europe ?
I'm in Chicago - so if you dont agree with everything I say I'll have to
invade your country and kick your *****. Will you submit to my intoleracne
willingly, or shall I thrash you ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Photomultiplier question - |
05 May 2007 04:00:16 PM |
|
|
In article <f1iqfm$3st$1@news.datemas.de>,
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 05 May 2007 20:08:49 +0100) it happened Phineas T
Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@gmail.com> wrote in
<phineaspuddleduck-7A654A.20084905052007@news.octanews.com>:
In article <f1ijv1$ipg$1@news.datemas.de>,
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Some relativity parrots will choke on that.....
But no, they will not stop repeating...
QM gave us many things, OneStonians only dogma (well I cannot think of
anything of practical
use anyways, least of all anti gravity).
LOL
It is late here, just watched a nice movie, not so coherent....
But some may get the point.
You don't have one, save to attack that which you don't understand.
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere,
Your head?
Hollow as it is, it still out-thinks you.
--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Photomultiplier question - |
05 May 2007 08:13:48 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Sat, 5 May 2007 07:08:59 -0500) it happened "Huang Xien Chen"
<huangxienchen@yahoo.com> wrote in
<Ps-dnSinrJR36aHbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@comcast.com>:
I was kind of thinking that maybe you could have some type of detector that
would show interference fringes directly, instead of building them up over
time.
The thing I think here is that if enough intensity the interference fringes
build up immediately no?
It is only when the detector sensitivity is lowered more and more that at
some point an electron is made lose, and the first point of an interference pattern
is formed.
This likely goes for_any_ sort of detector, it is called 'noise floor'.
If you listen to a weak radio transmission, very weak, that constantly repeats
for example: 'Polly wants a cracker', then at some point you maybe able to pick to
pick up a word ('wants'), later an other word ('cracker'), and after enough time you
will be able to re-construct the sentence.
Seems make maybe I am pissing in the wind because people have obviously been
looking for this for 100 years.
I dunno, thought about real mechanisms in physics has died a lot since OneStonians
started repeating "Polly... wants space-time"
Polly has grown big and fat and cannot fly anymore, like the shuttle...
But it does seem that instead of cascades of particle multiplying signal
amplification, there "should" be some similar way to amplify waves.
One thing that is on my mind is 'bolometer', in fact a detector that measures temperature
rise when EM energy hits it, many of those... but the same 'noise floor' mentioned above applies.
If you built a photomultiplier tube with elongated troughs instead of the
usual dynode configuration. And then instead of an anode you install
something like a CMOS. Your dynodes could be replaced by something which
emits more light than was incident upon it somehow.
I think that TI has a chip with millions of little mirros on it. You could
use that as your dynode for wave amplification. Yeah - thats the ticket -
here's what you do.
I do not see how a mirror would 'amplify' your wave?
For that you need to feed in some energy.
The single electron that leaves the photocathode target to the first dynode is accelerated
by the electric 'field' (whatever that is in reality) and then hits and makes free
more electrons, etc for the next dynode, resulting in a conveniently big output current.
Where do you add energy in your idea?
Hope this displays properly -
cmos(2)
wires(2) DLP chip(2)
________
========///////////////////////
/
/
amplified wave
source /
light wav brighter light /
\ \ /
\ \ /
__\__ ========= ////////////////////
cmos wires DLP chip
and so on .........
Would that show interference fringes, or wold it just count discrete
particle hits ???
What would happen here ???
.
|
|
|
| User: "Huang Xien Chen" |
|
| Title: Re: Photomultiplier question - |
05 May 2007 09:30:14 AM |
|
|
I do not see how a mirror would 'amplify' your wave?
For that you need to feed in some energy.
The single electron that leaves the photocathode target to the first
dynode is accelerated
by the electric 'field' (whatever that is in reality) and then hits and
makes free
more electrons, etc for the next dynode, resulting in a conveniently big
output current.
Where do you add energy in your idea?
The "source light wave" is turned way down so that it is very, very dim.
The "brighter light" bouncing off the mirrors on the DLP chip basically just
amplifies the signal coming from the CMOS. It's pretty much just a digital
photomultiplier. If your source wave is turned way down, do you still get
interference at CMOS(2) ??
I dont know what the result would be if you used this as the detector in the
double slit experiment. I'm trying to imagine a detector that would register
waves instead of discrete particle hits.
Ahhhh ***** - maybe the only real way to amplify waves is to go the Tesla
route with some kind of harmonics. But still - the whole thing is like a
snake eating it's own tail. Weird. Maybe a tank circuit is the only valid
way ?? How could that be constructed ?
Hope this displays properly
CMOS(2)
________
/
/
amplified wave
source /
light wav brighter light /
\ \ /
\ \ /
__\__ ========= ////////////////
CMOS(1) wires DLP chip
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
